Do Facts Matter?

Townhall.com | Thomas Sowell | Oct. 3, 2008

Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now. Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain– which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama’s rhetoric and the media’s spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years– including the present year– denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today’s financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration “right-wing ideology” of “de-regulation” that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn’t.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

. . . more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

14 thoughts on “Do Facts Matter?”

  1. We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn’t.

    Then why didn’t Republicans put forward a repeal of the CRA?

    Why didn’t the Bush Administration treat the impending collapse of Fannie and Freddie with at least the same seriousness as warrantless wiretapping? Why did the Bush Administration demand this tax-funded fraud of a bailout, and why did McCain go along with this and endorse it?

    The fate of the entire world rests on not electing a neoliberal whose economic policies are practically indistinguishable from neoconservative John McCain?

    Please. When won’t the fate of the entire world be at stake in an election?

    The reason McCain is behind is that the base hates him, and the vast majority of the country is convinced that no matter what gang of thieves wins, life will continue to get worse.

  2. Nicholas, re:

    Then why didn’t Republicans put forward a repeal of the CRA?

    They tried in 2003 but the Democrats fought vigurously against it and it was never implemented:

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
    (The New York Times, Sept. 11, 2003)
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

  3. Nicholas, please educate yourself about the truth and what actually happened before you buy into the lies and propaganda spread by the likes of Obama, the MSM, Barney Frank, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other hypocrites who actively work to destroy America and deny their active complicity in this enormous fiasco. Truth and facts do matter. Don’t buy the garbage these bastards are peddling. Here’s why:

    If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

    But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

    That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.” (Bloomberg.com, How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis)

  4. Nicholas, please educate yourself about the truth and what actually happened before you buy into the lies and propaganda spread by the likes of Obama, the MSM, Barney Frank, Pelosi, Biden, and all the other hypocrites who actively work to destroy America and deny their active complicity in this enormous fiasco. Truth and facts do matter. Don’t buy the garbage these bastards are peddling. Here’s why:

    Don’t mistake this. I’m not defending the Dems. We vote for Republicans (many of us) to stem the tide of socialism and crony capitalism.

    You are making the point that the Dems caused this mess by protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why didn’t the Republicans fight harder? They tried in 2003, and despite controlling Congress and the White House couldn’t get it done? In 5 years, they couldn’t get anything of substance done?

    Why wasn’t this a campaign issue in 2004, 2006, and why didn’t we hear about this starting last year? Ron Paul brought up the economy all the time, but the other Republican candidates only rolled their eyes when Paul brought up our impending fiscal crisis.

    Well – what is the point voting for Republicans if they bring up a decent idea, only to watch it die and give up? And when Freddie and Fannie (which should not EXIST) went South, why did a Republican Administration step in to bail them out?

    And why is a Republican administration leading the charge to bailout even more banks with toxic mortgages?

    So much for standing athwart history and yelling, “Stop.” Our reps aren’t even managing to stand athwart creeping socialism and yell, “Slow down!”

    Sorry – I don’t give Republicans credit for trying and failing, and then sending billions of taxpayer funds to bail out corporations that should be allowed to fail.

    If we give them credit for that, then how do we ever hold them accountable for anything? How do you propose to suddenly put fire in the belly of these losers, if you follow all over self to say, “thank you!” for a wimpish effort to combat the Marxists?

  5. Nicholas, they did try again in 2005! See the Bloomberg story I posted from 9/22/2008, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis“. They could have tried harder, but at least they tried. The DemocRATS, especially the ones screaming the loudest that free markets and the GOP are to blame, have not admitted one ounce (forget that, not even one miligram) of responsibility. Yes, there’s some blame to go around, but the radical leftist hypocrites in the DemocRATic party deserves the lion’s share. They actively fought against it and prevented any reform of this mess. Where’s the accountability?

  6. Chris B. writes: ” . . . they did try again in 2005!”

    Republicans were also in control of the congress and the White House in 2005. They were in control for both the years in question, but somehow this is all the fault of the Democrats, or DemocRATS as you call them – not that the blog has a Republican bias, or anything like that.
    . . .

    Chris B. “Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.”

    What does that mean to be “tied in knots,” when you’re the party in charge? How does that work?

  7. Chris –

    The president also claimed the free market wasn’t working and the bailout was needed to get the market working again.

    The free market was working just fine. Companies that made bad investments were being liquidated by the market. This is the free market in action. The Administration and McCain could have seized this opportunity to push for greater free market reforms to prevent government regulation from causing another of these panics.

    They didn’t. You know full well what they did. Republicans embrace socialism – you blame Democrats. Republicans are in the majority and can’t get their act together to pass needed reforms – you blame Democrats.

    When does our side get any blame?

    As for accountability – any Democrat or Republican who voted for this bailout should be voted out of office. The same people pushing the bailout, were the ones flacking for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If your Representative is a Republican, and he/she voted for this bailout, then in November you should vote for the challenger.

    If you Rep is a Democrat and voted for this bill, then in November vote Republican. This isn’t about Dems versus Repubs at this point. It’s about punishing the incumbents who have heisted $700 billion.

