Right Voices » George W. Bush

Ten things the president got right

Pam — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:22:50 +0000

The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America’s position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives–okay, not all of them–have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there’s an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That–defiantly doing the right thing–is what distinguished his presidency.

Please read the entire article, but for brevity, here is the list

his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans.
enhanced interrogation of terrorists.
the rebuilding of presidential authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, and Bill Clinton.
Bush’s unswerving support for Israel.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform bill cosponsored by America’s most prominent liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers’ unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools–they all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability.
Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would henceforth focus on promoting democracy
the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003. It’s not only wildly popular; it has cost less than expected by triggering competition among drug companies.
John Roberts and Sam Alito. In putting them on the Supreme Court and naming Roberts chief justice, Bush achieved what had eluded Richard Nixon, Reagan, and his own father. Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 58, should be justices for decades to come.
He strengthened relations with east Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) without causing a rift with China. On top of that, he forged strong ties with India. An important factor was their common enemy, Islamic jihadists. After 9/11, Bush made the most of this, and Indian leaders were receptive.
THE SURGE. Bush prompted nearly unanimous disapproval in January 2007 when he announced he was sending more troops to Iraq and adopting a new counterinsurgency strategy. His opponents initially included the State Department, the Pentagon, most of Congress, the media, the foreign policy establishment, indeed the whole world. This makes his decision a profile in courage. Best of all, the surge worked. Iraq is now a fragile but functioning democracy.

Let me know your reactions to this list. What would you take away or add to the list?

I Love Dick Cheney

Pam — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:00:10 +0000

Great interview, so in case you missed it here is the Transcript: Vice President Cheney on ‘FOX News Sunday’

Here is a video for you:

The White House announced a $17.4 billion rescue package for the troubled Detroit auto makers

Pam — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:10:20 +0000

UAW Local 602 president: “It’s premature to speculate about wage cuts or if one will even occur.”

See, they were never serious about lowering costs or making money, the stus quo was what they were going with. The conditions have not been fully examined by outside sources, so until that time, here are the conditions attached to the money:

“In the midst of a financial crisis…allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action,” Mr. Bush said.

The deal would extend $13.4 billion in loans to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC in December and January, with another $4 billion likely available in February. It also would provide the government with non-voting warrants, although the exact amount was unclear immediately.

The deal is contingent on the companies’ showing that they are financially viable by March 31. If they aren’t, the loans will be called and all funds must be returned, officials said.

FORD SAYS ‘NO THANKS’

“We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,” Ford president and chief executive officer Alan Mulally said in a statement.

Ford said it hoped to restructure its business without government assistance but requested the nine billion dollar line of credit as a “critical backstop or safeguard against worsening conditions.”

Here is a link to a list of products made by UAW workers. Boycott the companies!

Here is just a short list of big names that popped out:

Miller Brewing Co.
Land O’Lakes
Folgers Coffee Co.
Planters Peanuts Kraft Foods
Bacardi Corp

United or Divided? Your Cartoon for the Day

Lisa — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:47:42 +0000

George W. Bush won in 2004 with 51%. Some responses: Deeply Divided Country Is United in Anxiety (WSJ) | Sure, Country Is Divided (NYT) | A Nation Divided (SPT)

In contrast, Barack Obama won the 2008 Presidential race with 52% of the vote. Some responses: Nation is united by victory for hope over historic divisions (Times UK) | America’s choice: Obama wins in a landslide | Obama’s night: Long road ends in landslide (BDH) | President-elect Obama wins landslide victory (TN) | Obama becomes first black president in landslide (AP)

The lists go on. So – to get it straight: 51% = deeply divided nation. 52% = landslide election.

Gotcha.

Scroll For Updates: ALERT: Obama’s “Aunti Zeituni” Is An Illegal Alien, A Deportation FUGITIVE, Lives In Public Housing, And Donated To His Campaign..The Left Cries About Privacy Laws Being Broken And I don’t Mean Joe

Pam — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:15:07 +0000

I talked about her a few days ago and at the time, I thought that he was keeping her silent because of her address..Well that is just a part of it:

Barack Obama’s aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as “Aunti Zeituni” in Obama’s memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango’s case.

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

How about those illegal campaign donations?

Federal Election Commission records show that Onyango donated at least five times to her nephew’s campaign in July and September. Three of the donations were for $5 each, and two of the donations were for $25. Records compiled by The Huffington Post show she gave a total of $260 to the campaign.

