Hypocrisy on the March!

Wednesday the House passed "sweeping" reform of the financial industry regulation (HR 4173). Barney Frank said, "I disagree vehemently that the American people think that the status quo with the financial industry was a good one."
Here he is bloviating (along with Republicans criticizing):


Too bad Frank and the Democrats blocked regulation back in 2004 before the financial meltdown that has led to the worst economy since the Great Depression. Of course in 2004 they weren't in power and were trying to stop anything the Republicans were doing, from legislation to federal judges.

Here is a video of Democrats criticizing attempts to regulate Freddie and Fannie. Look for these gems:

• 0:50 - Maxine Waters says the Republicans are trying to fix something that isn't broken, and that there is no crisis with Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae.
• 1:30 - Gregory Meeks says "There has been nothing indicating there is anything wrong."
• 5:04 - Barney Frank says there is nothing wrong.
• 5:30 - Maxine Waters says Congress should not block Freddy and Fannie from giving out more zero down (risky subprime) loans.
• 6:15 - Frnak says concern over Freddy and Fannie is a shibboleth, and sees "no issue" with them."
• 7:50 - Frank Raines says the loans Freddy is making are "riskless."

The Republicans want these amendments to HR 4173:

• Phases out taxpayer subsidies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and privatizes the entities over a number of years.
• Sunsets the current conservatorships and places both institutions in receivership if they are not financially viable.
• If they are viable, requires wind down of agencies if their charters are not renewed in three years.
• Requires reductions in the portfolios of the two companies, emphasizes the promotion of housing affordability, and requires SEC registration as well as reverses all tax exemptions.
• Lowers conforming loan limit in high cost areas and prohibits GSEs from buying any loan that is above the area median home price in its area - effectively lowering conforming loan limits in much of the country.

The House Financial Services Committee (chaired by Barney Frank) put out this response about the Republican attempts to regulate Freddie Fannie through ammendments to HR 4173. Keep in mind what the Democrats said and did in 2004 while reading this (I bolded the great parts):

Let’s review the pitiful record of Republicans and the GSE [Government Sponsored Enterprises]. First they ignored the problem for years, having never passed reform legislation for the first 10 years (1995-2005) of Republican rule in the House of Representatives. Second, the only Republican reform bill to ever get a vote in Congress was opposed by a Republican President. Third, President Bush, over the objections of House Democrats, pushed Fannie and Freddie into riskier and riskier mortgages with a philosophy of homeownership at any cost. And finally, President Bush bails them out. When Democrats took over in 2007, Barney Frank worked with the Bush Administration and over the objections of most Republicans in the House passed Fannie and Freddie reform within 5 months of taking over the majority. The only Fannie and Freddie reform bill signed by President Bush was authored by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Republicans want you to believe that they are serious about the problems associated with Fannie and Freddie, but it is smoke and mirrors. House Democrats are committed to addressing the Fannie and Freddie issues with substantive, thoughtful reform when Congress convenes next year.

Republicans "ignored" the problems? In 2003 the Bush administration and Congress tried to pass legislation that would have regulated the risks Fannie and Freddie were taking on. They were worried that the two corporations were becoming too big too fast and were headed toward financial problems. Democrats blocked this legislation.

In September 2003, the illustrious Barney Frank said,"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."

The "reform" Frank takes credit for in 2007? Increasing Freddie and Fannie's involvement in the mortgage market and raising the limit of the mortgages they could finance.

Hypocrisy on the March!

Distortions on the March!

Do you remember those old World War 2 United Newsreels that start with marching soldiers, evoking the imagery of freedom on the march? I've decided to parody that feeling with

Distortions on the March!

I was reading an opinion piece today in the Washington Examiner about a story on a left-wing think-tank (Center for American Progress Action Fund) website purporting to have found the "billionaire boogymen" behind the conservative backlash against the Democrats in Washington. A little background information will help us understand why the story is ironic, to say the least.

The CAPAF was founded by John Podesta, one-time chief of staff for the Clinton administration, who ran Obama's "transition" team and is now an "outside advisor" to the Obama administration. The CAPAF is funded by Herbert and Marion Sandler. The Sandlers became billionaires through Golden West Financial Corporation, which they sold to Wachovia for $25 billion in 2006. The sale included $122 billion in adjustable rate mortgages. At the time, Wachovia claimed Golden West was the "crown jewel" of its divisions. By 2008, Wachovia's stock price had lost 75% of its value, mainly due to bad loans made by Golden West while the Sandlers were in charge.

Another billionaire, George Soros, gave the center a measly $1 million.

I went to the Progress Report's website to see the story itself. It is called, "Radical Right: The Billionaires Behind the Hate."

