Secret US Plan To Destroy Ukranian Economy Disclosed

How else can you explain this?

Washington, Jan. 27/PRNewswire/ - Senator Christopher J. Dodd is scheduled to give the keynote speech at a breakfast forum hosted by the Ukrainian Foundation for Effective Governance (FEG) and The Hill, on February 24 in Washington, D.C., announced Nataliya Izosimova, Managing Director of FEG.

[snip]

"The event, focusing on 'Building a Strong Economy for the Real Ukraine,' will further raise awareness of key economic issues affecting Ukraine," Izosimova stated. "Through our ongoing public discussions and the implementation of key economic projects, FEG is working to increase economic competitiveness and create an attractive investment environment for Ukraine."

What's he going to say? "Force your banks to throw money at people who you already know will never be able to repay it, don't allow the lenders to be adequately regulated, and while you're at it, collect hundreds of thousands of dollars for your self!"

Admittedly, I don't know that much about the Ukranian economy, but it must be in a sorry state if they are looking for advice from one of the architects of the collapse of the US economy (can you be an architect of a collapse, or is that an oxymoron?).

Perhaps he will be there as a cautionary tale of what can happen when politicians who are ethically challenged, ripe with conflicts of interest, and oblivious to the facts around them are in charge of your economy. In any event, pray for the Ukranians.

I wonder if they will ask him to lead a break-out group, like "The one word you need to know to to tank a bank's stock" or "How to arbitrarily set a limit on executive compensation and make it look principled."

(Slightly updated since originally posted on 1/27 when this was announced, but as Dodd's speech is tomorrow, I though it appropriate to re-post)

Who Got UsTo Where We Are, And How

The American Spectator has a good article in the February issue that walks you through the beginnings of the mortgage market crisis that has contributed so heavily to the floundering economy. Here's the intro, but take five or ten minutes and read the whole thing:

Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causesof the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years--particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system-- underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If the Times diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.

If you find that kind of stuff interesting, also check out this article and timeline from Public Opinion Online, some comments on that article from The Virginian. And remember as you read that Connecticut's senior senator, Chris Dodd, made sizeable contributions to the"success" of the CRA, the lack of appropriate regulation in the industry, and ultimately the collapse of our economy.

Secret US Plan To Destroy Ukranian Economy Disclosed

How else can you explain this?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Senator Christopher J. Dodd is scheduled to give the keynote speech at a breakfast forum hosted by the Ukrainian Foundation for Effective Governance (FEG) and The Hill, on February 24in Washington, D.C., announced Nataliya Izosimova, Managing Director of FEG.

[snip]

"The event, focusing on 'Building a Strong Economy for the Real Ukraine,' will further raise awareness of key economic issues affecting Ukraine," Izosimova stated. "Through our ongoing public discussions and the implementation of key economic projects, FEG is working to increase economic competitiveness and create an attractive investment environment for Ukraine." [emphasis added]

What's he going to say? "Force your banks to throw money at people who you already know will never be able to repay it, don't allow the lenders to be adequately regulated, and while you're at it, collect hundreds of thousands of dollars for your self!"

Admittedly, I don't know that much about the Ukranian economy, but it must be in a sorry state if they are looking for advice from one of the architects of the collapse of the US economy (can you be an architect of a collapse, or is that an oxymoron?).

Perhaps he will be there as a cautionary tale of what can happen when politicians who are ethically challenged, ripe with conflicts of interest, and oblivious to the facts around them are in charge of your economy. In any event, pray for the Ukranians.

Schiff v. Dodd On Fannie And Freddie

Via Market Speculator, here is a video put together by Schiff for Senate juxtaposing years of Dodd ignoring the problems of his campaign donors with Schiff predicting what has come to pass.



Wouldn't it be something to have a senator who had a clue?

Rove Relays Rarely Reported Reality

In his editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, Karl Rove points out a few facts that should be obvious. Unfortunately, the liberal spin machine that is the MSM has largely refused to acknowledge them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under-regulated, and that did contribute to their recent problems. But the lack of proper oversight was not the fault of the Bush Administration or John McCain, regardless of how many times you have been told that it was.

No, the responsibility lies in large part at the feet of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and their friends in the Democratic caucus. Because they were blinded by their desire, rooted in good intentions, no doubt, but pursued at any cost, to get minorities and poor people into homes regardless of whether or not they could afford them, Democrats cried racism and charged Republicans as being elitist. They refused to allow anything that might slow the flood of unqualified new homeowners.