Obama on aunt: I didn’t know she was here illegally

DREAMS FROM HIS AUNT, PART 2

Ace of Spades commenter:

Obama’s aunt is here ILLEGALLY living in poverty, and is a deportation FUGITIVE. She’s collecting WELFARE and has DONATED to Obama’s campaign, ILLEGALLY! Obama. Family in poverty as he makes millions. Complete lawlessness. Giveaway your hard earned tax payer money to illegal fugitives. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

Michelle Malkin has tons more links so be sure to read her post.Â When you are done with that post, read this one. As you watch the left go ballistic over the ObamaÂ bombshell, keep that in mind!

No Quarters asks these important questions:

** How did she contribute a total of $260 to her nephew’s campaign in a series of small donations from her South Boston address if she is not a United States citizen?
** Are many illegal immigrants and foreigners submitting small donations to the Obama campaign in order to avoid scrutiny by the FEC?
** How does she qualify for public housing if she is not a United States citizen?
** How is Obama to be trusted to reform the immigration system if his relatives are breaking immigration laws and living illegally in this country?
** And why did the Senator not file a form I-130, a Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of his aunt after her request for political asylum was rejected? As a United States Senator, he certainly could expedite the adjudication of such a petition.

I’m wondering if it was such a good idea to kick those reporters, with a dissenting opinion, off the plane

Gateway Pundit:

Maybe this had something to do with the sudden McCain-Palin surge
Wink-Wink—

josh Marshall is a bit upset as we can see with,BREAKING THE LAW FOR MCCAIN , but I find it a bit laughable considering that he ran this story on Joe The Plumber and never mentioned the illegality of the searches.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, nn7v, Political Byline, Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Others blogging:

Why He Served: Army Specialist Stephen Fortunato. R.I.P.

Pam — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:31:29 +0000

Everyone: Please read this, and spread it far and wide. (H/T MM)

The following is a blog entry written on Aug. 30, 2008, by Army Specialist Stephen Fortunato, who was killed Tuesday in Afghanistan when the vehicle he was riding in was blown up by an improvised explosive device. This entry was forwarded to the Globe by his mother, Elizabeth “Betty” Crawford.

If I may :
I’d like to say something:.Just to get it out there so it is clear.
To all the pampered and protected Americans who feel it is their duty to inform me that I am not fighting for their freedom, and that i am a pawn in Bush’s agenda of greed and oil acquisition: Noted, and [expletive deleted] You.

I am not a robot. i am not blind or ignorant to the state of the world or the implications of the “war on terrorism.” i know that our leaders have made mistakes in the handling of a very sensitive situation, but do not for one second think that you can make me lose faith in what we, meaning America’s sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers in uniform are doing.
I am doing my part in fighting a very real enemy of the United States, i.e. Taliban, Al Qaida, and various other radical sects of Islam that have declared war on our way of life. Unless you believe the events of 9/11 were the result of a government conspiracy, which by the way would make you a MORON, there is no reasonable argument you can make against there being a true and dangerous threat that needs to be dealt with. i don’t care if there are corporations leaching off the war effort to make money, and i don’t care if you don’t think our freedom within America’s borders is actually at stake. i just want to kill those who would harm my family and friends. it is that simple. Even if this is just a war for profit or to assert America’s power, so what? Someone has to be on top and I want it to be us. There’s nothing wrong with wishing prosperity for your side.

I am a proud American. i believe that my country allows me to live my life more or less however i want to, and believe me, i have seen what the alternative of that looks like. i also believe that our big scary government does way more than it has to to help complete [expletive deleted]-ups get back on their feet, a stark comparison to places where leaders just line their own pockets with gold while allowing the people who gave them their power and privilage to starve. I have chosen my corner. I back my country, and am proud to defend it against aggressors. Also, if you dare accuse us of being inhumane, or overly aggressive because we have rolled into someone else’s country and blown some [expletive deleted] up and shot some people, let me remind you of just how inhumane we COULD be in defending ourselves. Let me remind you that we have a warhead that drops multiple bomblets from the stratosphere which upon impact, would turn all the sand in Iraq to glass, and reduce every living thing there to dust. Do we use it? No. Instead we use the most humane weapon ever devised: the American soldier. We send our bravest (and perhaps admitably craziest) men and women into enemy territory, into harms way, to root out those whom we are after and do our best to leave innocent lives unscathed.

