Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Should President Obama Have Lifted Stimulus Funding Caps From Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Christmas Eve is a sacred time where those who align themselves with Jesus Christ gather to celebrate the birth of their Savior. Those of the Jewish faith celebrate Hanukkah (sorry if I missed your religion, time and space!). It's a time where little else can distract you from sharing precious family moments, faith and blessings. Unless of course, you're a politician hoping to play Santa Claus with no one watching!

For example, presidential pardons date back to the 1800's and Christmas Eve pardons seem to have become a tradition. Casper Weinberger and five others tied to Iran-Contra were pardoned on Christmas Eve 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Like President Bush, with one foot out the door in 2001 President Clinton pardoned nearly as many people in one day than President Bush had in eight years, among the most notorious was Marc Rich, a fugitive financier with close financial ties to the Democratic Party. These pardons transcend political lines. The key is the news cycle. Who's really watching on Christmas Eve?

In his first term in office President Obama was not so gratuitous with a single pardon, but he gave away much more that. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two organizations who played a substantial role in our current economic crisis were given an unbelievable gift. Under the current economic stimulus plan both agencies were tied to a funding cap of $200 million. President Santa Claus lifted that cap. The new cap? Unlimited! Merry Christmas Fannie and Freddie! Spend all you want, we'll print more!

The role of these two agencies in our economy's meltdown is alarming. Enter the phrase "fannie mae freddie mac role in financial crisis" into your favorite search engine, specify "video" under criteria and view the videos at your leisure. You will see both Democrats and Republicans warning of the dangers we faced if these agencies were not reigned in and closely watched.

Democrat Maxine Waters declared there was no need for tighter regulation, and further categorized the leadership of Franklin Raines as "outstanding". History has proven otherwise. Without going to go into great detail, you'll have plenty of information to reach your own conclusions. My point is that the calls for more scrutiny and tighter regulation go back to the Clinton administration, yet in spite of these warnings regulations were eased, reserve requirements were lowered, sub-standard loans were made in record numbers and the house of cards toppled under the slightest of breezes. The ultimate insult to the taxpayer? Raines leaves under a multi-million dollar golden parachute. Couldn't we all be that lucky?

Therefore my only question to President Obama is - WHY? What legitimate reason do we have to turn the entire hen house over to the den of foxes?  Unfortunately I don't have the answer. Naturally I have suspicions but my fear is they are unpalatable to most readers. What' your take?

Next: Entitlement Reform vs. Health Care Reform

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be responsible when commenting. My goal is NOT to censor anyone whose views differ from mine. Healthy debate is what spurred our Founding Fathers to create the most perfect document that man has ever defiled, the U.S. Constitution. As long as your comments are civil in nature and contribute meaningful dialogue they will be approved.