When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.

But when things started to fall apart, the tunes changed quickly. Suddenly, it was Bush's watch that this happened on, and John McCain was the great deregulator. Free markets had failed, was the cry, regardless of the fact that everything was set in motion by massive market intervention. Nary a word was whispered by the media about the CRA, for example, or about the threats Congress made towards banks who threatened to only lend to, you know, people who could pay their mortgages.

It is nice to read the facts in a newspaper. Too bad there are so few reporters who can be troubled to write them.

Dodd Finally Takes Responsibility For Economic Collapse, Promises To Hold Himself Accountable

Chris Dodd had the following to say about how he was deceived into forcing lenders to make billions of dollars by providing bad loans while taking their huge campaign contributions, ultimately resulting in the economic tsunami we are trying to weather. From The Hill:

“The Banking Committee is examining this case to determine how so many people could have been deceived and how such a massive fraud could have gone undetected for so long,” Dodd said in a statement. “American investors deserve an explanation and the responsible parties must be held accountable. I am hopeful that our findings will also help inform our efforts to improve regulation so that such abuses do not occur in the future.

Oh, wait. I just read the rest of the article. Apparently he was talking about how the SEC dropped the ball with Madoff. My bad.

Celebrating Corruption

From the National Review Online, a fictional (but honest) Democrat celebrates what his party has become, led by Chris Dodd:

Best of all, we are the party of the ineffable Christopher Dodd (D., Countrywide), another recent “presidential candidate” who in appearance and demeanor is a throwback to the great days of Tammany mugs. It was Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who got a sweetheart mortgage deal as a “Friend of Angelo” Mozilo, the disgraced former head of Countrywide Financial; Dodd who steadfastly denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in trouble — perhaps his status as the No. 1 recipient of their campaign largesse had something to do with his unshakeable faith in them; and Dodd who has promised to release the paperwork concerning his hinky mortgages but, of course, hasn’t.

[snip]

Still, as the Connecticut Post recently editorialized: “[Dodd] says there was nothing untoward about the mortgage rate he received from Countrywide Financial, a company that was heavily involved in the nationwide mortgage collapse. He feigns indignance each time the issue is raised. But he can make the questions stop easily. All he has to do is release documents on two mortgages from Countrywide, each of which seemingly came in with interest figures below the going rate. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he should have long ago put this issue to rest.”

But what’s the rush? Like one of the patron saints of Tammany Hall, Richard “Boss” Croker, Dodd’s little tin box has bought him a fine getaway estate in the Ould Sod. Dodd’s little manse in County Galway ought to come in handy when the Senate “Ethics” Committee starts closing in.

It would be funnier if it weren't true, or if it weren't in my home state.

Thirty Years of the CRA in Pictures

Via Patterico, Doug Ross has some interesting data regarding the Community Reinvestment Act that Democrats, beginning with President Carter in 1977, and strengthened by President Clinton in the mid-'90s, has done to our economy.

Of course, Chris Dodd has been in the Senate most of that time, supporting the market interventions that have driven us to the brink. For the record, I don't question the motives of these people. I am sure that they thought they were doing a good thing for people who could not afford homes.

Unfortunately, they were wrong. Very wrong. And they should have known it.

Instead of listening to the lenders who make a living out of gauging risk and determining who can afford a loan, Democrats thought they knew better and imposed their will on the lenders, forcing them to lower their standards or face consequences. Now, after thirty years of this meddling, we are all facing consequences of our own.

There are two things we have to do with this information. First, we must hold those responsible accountable. Chris Dodd is one of those responsible, and he needs to be forced to take responsibilities for the consequences of his policies. He needs to go.

Second, we must do all we can to prevent these policies like these from becoming law in the first place. Of course, that is about to get a lot more difficult with Obama in the driver's seat, but the stakes are high. The garbage we let the Democrats pass now has the potential to ruin our children's lives as they enter adulthood. As Ross notes:

The charts provide ample evidence of the tragic errors associated with attempts to "social engineer" the free market system. As citizens it is our duty to prevent government from engineering more debacles related solely to central planning. We know that central planning does not work: the Soviet Union and the Community Reinvestment Act offer stark evidence.

Well said.

The White House Finds A Set, Calls Out NYT and Dodd, Among Others

In response to this summary of DNC talking points published by the NYT under the guise of a news article, the White House released the following statements, found here and here.