:One last thing:a proposal. i know it has been stated time and time again but i just think it is worthy of reiteration. If you find yourself completely disgusted with the way America is being ran, and how we handle things on the global stage, you can leave. Isn’t that amazing? No one will stop you! If you are an anarchist, there are places you can go where there is no government to tell you anything. That’s right:you are left solely to your own devices and you can handle the men who show up at your door with AKs in any way that you see fit. Just don’t try good old American debate tactics on them because you will most likely end up bound and blind-folded, to have your head chopped off on the internet so your parents can see it. However if you insist on staying here and taking advantage of privilages such as free speach and WIC, keep the counter-productive [expletive deleted] to a minimum while the grown ups figure out how to handle this god-awful mess in the middle east.

Linked with:

How much are “The Rich” really paying in taxes

Lisa — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:36:41 +0000

The top 5% – or those making more than $153,000 – pay 60% of all federal income taxes.
The top 1% – or those making more than $333,000 – pay 40% of all federal income taxes.

Those are the facts, according to the IRS.Â Now – what do people think ‘the rich’ actually pay?

The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less — far less — than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Looking at this another way . . .

A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, “What should ‘the rich’ pay in income taxes?” Half the respondents said “25 percent”; 25 percent said “20 percent”; 12 percent said “30 percent”; and another 12 percent said “35 percent.” The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now — both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

The article from Larry Elder titled In Defense of “The Rich” goes on to say that 30% of American voters pay no federal income taxes at all.Â These are the folks who are more likely to vote FOR spending programs that will directly benefit them.Â The majority of those 30% agree with Obama’s $65billion health care plan; while the majority of the 70% who DO pay taxes are opposed to it.

Barack Obama calls his increase in taxes and plan to redistribute the wealth to the needy is a matter of “Neighborlyness”.Â Joe Biden calls it a matter of “Patriotism”

Yet, in terms of charitable giving?Â Republicans far outspend Liberals when giving money to charities, both religious and non.

From those hard headed Republicans in office:

George and Laura Bush reported an adjusted gross income of $923,807 inÂ 2007.Â They paid $221,635 in taxes.Â They gave $165,660 to charity – or 18% of their income.
Dick and Lynn Cheney reported an adjusted gross income of $3.04 million in 2007.Â They paid $602,651in taxes.Â They gave $166,547 to charity – or 5.5% of their income.

Compare that to the ‘neighborly’ and ‘patriotic’ liberals running for office:

Barack and Michelle Obama $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004.Â To charity, they donated less than 1% of their income.Â In 2007, their income climbed to 4.2 million – their charity went up to 5%.
Joe and Jill Biden reported an adjusted gross income of $319,853.Â They gave $995 to charity – less than 0.3% of their income.Â Over the past decade, the Bidens reported $2,450,042 in income and gave $3,690 to charity — or 0.1% of their income.

So the Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who want to raise taxes and redistribute wealth if they are elected, are loathe to set the standard of excellence in that arena and live by example.Â In short, they don’t walk the talk…. but they want YOU to do as they say, not as they do.

If we go on their own statements – their own records of sharing the wealth cannot be considered very neighborly or patriotic.

Another lesson to take from this article?Â The rich pay far more taxes in this country than people think they do – why do you suppose that is?

Bush Invites Obama To D.C. And He Accepts

Pam — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:54:02 +0000

Via ABC News

ABC News has learned that President Bush called Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., this evening and invited him to participate in a meeting about the Wall Street bailout bill tomorrow afternoon in Washington, DC, with other congressional leaders, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Obama accepted the president’s invitation, a source tells ABC News.

MM: Hey, is Jim Johnson coming with him?

Former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson was dumped from Obama’s vice presidential search team, but he’s still playing a behind-the-scenes role on the campaign.

Former Senator Tom Daschle, a top Obama backer, emailed a select list this afternoon that he and Johnson would be leading a briefing intended largely for Clinton’s campaign brain trust next month.

“Jim Johnson and I have scheduled another informal breakfast discussion and update on the campaign early next month,” he wrote to a list including Senator John Kerry, James Carville, and Richard Holbrooke, as well as Clinton’s former top campaign aides, including Howard Wolfson, Geoff Garin, and Harold Ickes.

Johnson’s involvement comes at a moment when political association with the failed mortgage giants is particularly toxic. He was already the subject of a McCain ad attacking Obama.

