Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who infamously argued for the death of the private insurance industry, and whose husband drafted the political blueprint for Obamacare from federal prison, told Democrats at a rally today that they had to re-elect President Barack Obama in order to achieve single-payer health care.

The Hill reports (emphasis added):

Schakowsky, a vocal supporter of healthcare reform, warned liberals not to turn away from Obama because they didn’t get all they wanted in the new law.

“Losing in November is not an option,” she said. “It doesn’t make it easier to get single-payer or even a public option. It makes it impossible.”

Schakowsky’s remarks in 2009, together with those of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), among others, created suspicion at the time that Obamacare was a “Trojan Horse” for a single-payer system of socialized medicine:

Her remarks today would seem to confirm that suspicion.

While Republicans intend to vote to repeal Obamacare, Democrats are being urged to vote not just to defend Obamacare, but to expand it into a full system of socialized medicine at the federal level. (more…)

While many conservatives rightly admire Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s principled economic and constitutional views, they are often bamboozled, even appalled, by the Texan’s defense and foreign policy ideas.

Ron Paul

It seems, that when it comes to defense, Ron Paul is stuck in 1776. He seems not to realize that America’s enemies, real or potential, Russia and China, and Iran chief among them, have a very long reach. The continental US is only partially protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans . The enemy can now attack the American homeland with ICBMs, biological weapons, cyber warfare, dirty bombs smuggled across the Mexican border – any number of deadly methods of mass destruction.

Just as frontier forts would have outposts to warn of Indian attack, the US needs people all over the world to protect not just her friends and allies, but the American homeland itself.

Why then does Ron Paul, a man so supremely rational in many areas, have such a blind spot when it comes to US national security?

The answer, in my opinion, is that Ron Paul’s justified distrust at the growth of government power in many unconstitutional areas, has irrationally created an antipathy to Federal Government activity in one of its few legitimate areas – national defense.

(more…)

Forty-four of 46 Republican Senators vowed they would not approve “any consumer financial bureau director unless the agency was put under a five-member outside board, had its work checked periodically by bank examiners and had its budget approved by Congress rather than the Federal Reserve.”

So when Republicans refused to confirm the President’s nominee, Richard Cordray, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, America’s number one duffer shouldn’t have been surprised.

Senate Republicans maintained that voting down the nomination of Cordray had everything to do with the Dodd-Frank financial reform agency lacking oversight, and nothing to do with the candidate Obama chose to head it up. In other words, Republicans wanted to take consumer protection a step further than the President was willing to go, vowing that they’d agree to confirm a director, but not before additional consumer safeguards and supervision are put in place.

As for Obama’s nominee Richard Cordray, besides being the former Attorney General of the state of Ohio and acting as chief enforcement officer at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the last year, Cordray is a five-time undefeated Jeopardy champion. Which may be why, when chiding Republicans for blocking his appointment, the President kept mentioning game playing.

(more…)

From PJMedia:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) caused a bit of a stir when he announced he was not seeking re-election. Frank, a high-visibility member of Congress for more than 30 years, is in one of the safest Democratic districts in the nation. Yet he is not alone: there are several other Barney Franks fleeing the 112th Congress. Eight other veteran House Democrats who reside in safe congressional seats are throwing in the towel.

The problem isn’t merely in the House. Just this week, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska announced he won’t seek re-election this coming November. Nelson is one of seven Senate Democrats who have decided to “voluntarily” retire ahead of the 2012 elections. This is a repeat of the 2010 elections when a flood of Democrats decided to retire rather than face certain defeat.

The retirement of rank-and-file Democrats is an especially bad sign for the Democrats if they have any hope of retaking the U.S. House. The nine House retirements are even more notable because each ranks high in seniority for key House committees — if the House returned to Democratic rule, they would be in line to assume chairmanships.