The "billionaires," in this case, are not financial industry crooks like the Sandlers and Soros. They are the Koch brothers. Again, a little background information. Koch industries is the second largest privately held corporation in the U.S. It was founded in 1940 as a commodities company, and has expanded to all kinds of manufacturing interests. Koch industries makes stuff - in America. Although Koch has been fined for environmental damages, they have also contributed millions to various conservation programs. Even the CAPAF admits Koch industries supports "the arts, cancer research, and the Smithsonian Institute." They are also very politically active, funding several conservative and libertarian groups, like the Cato institute and Americans for Prosperity (unlike many giant corporations, the Koch's want others to be successful too).

So what is the "hate" the Koch brothers are guilty of?

According to the CAPAF:

• "...obstructing and killing progressive reform."
• Trying to stop the stimulus package
• "...calling for a return to Bush-style tax cuts to combat the recession."
• "...helping to organize the very first "tea party" protests."
• Campaigning to show that "the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring" is false.
• Pointing out that many environmentalist activists (like Algore) are hypocrites when it comes to their lifestyle.
• "...fierce opposition to health reform"

It is this last point I found interesting. Patients United is a group run by Americans For Prosperity. The CAPAF piece says that,

"Patients United has blanketed the country with ads distorting various provisions of the health reform legislation, particularly the public option. Patients United even centered a media campaign around Shona Robertson-Holmes, claiming she had a brain tumor the Canadian system refused to treat. However, the Ottawa Citizen reported that Patients United has been exaggerating Holmes' case, and that she in fact had a benign cyst."

Actually, Robertson-Holmes herself says it in the ad. Here is the video:

In the video, she says she had a tumor that would have killed her. The CAPAF story says this is an exaggeration. FactCheck.org looked into the claims, and found (not surprisingly) that the Canadian health officials involved in the case dispute that Robertson-Holmes would have died. A "top neurosurgeon" (without having looked at Robert-Holmes' case) said that her fear of death was "exaggerated." Other officials downplayed the seriousness of her condition. FactCheck.org spoke with "Dr. Jason Huse, a pathologist at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center." Again, without having actually examined Robertson-Holmes, he claims her condition is "not typically life-threatening."

In response to FactCheck.org's story, Robertson-Holmes sent them a statement:

In 2005 I was losing my eyesight, I was very sick, and there were major changes in my appearance, morphing me into someone that I didn't recognize in the mirror. I didn't know it yet, but I had major endrocrine issues.

I went to my family doctor and got an MRI, which showed I had a tumor. I was put on the waiting lists to see specialists, but they told me the wait was months long.

I went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where I was able to get a diagnosis. The MRI I received at Mayo confirmed a tumor, and again they couldn't tell for sure what kind it was until surgery. The one that seems to be the most consistent in my medical files is a craniiopharyngiomas, a tumor that forms in the Rathke cleft.

For the first time, they found that I also had Cushing's, which is a rare condition. This is why it was imperative for me to have both a neurosurgeon and an endocrinologist. My case was so complex – the tumor was not only compromising my optic chiasm but was also damaging my pituitary gland, and it was uncertain whether I had a pituitary tumor on the gland itself. I was not producing ACTH, which is fatal, and I had gone into adrenal crisis on 4 different occasions.

They also felt that I had an adrenal tumor, but because I had a window of 4 to 6 weeks to save my vision, and to try to reduce the brutally high cortisol levels in my body, we focused on the brain surgery, and I returned to Canada to have the adrenal issues treated here. That surgery was also needed, and it took me three years to get it done. It has just been one nightmare after another.

All experts who have reviewed my case, both before and after, made it very clear that I needed surgery within hours to days. I wish I could release my medical files, but unfortunately I am in litigation trying to recoup my financial loss from the government.

My husband was told in no uncertain terms that if I waited the time scheduled to see specialists back in Canada I would be dead. Mayo recommended surgery immediately, and when we asked the definition of immediately they said they would have me on the table by Monday (this was Friday). I came back to Canada with those reports and I was refused surgery and put back on the wait list. My family doctor applied to the government to cover my return to the U.S., and we were denied and told to wait. That is how I ended up getting treatment in the United States, which was never my intention.

Shona Holmes

According to CAPAF, Holmes didn't even have a tumor. According to CAPAF, it was "hateful"and "distorting" to tell her story.

But who are the truly hateful? According to Holmes, she has received death threats, and gave her dog to her daughter because people threatened to poison it.

Staying with the health care reform debate, who is more hateful, the Koch's or Speaker of the House Pelosi:

Brian Baird a congressman from Washington said, "What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics."

Then there is the SEIU, whose president visited Obama more than any other person this year - including his own administration officials like Hillary Clinton:

The SEIU will even turn on its own if they don't fall in line. They have been accused of violence at several meetings and protests.

Yet, "right-wing billionaires" are "behind the hate" according to CAPAF, and the "hate" is defined as working to stop Statism from turning our country into a tyranny.

Distortions on the March!