ALERT: MCCAIN: ‘Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington’…

Pam — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:17:32 +0000

MCCAIN: ‘Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington’

MCCAIN SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN TO FOCUS ON ECONOMY; WANTS DEBATE DELAY
Wed Sept 24 2008 14:58:02 ETMCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’ proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.Â

MCCAIN SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN TO FOCUS ON ECONOMY; WANTS DEBATE DELAYÂ

">HotAir:

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â Update: A source inside the Obama camp tells NBC The One will reject the idea of cancelling the debate and argue that presidents should be able to multitask. Er, what if McCain simply doesn’t show, then? Meanwhile, Obama mega-shill Joe Klein offers a clever way to call Maverick’s bluff: Simply move the debate to D.C. so that the two candidates can be in town to work on the bill and change the topic from foreign policy to the economy.

Update: As expected, he just said at his presser that he thinks it’s important for Americans to hear from the candidates right now given that one of them will have to deal with this mess in January, etc etc, so the debate is presumably still on as far as he’s concerned. Your move, Maverick.

More from FNC.
McCain: Scrap Friday Debate for Bailout; Obama Camp: â€˜The Debate is On’
“Â ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and Rick Klein report: Sen. John McCain on Wednesday said he would “suspend” his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill, a dramatic move designed to seize a powerful issue.

McCain: Scrap Friday Debate for Bailout; Obama: The Debate is OnÂ “Â ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and Rick Klein report: Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Wednesday said he would “suspend” his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill :

Discussion: Jonathan Martin’s Blogs, Think Progress, TPM Election Central, Weekly Standard, The Campaign Spot, Open Left, Townhall.com, Firedoglake, Donklephant, The Anonymous Liberal, Taylor Marsh, The RBC, Agence France Presse, Political Machine, TIME.com, Gawker, MyDD, Informed Comment, QandO, Comments from Left Field, Hot Air, Salon, Pajamas Media and FP Passport

Dodd Says He Was On Top Of The Financial Crisis, Helped Reveal It, And Adds “I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.”

Pam — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:10:38 +0000

By reveal, do you think he means when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar?Â Â I am curious if he knows what the interest rates are?!?!Â Here is his statement:

In a statement, U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said, “Millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet as unemployment rises, home values plummet, and everyday necessities like food and gas cost more than ever before. The Banking Committee has played a vital role both in revealing the pattern of lax regulatory oversight that helped to create this financial crisis, and in addressing related economic problems by crafting comprehensive legislation passed earlier this year. As Chairman, I will continue to work on solutions to help Americans weather this storm, including strengthening the housing sector, developing a second stimulus package, and restructuring the regulation of the financial sector.”

I want to share with you a few reminders of who it was that was supposed to be overseeing this mess!

Reminder 1:

No wonder Sen. Christopher Dodd won’t release documents related to the $800,000 in cut-rate mortgages he got in 2003 from Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender.

The primary cause of the collapse of the mortgage industry is banks and borrowers who ignored standard rules of sound and responsible lending. Thousands of lenders duped ignorant borrowers and conspired with sophisticated, grasping ones to flout rules in order to create loans with terms they would not normally have obtained.

Many of those misleading and fraudulent loans were sold to investors who began to discover last year that they’d spent billions on loans that would never return anything close to their investment. Pension funds, governments and formerly successful investors have lost billions. Taxpayers, under a bill Dodd championed, will pay billions to buy those bad loans.

Dodd feints and delays, but he can only stymie, not halt, the discovery of the details of his $800,000 in mortgages. Records show Dodd was more notable as part of the problem, a privileged public official who benefited even more than previously acknowledged.

Reminder 2:

oll Call thought this was mock worthy:

Briefly Quoted. “I don’t know what the rates are today.”

” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), surprising reporters on Tuesday with his unfamiliarity with current mortgage rates. Dodd, who was explaining why he planned to keep his scandal-tarred Countrywide Financial home mortgages, is the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. (video here)

Reminder 3:

Taxpayers face a tab of as much as $200 billion for a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the formerly semi-autonomous mortgage finance clearinghouses. And Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has the gall to ask in a Bloomberg Television interview: “I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.”

But this is where it gets quite interesting:

We will save the senator some trouble. Here is what we saw firsthand at the White House from late 2002 through 2007: Starting in 2002, White House and Treasury Department economic policy staffers, with support from then-Chief of Staff Andy Card, began to press for meaningful reforms of Fannie, Freddie and other government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).

The crux of their concern was this: Investors believed that the GSEs were government-backed, so shouldn’t the GSEs also be subject to meaningful government supervision?

