The fairness doctrine sounds good at first glance, if you broadcast a view by someone, then you should show an opposing view. However in reality it’s an assault on broadcasters who have a constitutional right to express just their view. Think of the political landscape right now — how many differing views on every topic are there? How many activist groups are there? If you broadcast an opinion on a controversial subject you would be besieged for claims of equal broadcast time by differing groups under the fairness doctrine, and if the fairness doctrine were put in place again, government coercion would be used to make you do so.
In this video, even though it’s a Democrat Congressional objective to get some sort of Fairness Doctrine into law, Kay Barnes demonstrates how she doesn’t have a clue, and also why she’s not ready for Washington.
Barney Frank on MSNBC talking about how “down the road” [translation: after Barack is elected] we need to tax “the rich” more to pay for even more stimulus now [translation: money for cronies and democrat groups.] The Democrat definition of “rich” changes depending on audience, but in the end you will pay. You always do:
Rep. Frank: “Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.”(CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” 10/20/08)
What really did happen? Who enabled Countrywide to loan money on houses over the heads of many? Who created the atmosphere in which banks were often picketed if they turned down loans? Who made their campaign cry the last decade and a half “Redlining! Predatory Lending!”. If you don’t get the predatory lending part it’s pretty simple … people with bad credit used to have to pay higher interest rates and fees on their loans. To the Dems, that was redlining and predatory. Here’s the tape:
I like it that they are metering the money with checkpoints, I like it that there are these and other limits. What I don’t like is that there will be fees on the financial services industry as part of the agreement if they don’t turn this around in five years.
The new plan puts caps on exective pay and golden parachutes, it also allows foreclosures to proceed (and this is a must – some people have walked away from their homes,) and it stops money from going to Acorn and other Democrat activist groups that led us to this crisis. So on the surface it looks good.
Over the next thirty years many of these mortgages will be paid off, producing potential profit, and those that aren’t are still backed by houses and property in the US, still one of the best countries in the world to live in. The bill will be posted for 24 hours before the vote, and you can bet that bloggers will be going over it with a fine tooth comb. I intend to read it, but won’t plan on commenting unless there is something egregiously wrong with it (beyond just the fact that we have to do this.)
Right now on paper these bundles of mortgages appear to have little value, but over time they will regain their worth. The similar period we saw in Japan took about ten years, if we build the energy sources we need and build our economy it could happen quicker than that here.
Much more on the deal at Washington Post:
The money would be dispersed in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion immediately, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.
Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability.
Firms taking advantage of the bailout would be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on “golden parachutes” at failing firms. The compensation limits will be enacted primarily, but not solely, through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay executives more than $400,000 a year.
I like it that they are metering the money with checkpoints, I like it that there are these and other limits. What I don’t like is that there will be fees on the financial services industry as part of the agreement if they don’t turn this around in five years. Without seeing the details of how this all knits together, it’s really impossible to comment more on the plan. I await the posting of it.
First you must read Robert Bidinotto’s synopsis here:
While Barack Obama was getting campaign contributions from Fannie Mae’s Franklin Raines, John McCain was sounding the alarm about the crisis to come and trying to do something about it. On May 25, 2006, McCain spoke on the floor of the Senate on behalf of his proposed Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation
Robert’s done the best collection of pertinent links, after poking through those please read Lee Cary’s piece on the Obama/Daley housing debacle in Chicago at the American Thinker.
McCain has spoken about the financial crisis at length, in a couple of places I do disagree with him. Much of the fault here does lie with Congress, and John seems unwilling to assign their portion of blame. Perhaps he’s saving that for the debates however, you’ve seen plenty of material here. One thing I do know: Capitalism works best with less regulations. This whole mess is because of a crazy quilt of financial regs including CRA that work at counter purposes and which result in two socialist government backed housing lending agencies both ripe for corruption and abuse.