This is somewhat of a long post, so indulge me if you will. I’ll try to be specific but I’m in between meetings and have to be quick, but let me first say that there is a very clear division on thinking about our country and what makes it move, grow, succeed, and fail. This divide has gotten greater over the years as politics has partnered with the media. I have no allegiance to any one politician, president, or party. I am a Republican, but I'm a conservative first. My party has let me down over the years as they have strayed from Reagan style values. Bush was not perfect, not by any stretch, but I feel he did what he thought was right based on the information he had, regardless of public opinion. That's what I respect. He didn't poll every 5 minutes. He did what a president should do and that's make decisions. Some were wrong, but there's not a single president who can possibly make all correct ones. Now I could be called a hypocrite, but I think the rush to sign the biggest spending bill in history, one that I don’t think for a minute was properly vetted, understood, even read, nor legitimately (even truthfully) marketed to the people, causes great concern for me. TARP was very different, not even close to the same animal, so that comparative argument holds zero value. The failure of TARP was in the oversight of where that money went and what was done with it. It’s not Bush thing, not a Democrat thing… it’s a collective failure. But clearly, no lesson has been learned from that first TARP release.
Let's be clear about something, this financial crisis got it's foothold from the failed lending standards and policies that elements of the Congress were pushing. The result was a mortgage/housing crisis that began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.. Who was running these organizations? Many who were tied directly to the Clinton Administration like Raines (who by the way profited quite nicely to the tune of nearly $100mm. Not Bush. Now, the next thing I hear about is regulation.. Bush dismantled regulation that would have prevented this. That's so ignorant I won't even comment on it. There was a push to bring affordable housing to all.... a Democratic agenda... a noble one, but very misguided. This idea than anyone and everyone can own a house is just not realistic as we have now come to find. If you’ve read the transcripts or watched in its entirety the Financial Services Committee session in 2003 where there many questions and concerns raised about Fan/Frd you will see that there several Republicans and some Democrats pushing fairly hard to get answers about what was going on and the health of these proprietary groups the Committee oversaw. Let me share some quotes with you:
Barney Frank (D., MS):
" I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.):
I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .
Sen. Maxine Waters (D., CA):
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Then... some who had some courage:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.):
Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place.
The comment has been made several times by folks that “it’s the financial ‘experts’ which caused the crisis.” That’s simple and simply false. The problem is you have politicians who have little or no understanding of finance and economics that are first driven by self-preservation as it relates to their own agenda, re-election, and/or political debt to others. This is not a singular problem as it roams freely in the political zoo.
But let’s be clear… this singular mindset of let’s blame Bush will at some point hold less weight. Obama’s racing light speed to own this Presidency yet he keeps hedging his bet by talking down the country and the former administration to lower expectation. I’m a pretty good study on history and politics and I can tell you this is puzzling approach. I mean understand why he’s does it, but am just a bit shocked at the transparency. Usually, a president does little (which is often times a good thing) and other times they do a lot, but they do it in a commanding, confident style that ushers in confidence to the people. I’ve researched, but have yet to come across any similar method where the President boldly takes unprecedented action followed by the caveat that what he has done will do little and things will likely get worse. For me personally, I don’t feel that’s leadership. This Bill is not leadership. It’s folly. Pure folly. Tell me how giving corrupt groups like ACORN millions of dollars stimulates the economy? If you’ve listened to what Obama has said, he admits that this is less about economic stimulus but more about “reshaping our society and economy.” Does that send a shiver across your shoulders?
There are few easy answers. Do I want to pay for my neighbor’s mortgage? Of course not. But here’s the dilemma, on one hand, if we do that, we teach people that you can make poor, if not well thought out corrupt decisions, with little or no consequence, but we don’t, we risk further economic decline. I don’t know what the answer is, but I know millions of dollars to for an afternoon snack program, while probably needed, has nothing to do with dragging us out of this issue.
We are leaning further and further away from what makes this country great and unique. American Ingenuity. It’s not just about building something unique. It’s about who we are… that we create our own luck, we find a way… as individuals to overcome, adapt, and succeed. I’m concerned about this new mentality to look to someone else to fix our problems. For those criticized the former Administration as being “big brother,” I’m curious as to what everyone thinks about not just having big brother, but big brother owning significant aspects of your daily way of life.
I’d rather have less, even fail, but with the opportunity to have more, than head in the direction we are, where everyone has a hand out and is given the same.
IRAQ
Housing
Ruined Credit Markets
is beyond me. I am not being naive in thinking that at least two of the three would have happened under Bush's watch regardless of 9/11.
I personally think the finance experts that are 100 times smarter about this stuff plus the free market mentality of the GOP is what put us in this mess.
Excuse if I don't listen to people making $25million a year while they systematically disassemble our manufacturing, science, research, and send it all over seas.
It's funny that a CEO makes a ton more money by making sure an American worker doesn't.
*Also funny: An American worker should earn less because his counter part in Mexico/Japan/China does. What about adjusting the American CEO's pay with his counter part...