(more…)

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2011 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The members of the House of Representatives on the list, in alphabetical order, include:

• Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
• Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
• Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
• Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
• Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Dishonorable Mentions for 2011 include:

• Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
• Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
• Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY)

Spencer Bachus (R-AL): He has become the face of a congressional “insider trading” scandal that has rocked the Washington establishment as 2011 draws to a close. Rep. Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was one of the principal targets of a 60 Minutes investigative report on the scandal, which aired on CBS in September 2011.

The report was based, at least in part, on the book Throw Them All Out by author Peter Schweizer, which outed a slew of members of Congress who allegedly profited in the financial markets by trading on insider information. Bachus was not the only congressman cited by 60 Minutes, others included Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, but the Alabama Republican stood out for his remarkable “good fortune” in shorting the stock market. (more…)

So Elmer Fudd Barney Frank announced yesterday that he would not be running for re-election in 2012.  His stated reason was that his district was gerrymandered, which is true.  But Frank was no longer safe in a  safe-district. Remember it took a last-minute infusion of DNCC money to save Barney Frank in 2010 and even then, his 54% of the vote was the lowest he had ever received since his first election in 1980. Frank is retiring because he is chicken, he almost lost last time, and doesn’t have the guts to try again.

In his 31+ years in the House of Representatives Frank was always there to remind people why term limits should be added to the constitution. Be it the brothel that was operated out of his house, his lover that worked for Freddie Mac which led to his unbridled support of Fannie and Freddie which helped cause the housing bubble and great recession, his progressive stances which would make the most avid socialist proud, or that unexplained arrogance (he has nothing to be arrogant about).

Today is a good day for America because Barney Frank’s days in Congress are numbered, to understand why he was so bad for the country, I put together this video “tribute.”

In the video below Frank sits in a 9/10/03 House Financial Services Committee hearing and says Fannie and Freddie are sound, and there is no housing disaster coming.

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): 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.

Here Congressman Fudd Frank stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and told America that there is undue concern about the housing market and even though prices were growing very quickly the housing market is not like the Dot.Com industry, the housing bubble will not burst.

(more…)

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced today that he will retire from Congress at the end of his term. Frank cited a series of scandals as his reasons for leaving–from the prostitution ring that ran from his apartment in the late 1980s; to his role in placing his then-boyfriend in a job at government-backed mortgage giant Fannie Mae in the 1990s, while Frank was on the House Financial Services Committee; to new questions raised today about Frank’s potential involvement in the unfolding insider trading scandal in Congress.

Frank finally apologized for his role in the housing bubble that led to the financial crisis of 2007-8 and set the stage for the worst recession since the Great Depression. Frank had shielded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulation, which in turn encouraged banks and buyers to embrace unstable mortgages. These were repackaged and sold as securities whose instability was masked due to their implicit government guarantees.

That’s not actually what happened today, though it is what should have happened long ago. Instead, Frank is retiring because he barely survived a tough challenge by Sean Bielat in the 2010 elections, because redistricting will make it harder for him to hold onto his seat, and because he cannot foresee Democrats re-taking the House. The road ahead is rough, and Frank believes he has better–perhaps more lucrative–things to do.

I am not celebrating Frank’s departure–partly because it is long overdue, partly because it would have been more satisfying to see him defeated, and partly because he is somewhat responsible for launching my political career in an exchange that went viral on YouTube:

As I recalled in Jonah Goldberg’s anthology, Proud to Be Right (HarperCollins 2010): (more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts is expected to announce his retirement from Congress on Monday, closing out a career of more than three decades capped by passage last year of legislation imposing new regulations on Wall Street.

Frank’s office says he will hold a 1 p.m. news conference in Newton, Mass. to make the announcement.

(more…)

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), under pressure from conservatives, liberals, and his own constituents, has announced that the House Financial Services Committee, which he chairs, will hold hearings on Dec. 6 to consider legislation to prevent insider trading by members of Congress.

From Breitbart.tv:

Both the House and the Senate are now planning hearings on congressional insider trading, following exposés by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer in his new book, Throw Them All Out. (more…)

This morning, Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to discuss his new book, Throw Them All Out, which has shaken Washington to its core in the past few days. The battle over insider trading in Congress has set up a confrontation between bipartisan reformers on the one hand, and defenders of the insider-trading status quo on the other.