In case you don't have the time, or the stomach, to read the whole article, it basically says the entire mortgage crisis is the fault of President Bush. Virtually no mention is made about the role of Congress or previous Democratic administrations in encouraging (or forcing) lenders to make loans they had no business making to people who had no business receiving them. Clearly there is plenty of blame here to go around, and there is little doubt in my mind that things could have been handled differently by the Bush administration which may have helped delay or mitigate some of the damage done. But to write an article about the causes of the mortgage crisis while ignoring Dodd, Frank and friends is just embarrassing.

The second statement from the White House goes farther than the statement, and calls out Chris Dodd, amongst others, for the part he has played.

The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent rules and reigning in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "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." (citation omitted)

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (citation omitted)

The White House also points out Dodd's campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie:

The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:

Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Does that information sound worthy of inclusion in an article purporting to explain for it's readership (whatever is left of it) the causes of the crisis? Not if your goal is to sell your political agenda, and not if you write for the New York Times.

This all raises another question in my mind, though. Why is this the first time the White House has made this case? The biggest failures of this administration have not been the controversial policy positions they have taken, but the poor marketing of them and the lack of a defense of them when they come under partisan attack. When you let your opponents and the media (redundant, I know) set the context and define the positions in any debate, you will lose every time.

Whoever the state Republicans find to run against Chris Dodd had better learn a lesson from this. We must define the debate and tackle these biased and unsupportable assertions head-on. There is no honor in letting someone blame you for something they did, no brownie points for turning the other cheek and letting the lies and distortions go unchallenged, especially when it comes to something as drastic as what has been done to our economy. There is blame to go around, but Chris Dodd is acting like he is the answer to the problems we now face as opposed to a primary cause.

Rush on Dodd and Ethics

Below is s a clip from today's Rush Limbaugh show on Chris Dodd and Congressional ethics; read more here:

RUSH: And, you know, ethics in Washington is like everything else, it's a partisan two-way street. The Democrats really are not subject to any ethics. Victor Davis Hanson has a three-pager today at National Review Online about this very interesting conundrum that exists there, and I'll just give you one example off the top. Here you have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Let's just take Chris Dodd. Chris Dodd actually accepted money from Countrywide, the big mortgage broker and bank. He got a preferred mortgage interest rate. He was in the VIP program, that was the purpose of it. He oversaw legislation as the chairman of the banking committee that governed the mortgage industry, including his good buddy Angelo over at Countrywide. Not only is Chris Dodd not shamed, not only did he not resign, not only did he not get embarrassed, he's now in charge of rewriting the rules again for the mortgage industry.

CALLER: Scary, isn't it?

RUSH: In the meantime, Trent Lott happened to make a joke about how much better America would be if Strom Thurmond had become governor somewhere, and he's forced out of the Senate for some words he told at a birthday party for an old man who couldn't even hear him anymore. So Republicans fall on the sword all the time, and then the Republicans demand that their own guys fall on the sword. The Republicans were the ones that forced Trent Lott out. I mean the Democrats are right in there demanding it, but the White House said, yep, I think you ought to go, you're embarrassing us. Ted Stevens, Ted, get the hell out of there, just won reelection but you're an unethical guy, get out. Democrats never fall on the sword, nobody ever demands they fall on the sword, so the answer to your question is, at our juncture in history now, Democrats are not capable, it's not possible by virtue of the definition of the word for them to be unethical. So there's no need for them to recuse themselves.

CALLER: Is there any possible way to put a provision in any of these things to keep this money from being shoveled back to the same criminals that are taking our money now?

RUSH: Well, the people that would have to write the provision are the people you're referring to here as the criminals, and I doubt they're going to ace themselves out of this.

What Do They Take Us For?

The LA Times has an article describing how the National Community Reinvestment Coalition has filed a civil-rights complaint, which can be found here, against a couple of Wall Street firms that allegedly rated CRA mortgage-backed bonds too highly.

Yes, you read that correctly.

It sounds to me like they acknowledge that none of these loans should have been made in the first place. Nice of them to admit it, but it would have been nice if they hadn't been supporting the legislation and it's implementation for the last few decades. The claim might ring a little more true.

There will certainly be more posted on this travesty.