    Chris – the premise of your post is that Democrats are responsible and that things would be better if people voted Republican. There is no evidence to support that. Repubs cave on everything. Repubs don’t filibuster, don’t play hardball, don’t push the Dems around on anything. In power, out of power, the Dems get what they want, and Repubs embrace socialism at the drop of a hat. If we can’t get the politicians who are supposed to be on our side to grow a spine, then what are we supposed to do?

  8. Jim, you’ve never heard of a filibuster? This is the tried and true tactic of mostly the DemocRATs where they purposely prevent any bill from going to a vote, even when they were in the minority (they’re the majority in the Senate since 2006 if you haven’t noticed).

    A filibuster, or “talking out a bill”, is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place. … The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (Wikipedia)

    Come on Jim, if you expect to continue to participate in the discussions here you need to educate yourself better and start posting substantive contributions. This amateurish stuff is really getting old.

  9. Nicholas,

    Re:

    When does our side get any blame?

    Apparently you haven’t been reading the posts and articles here. I have never defended the socialistic and big-government policies of the GOP and Bush. Unlike the liberal-left and the totalitarian Democrats, real conservatives have been critical of the Republicans in liberal-leftist clothing and we have been fair in addressing the shortcomings of the Republican party.

    Back to the issue at hand. The financial crisis we’re seeing is primarily the responsibility of big-gov’t Democrats and their leftist sympathizers. They don’t share all the blame, just a large percentage of it. Your blanket over-generalizations and accusations are simply not true.

  10. World Net Daily contributor Vox Day noted on his blog recently that several members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met with several large investment banks: they had gathered to hear the banks’ request that they do away with an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could acquire.

    The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

    Despite the warnings of potentially enormous losses, the lure of huge profits was apparently too much to ignore. The banks were very much complicit in this catastrophe.

    In terms of the CRA, it seems that there is conflicting evidence in terms of what role it played. The firm Traiger and Hinckley did a study and found that the CRA actually may have decreased the number of risky loans in many areas:

    — CRA Banks were 66 percent less likely than other lenders to
    originate a high cost loan;

    — The average high cost loan made by CRA Banks was priced 68
    basis points lower than the average high cost loan originated
    by other lenders;

    — CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to
    hold originated loans in their portfolio; and

    — The higher a metropolitan area’s concentration of bank
    branches, the lower its foreclosure rate.

    If anyone would like to dispute the neutrality of the firm, I’d be interested to hear. My vote is still very much up in the air at this point.

  11. Back to the issue at hand. The financial crisis we’re seeing is primarily the responsibility of big-gov’t Democrats and their leftist sympathizers. They don’t share all the blame, just a large percentage of it. Your blanket over-generalizations and accusations are simply not true.

    Then – are you willing to advocate that all Republicans who voted for this financial socialism should be voted out of office, along with all Democrats?

    Somehow, I doubt it. Advocating voting out a Republican means, by default, voting for a Democrat. That is most likely unacceptable to you in the House and the Senate.

    But, then how do we discipline these turkeys? If we don’t put economic freedom on at least the same par with abortion and occupying Iraq, then how are we going to reclaim any sanity in the marketplace?

    As soon as election comes around, Republicans immediately start to temporize. “Sure, he voted for massive socialism, but his opponent is worse! Plus, he’s good on foreign policy, supports the troops, and is pro-life. Besides, I can’t vote for a Democrat!”

    And so we go on, just sliding and sliding.

    My Congressman is a Republican and voted against the bill, twice. But, Martinez (Senator) voted for it. The other Florida Senator, Bill Nelson (a Democrat) voted against the bill. I will never, ever vote for Martinez again. Nelson gets my vote next time he is up. He deserves it.

    Am I now single issue? Yes. But my single issue is now the economy. I don’t care how pro-life or how pro-Christian a politician is, if they are not in favor of strong money, fiscal discipline, and free markets – they don’t get my vote.

    Are you willing to do the same?

  12. More about the CRA from Newsweek:

    The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren’t regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn’t apply. There’s much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn’t force mortgage companies to offer loans for no-money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on subprime debt.

    Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities. The multi-year plague that has been documented in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the least subprime housing markets in the nation.

  13. Chris B. writes: “Jim, you’ve never heard of a filibuster? This is the tried and true tactic of mostly the DemocRATs where they purposely prevent any bill from going to a vote, even when they were in the minority . . .”

    So how about it Chris — do you have any evidence that the Democrats filibustered that bill, or that they threatened to? This is a really simple question and should be easy to answer. It’s also my second request for an answer.

    Chris B.: “Come on Jim, if you expect to continue to participate in the discussions here you need to educate yourself better . . .”

    Yes, and you can start educating me by answering my simple question. Thanks. I’m all ears.

  14. Here’s your proof Jim:

    The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 never made to the floor after a party line vote in committee indicated that Democratic opposition to it (mostly over amendments which would have stripped the GSEs of the ability to donate to politically-motivated “affordable housing” groups like ACORN) would have resulted in a filibuster.

    From:
    http://wharrison55.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/20/1890073-bush-and-mccain-tried-to-reform-freddie-fannie-democrats-declined

    S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Comments are closed.