In the course of the interview, Schweizer responded to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-GA), chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, who is fighting calls for his resignation. As it has become clear that the insider trading scandal is not going away, Rep. Bachus has abandoned his early reticence in favor of a more aggressive defense.

Schweizer, who was joined on the show by Steve Kroft of CBS, reiterated his case against insider trading in Congress:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bachus seems to be fighting a losing battle, as momentum for reform builds in Washington. Even Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the ranking member on Bachus’s committee–who belatedly discovered his enthusiasm for reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when facing a serious public backlash and a tough re-election–is now calling upon Bachus to join efforts to pass the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act.

Big Government has obtained a letter that Rep. Frank sent to Rep. Bachus urging him to support the STOCK Act–”which, I acknowledge, should have been addressed when I was the Chairman.”

Rep. Bachus’s letter to Schweizer’s publisher is posted below, followed by Schweizer’s response, and by Rep. Frank’s letter to Rep. Bachus.

(more…)

There is a long 20^th century history of Wall Street protests in America.  After all, Wall Street is the financial center of the country. Today, we’re in a financial crisis so Wall Street (or its financial center equivalent in other cities) is the logical place to protest, right?

Actually, we think it’s a poor second to Lafayette Park across from the White House — where the current crisis was hatched and nurtured.  No, this isn’t an anti Obama screed.  His predecessors (several of them) are far more to blame for the current economic disarray in which we find ourselves, although we think his proposed remedies are anything but remedial.

“Occupy Wall Street” and “Wall Street Greed” are great memes.  They are highly memorable and easily passed on as a rallying cry. Unsurprisingly, President Obama and the left has sought to adopt them.  Of course, the protestors are an outgrowth of the wider sense of entitlement many young people have developed (including quotas disguised under the term “diversity”).  As George Will stated in his column in The Washington Post on October 13, 2011:

“Demands posted in [Occupy Wall Street’s] name include a ‘guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment’; a $20‑an‑hour minimum wage (above the $16.00 entry wage the UAW just negotiated with GM); ending ‘the fossil fuel economy’; ‘open borders’ so ‘anyone can travel anywhere to work and live’; $1 trillion dollars for infrastructure; $1 trillion dollars for ‘ecological restoration’; ‘free college education’, and forgiveness of ‘all debt on the entire planet.”

But abuses by Wall Street are an affect, not the cause of the current economic disarray. As anyone who has read our essays knows, we carry no brief for Wall Street excesses or those of the various Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) that are the real culprits. But Wall Street was simply the vehicle by which the White House, Congress, the Fed and the Washington bureaucracy carried out very ill advised objectives. As is well known by now, the seeds of our current discontent were sowed a quarter century ago when President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  This legislation and the regulatory policies that it set in motion may have been well intentioned, but as history teaches, roads paved merely with good intentions often lead where no one wants to go.

(more…)

In July of 2010, Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank bill into law. Forcing this unpopular piece of legislation upon the American people was akin to tossing a hand grenade of regulation into the banking industry and ducking to avoid the inevitable splatter. The problem is that instead of only damaging the profits of the people that Barney Frank claimed were responsible for the 2008 fiscal meltdown, the shrapnel went into the general populace. Those Americans who enjoyed the benefits of their banks debit rewards programs will find that particular perk is becoming extinct.

So what does this mean to the average American? Fall starts the season where consumer spending ticks up dramatically. We are spending money to send our kids back to school. Halloween has also become a bigger ticket holiday for many of us and of course there is the spendgasm of Thanksgiving and Christmas. Millions of people would accumulate points and use those during this time to subsidize the cost of school supplies and the slew of fast approaching holidays. For those people the end of these rewards programs takes literally hundreds of dollars out of their pockets.