This was not the first time a White House had tried to confront this issue. During the Clinton years, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Treasury official Gary Gensler both spoke out on the issue of Fannie and Freddie’s investment portfolios, which had already begun to resemble hedge funds with risky holdings. Nor were others silent: As chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan regularly warned about the risks posed by Fannie and Freddie’s holdings. President Bush was receptive to reform. He withheld nominees for Fannie and Freddie’s boards — a presidential privilege. While it would have been valuable politically to use such positions to reward supporters, the president put good policy above good politics.

In subsequent years, officials at Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisersn(especially Chairmen Greg Mankiw and Harvey Rosen) pressed for the following: Requiring Fannie and Freddie to submit to regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission; to adopt financial accounting standards; to follow bank standards for capital requirements; to shrink their portfolios of assets from risky levels; and empowering regulators such as the Office of Federal Housing Oversight to monitor the firms.

The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.
During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

The president’s budget proposals reflected the nature of the challenge. Note the following passage from the 2005 budget: Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs “are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. . . . A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy.”

That passage was published in February 2004. Dodd can find it on Page 82 of the budget’s Analytical Perspectives.

The administration not only identified the problem, it also recommended a solution. In June 2004, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Samuel Bodman said: “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision.”

Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: “Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership,” he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year’s State of the Union address.

How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts. Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: “We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to “immediately reconsider his ill-advised” reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the president’s suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was “inane.”
Sen. Dodd wonders what the Bush administration did to address the risks of Fannie and Freddie. Now, he knows. The real question is: Where was he?

Is it any surprise to you that Reid And Pelosi blame Bush?

“What we are seeing on Wall Street is the legacy of the Bush-McCain economic policies that have failed this nation,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saidÂ in a statement.

“Failing to police lenders and neglecting to protect consumers ushered in the subprime crisis that has brought the American economy and Wall Street to their knees. This â€˜anything goes’ approach to governing has resulted in lost jobs and carries an enormous price tag for the American taxpayer.”

Reid reiterated his call for a second economic stimulus package, which is sure to meet GOP opposition.

UPDATE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also weighs in on who is to blame and not-so-surprisingly, it isn’t the Democrats.

“Eight years of weakened regulation of our nation’s financial systemÂ ” including a failure to regulate risky, and often predatory, lending practicesÂ ” by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have led us to this point, and could further erode our nation’s economic health,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Karl has a must read:

Obama-Friendly Lehman Bros. to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Barack Obama hasÂ extensive ties to the subprime mortgage industry, starting with his National Finance Chairwoman,Â Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker.Â As I previously noted at Protein Wisdom:

PritzkerÂ was an owner and board member of Superior Bank of Chicago, whichÂ went bust in 2001 with overÂ $1 billion inÂ deposits.Â Timothy Anderson ” who obsessively pursued the late Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)Â over his role in the failure of Clyde Federal Savings & LoanÂ ” has been quoted as saying that “Superior’s owners were to sub-prime lending what Michael Milken was to junk bonds.”

Coincidentally, Obama’s policy proposals have also been pretty subprime mortgage-friendly, perhaps influenced by advisers like Austan Goolsbee (Economic Man of Mystery).

The establishment media that sought every opportunity to tie the failure of Enron and its executives to George W. Bush hasÂ generally failed to note that Barack Obama isÂ neck deep in money from issuers of subprime loans, even as he crusades against predatory mortgage lenders.Â Maybe they will get to it whenÂ their investigators return fromÂ scouring the frozen tundra in Alaska for gossip about Sarah Palin’s family.Â But I would not bet any more money on it than I would invest with Lehman Bros.

HMM: “The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, setting in motion the biggest government bailout/takeover in U.S. history, brings a grim sense of fulfillment to competent economists. After all, what did people expect, that water would flow uphill forever? This financial mega-mess is the same sort of event as the collapse of the USSR’s centrally planned economy, another economically unworkable Rube Goldberg apparatus that was kept going, more or less badly, for decades before it fell apart completely. . . . Each of these time bombs has at least one element in common: it promises current benefits, often seemingly without cost; but if it must acknowledge a substantial cost, it places that burden somewhere in the distant future, where it will be borne by somebody else. From the standpoint of society in general, every such scheme is a species of eating the seed corn. . . . And are members of the public so dense that they will fall for such promises? Yes.”

Others blogging:

The Loudest Cricket Â» Let The Market Play Out

Ah, yes, job approval, this is the Most Hated Congress In The 232-Year History Of America.