H/T: gad-fly

AP BS

The AP has abandoned any remaining claim it had to being a legitimate news organization with this nauseating "news article" on the mortgage crisis. A few gems:

The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

There certainly was some buckling, but to pretend that it was all (or even primarily) on the part of the Administration is laughable. Led by Sen. Dodd, the Democrats blocked the reform being pushed for by the likes of Sen. John McCain. Of course, Dodd's opposition is understandable when you remember that over the last 20 years, he was the Senator most indebted to the very lenders he was allegedly regulating (to the tune of $165k in campaign donations and a couple of sweetheart mortgages that he refuses to disclose records of). How do you write an article about the regulations that got killed by Dems who were paid off by the banks and turn it into a Bush bash? Don't get me wrong, Bush isn't guiltless in this, but you don't even mention Dodd? Has the AP been donating to Dodd's campaign, too?

And then there's this:

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy.Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930's.

I'm sorry, but I've got to call BS on this one. This knucklehead is going to blame this on conservative economic principles? I mean, do any amount of research beyond reading the Dodd/Frank talking points. Read a Wikipedia article. Anything! But wrong-headed interventionist legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act over the past two decades has more to do with our current position than being let down by "a philosophy that trusted market forces."

More commentary on this article can be found at The Everyday Republican and Say Anything Blog.

Chris Dodd, Marksist

From an editorial in Investor's Business Daily last week:

Bruce Marks, founder of the leftist Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, makes a good living shaking down banks for loans to deadbeat borrowers that he thinks are entitled to homes.

Last month, he and about 100 urban protesters stormed Fannie Mae's headquarters, demanding it stop foreclosures on subprime houses - the same houses his group pressured Fannie to fund.

As usual, the bullying tactics worked: Fannie Mae is now reviewing every foreclosure, while increasing the number of mortgages it restructures by lowering interest rates and extending loan terms to make payments more affordable. The government-backed firm guarantees some 30% of the nation's outstanding mortgages.

...

Congress' banking committee chiefs, Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, are also demanding banks stop foreclosures. And guess who they've invited to testify about that? That's right: Marks, who has proposed stopping all resets on subprime adjustable mortgages and allowing late payments for up to 90 days.

Marks insists that regulators "force" lenders to restructure their loans to prevent foreclosures from going forward.

"For noncooperative lenders," he says, "the regulators can and must impose 'cease and desist' orders."

For future underwriting practices, Marks urges lenders to adopt the NACA model.

"NACA has done lending the right way," he says. "No down payment. No closing costs. No fees. No perfect credit. At a below-market fixed rate."

And no repayment or profit. Call it Marksism.

I agree that Marks should be called to Washington for a hearing, but not because anyone wants or respects his opinion. He should be called to task, along with his Democratic cohorts (including the likes of Dodd and Obama), as they are largely responsible for the mess we are in.

If the Roles Were Reversed...

Commentary by Frank Beckmann via the The Detroit News, on what the automakers should have asked their Congressmen at the show-hearings last week:

Why did members of Congress -- such as House Banking Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Chairman Christoper Dodd and others -- raise fuel economy standards, adding more than $85 billion in costs as the industry was restructuring itself?

If the reason was forcing automakers to deal with higher gasoline prices, perhaps the politicians could explain why they have made fuel more scarce by blocking domestic drilling for oil and preventing new refineries from being built during the past three decades.

If global warming was the reason, perhaps the politicians could explain why some scientists now point to cooling temperatures while carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.

Our politicians like to claim the automakers have been slow to react to changing consumer demand. Perhaps they'd care to explain U.S. Energy Department figures that show flex-fuel vehicles, many made by the Detroit Three, accounted for a mere 6 percent of sales in 2007, while hybrid vehicle sales accounted for 2.6 percent of the market.

Politicians who insist on claiming that foreign manufacturers emphasize "green" technology over muscle might explain why sales last year of Toyota Tacoma and Tundra trucks were 30 percent higher than its hybrid vehicle sales.

Next, the execs and Gettelfinger could begin querying lawmakers about the credit crisis, born of government decisions that forced tens of billions of dollars in loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrowers who were unqualified and high credit risks. This, in turn, has led to the reduced availability of credit for potential car buyers and helped send auto sales plunging.

All good questions, if you ask me.

Only an Idiot Would Pay Their Mortgage

This Washington Post article describes the FDIC's plan to save the economy, which the Doddger supports.

I don't think I could ever support a plan that makes it foolish for homeowners to pay their mortgages. Maybe Dodd feels personally responsible for all of these foreclosures, since he basically assured they would happen when the Dems forced Fannie and Freddie and others to give loans to people who had no business getting them.