The culprit in the Dodd-Frank bill that resulted in many banks pulling back their debit rewards programs is the Durbin amendment. In a nutshell, each time your debit card is swiped at a store or restaurant, that merchant pays a transaction fee. The benefit to the merchant in paying this fee is that they get to accept your card. That is why the door of most establishments displays the Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and other logos from financial service companies. The more methods of payments they accept the deeper their pool of potential customers.

There is no doubt that a business would do itself great damage by not accepting credit or debit cards with the Visa or MasterCard logo on it. On the minus side, they must pay for this privilege. The purpose of the Durbin amendment was to put a cap on this transaction fee, and limit the profits that the banks could make from merchants.

According to the Durbin Amendment, a hard cap of 12¢ per transaction will be put into place. This replaces the previous method of calculating transaction fees based upon the cost of the item. Before the Dodd-Frank bill, banks would charge a transaction fee of approximately 1% of the total cost of the goods or services that had been purchased. The 12¢ rule is now in play whether you are buying a Cadillac with your card, a computer or a can of Mr. Pibb.

According to J.P. Morgan, this cap will cost them over a billion dollars in lost revenue. In fact many banks claim that 12¢ is too low, and that it costs them more than that to process each transaction. In short, the Durbin amendment removes the incentive for banks to encourage their customers to use debit cards as a method of payment. So as a result, the debit rewards program that many of us have come to rely on are going away.

(more…)

Kellogg’s Corn Pops® may be going out of business, but Captain Zig-Zag is about to get an up-tick in popularity if political odd couple Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) have their way.  In a bipartisan effort to end the federal ban on marijuana, a newfangled congressional edition of the “doobie” brothers are banding together to put forward legislation that limits the federal government’s role in policing pot.

Ron Paul and Barney Frank are proposing the first bill ever that, if enacted into law, would end centralized marijuana prohibition.  The legislation seeks to limit federal involvement in cannabis monitoring to “cross-border or inter-state smuggling.”  If the proposal succeeds, marijuana farmers across America stand to save on electricity and light bulbs as recreational horticulturists venture outside to legally grow weed and even sell the fruit of their harvest in states where pot is legal.

Ron Paul, individual liberty and freedom Republican/Libertarian and one half of the bill’s sponsor, said the following: “Drugs are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are very dangerous. The question is, should we regulate danger? Should we take responsibility for ourselves or should the government take care of us? I don’t believe in the nanny state.”

Paul consistently maintains that the government has no business butting into private lives, so it stands to reason that the same philosophy would apply to bong usage, whether it’s Ron Paul’s, if he has one, or someone else’s.  One would expect Congressman Paul to step forward on behalf of legalizing marijuana if the end result limits government and grants individual autonomy to be either as reckless or responsible as one desires.

On the other hand, Barney Frank may have other, more personal reasons for proposing the legislation.  Seems Congressman Frank found himself embroiled in marijuana-related controversy when visiting longtime partner and Fire Island ferry companion James Ready at his home in Maine a few years back.

(more…)

“I hope he [Weiner] comes after me. Look up my IP. Nothing to hide here. I’d voluntarily hand anything they want over. Check me and my IP. Anything. I did not post that tweet.”

Twitter user Dan Wolfe (known as @patriotusa76) has clarified several details concerning his involvement in the “Weinergate” scandal, insisting that a thorough investigation of the tweets in question will prove he did not compromise the verified Twitter account of Congressman Anthony Weiner (D, NY-9). In a series of direct messages on Twitter, Wolfe explains how he found the offensive image sent from Weiner’s Twitter account, his previous tweets about accounts followed by the Congressman, and his desire for law enforcement to investigate his online activity that night.

Asked whether he followed Congressman Weiner or the recipient of the controversial tweet, Wolfe states he “wasn’t following either of them ever.” He named several other twitter uses who he regularly communicates with, explaining, “Our twitter group mentions him a lot because he appears in media a lot and says things we hate a lot. If he wasn’t saying anything, we wouldn’t comment.” Wolfe claims that on May 27th, the date the tweet went public, he navigated to the @RepWeiner account by clicking on Weiner’s username on a retweet in his Twitter stream. The tweet in question was the much-discussed one where Weiner announced the time of his upcoming appearance on the Rachel Maddow show with the hashtag #Thats545InSeattleIThink. “I found the 5:45 tweet weird,” Wolfe says.

(more…)

OBAMA:  So I said, “Damn right, George.  The Force is with me.”  Anyway, it’s official: Lucas will produce and Spielberg will direct Barack CoJones and the Compound of ISI, with Denzel Washington playing me and Cat Stevens as Osama. Release date: October 2012.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS:  I’ll announce healthcare waivers for Paramount, Lucasfilm Ltd., and Amblin Entertainment at 3:00 a.m. Saturday morning, Mr. President.

DAVID PLOUFFE: We should beef up your macho bona fides in the short term, sir.

VALERIE JARRETT:  And tie it into family values.  Visit your destitute brother in Africa and give him a few bucks, sir.  Then go into the bush without your Secret Service detail and kill a lion with a spear.  Gutsier than Palin shooting a moose with a 30-06 at two hundred yards.

OBAMA:  Maybe I’ll do just that once I force Netanyahu to risk national suicide for a shot at peace.  Leon, where’s Iran at right now.

PANETTA:  [checks wall map] Same place as yesterday, sir.

OBAMA:  Militarily, Leon.

PANETTA:  Oh.  We estimate they’ll have one Hiroshima-level nuke by Labor Day.  As you ordered, sir, our forces in the region remain on alert and are prepared take out Israel’s air force if an attack on Iran appears imminent.

JARRETT:  That would certainly give the lie to wingnuts who say you don’t have the guts for preemptive action, sir.

BILL DALEY:  Biden’s here . . . I think.

(more…)

This past Friday, the DOJ shut down internet poker titans Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker, and Poker Stars for alleged violations of the UIGEA.  This bizarre little act of Congress was attached as amendment to the Safe Port Act back in 2006.

The UIGEA did not actually make internet gambling illegal.  Instead, it made it illegal for financial institutions to knowingly process money transfers for online gambling.  Although a few poker sites left the US market at the time, and there have been various hiccups in the processing of deposits and withdrawals from player’s accounts, the UIGEA for the most part had been a non-issue. Poker sites, especially Full Tilt, always found a workaround.  They had set up tons of shell entities to make it appear as though player transactions were being processed for non-gambling goods and services.  So, strictly speaking, the websites are in violation of the UIGEA.  We can’t dismiss that they have been breaking the law.  But with billions of dollars at stake, they understandably took the risk.  Since players themselves were not at legal risk, the system worked just fine.  Until Friday. Then the owners of the websites were charged with a lot of violations of the UIGEA, including money laundering.

Freedom-loving individuals can thank Republicans Rep. Jim Leach, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Sen. Bill Frist, and Sen. John Kyl for playing nanny-staters to thousands of online gamblers.  However, you can also thank 409 members of the House and every single member of the Senate for passing the bill.  Then again, it was attached to the Safe Port Act – yielding yet another reason why procedure needs to change to forestall the attachment of amendments that have nothing to do with the bills they are attached to.

We usually expect Democrats to place restrictions on our freedom, yet there is this curious sect of Republicans that somehow feel they can legislate morality.   But even the moral argument for the bill makes no sense.  In fact, the moral hypocrisy of the bill is beyond outrageous.  The authors of the bill did nothing about state lotteries – a sad, sick method of regressive taxation that has been proven to harm the poor.  Yet this practice always gets a pass because of the revenue it generates for each of the states.   This made the bill’s passage all the more mystifying.  Why not tax gambling revenues instead and legalize the gaming?

The motivation for the bill literally makes no sense.  As my old math teacher, a devotee of Lewis Carroll, once said, “Worthy of a trip down the rabbit hole!”. Then again, since when does government make sense?

(more…)

On May 5, 2009, I testified in front of Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee that if Congress provided a guarantee of municipal bonds, the United States of America would lose its’ AAA credit rating. Over the next year and a half, I was labeled the “typical Orange County ultra-conservative alarmist” when I spoke at dozens of investment conferences on growing risks of munis to investors.

Even as the general market price of long term munis dropped over 20% in the fourth quarter of last year, virtually every major Wall Street investment bank continued to reassure investors that municipal bonds were a great buy. All that hoopla ended last week, when Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase Bank, acknowledged at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event in Washington D.C., that hundreds of tax free municipal bonds issues will “not make it” and default.

Mr. Dimon has intimate knowledge of the municipal bond market, because his firm is the third largest underwriter and issued $47 billion of munis last year. Mr. Dimon added: “I don’t think it’s going to shatter America, I just think it’s a part of the credit cycle.” Mr. Dimon and his bank have obviously sold their municipal bond holdings, but perhaps the timing of the release this insider’s perspective on a coming market crash has something to do with his bank’s own needs.

Currently there are 50,000 municipal bond issuers in America and they have sold over $3 trillion in bonds to mostly individuals, mutual funds and money market funds. A good portion of tax free bond sales were to fund local government worthy projects, such as roads, schools and even city halls. But another huge portion of the money raised in the municipal bond market has gone to support politically connected contractors and other crony capitalists.

Mr. Dimon has real insider knowledge of this dark side of the muni market; since his firm recently paid $75 million in penalties and forfeit $647 million to settle SEC charges in an “alleged” municipal bond kick-back and derivative scam. It seems those nice people at JP Morgan Chase somehow got $3.5 billion in underwriting business after sprinkling $8 million in cash on the friends of elected sanitation officials in Alabama.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the biggest stories from 2010 and some predictions for 2011.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Ricochet Podcast #49: A Ricochet Christmas
Lessons Learned from Europe’s Financial Crisis
Barney Frank: Straight Soldiers Must Shower With Gays, But Not Women With Men
‘Spider-Man’ Cancels Wednesday Matinee After Actor Is Injured
(more…)

If you listen to Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) defend his role in the meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he was just as blindsided as the rest of us when the two government sponsored enterprises collapsed, triggering the financial crisis.

Frank has been peddling this fiction ever since the economy collapsed in September 2008. But as the The Boston Globe notes in a new, devastating article published on October 14, not many people are buying Frank’s lies anymore. And Frank knows it. He’s facing a surprisingly tough reelection fight, so he’s on an apology tour through the media to save his seat. (Judicial Watch does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office.)

Here’s an excerpt from the Globe piece (although I highly recommend you read the article in full):

When US Representative Barney Frank spoke in a packed hearing room on Capitol Hill seven years ago, he did not imagine that his words would eventually haunt a reelection bid.

The issue that day in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong. Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial integrity. And, the Massachusetts Democrat maintained, “even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

Now, it’s clear he was wrong on both points…

Here’s the thing. Frank wasn’t wrong. He was lying.

(more…)

The document trail below reveals some extremely troubling questions for Representative Barney Frank. Is the GAO report cited below truly the first serious investigation of the mortgage meltdown? Did Congress or the Financial Services committee he chairs have access to mortgage meltdown information from other sources, especially with said GAO report already well on its way to completion?

Why was Barney Frank pushing for his “expanding home ownership bill” in the midst of this looming crisis he already has good reason to suspect was going to get worse? Was he pushing it for purely political purposes prior to the 2008 election, while knowing full well the American housing market was headed for disaster and American taxpayers would be left on the hook as a result of his policies?

While not quite a smoking gun, an examination of the record suggests that while Rep. Barney Frank had good reason to be concerned of a pending meltdown in the housing sector, either out of sheer incompetence, or political maneuvering, he did the exact opposite of what he should have done as a representative of the people of Massachusetts.

Via Mortgage News Daily, on April 24, 2007, problems within the mortgage industry were already coming to light. And it was happening right in front of Barney Frank’s committee.

(more…)