mortgage bailouts

Bank of America recently announced that it will impose annual fees on some of its cardholders.  This is in response to the CARD Act (Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009), which effectively shifts costs to responsible people from irresponsible people, forcing banks to increase charges to responsible credit card holders.

The CARD Act has also wiped out many cash-back and rewards programs and rebates on credit cards, something earlier chronicled here.  Despite that fact, its passage was trumpeted by President Obama and liberal congressional leaders, who are engaging in a form of class warfare against financially responsible people.

Earlier, the government pushed through $250 billion in mortgage bailouts, to bail out even reckless high-income borrowers, and forced financial institutions the government took over in the name of fiscal responsibility, like Freddie Mac, to run up billions in losses bailing out irresponsible borrowers.  It also pushed through $70 billion in auto bailouts to enrich the United Auto Workers union, bailouts that ripped off taxpayers and pension funds and illegally diverted funds from the bank bailout to an auto bailout.  (The bailouts would not even have been necessary if the companies had obtained regulatory relief and greater wage concessions, and may not even succeed, requiring billions more in taxpayer dollars by 2010.)

In today’s Washington Post, Allan Sloan writes about how the government has deliberately ripped off responsible people to bail out irresponsible people over the last year, by spending trillions of dollars to force down interest rates.  That has resulted in extremely low interest rates on savings accounts and bonds, while also, to a lesser extent, reducing interest rates paid by irresponsible borrowers, despite their rising default rates.

George Mason University Professor Ilya Somin explains how the Obama administration is expanding the awful policies that caused the mortgage crisis, like having taxpayers effectively underwrite risky-mortgage loans by bailing out GSEs at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Now, the administration is stepping up Federal Housing Administration subsidies for risky, junky mortgage loans that are likely to default in large numbers.

(The Obama administration doesn’t seem to have learned history’s lessons overseas, either.  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn cites as her favorite political philosopher the Chinese communist tyrant Mao Zedong. That may explain why it has sometimes pursued left-wing policies overseas.)

President Obama is also pushing for financial regulations that reinforce the worst features of the status quo.  They would increase pressure on lenders to make the risky, low-income loans that helped spawn the financial crisis.  At the same time, they would worsen the credit crunch by shutting down banking operations known as “industrial loan corporations,” that are convenient for consumers.  Earlier, Obama backed a new law that is wiping out many credit-card rewards programs and rebates, and leading to the return of annual fees on some credit cards.

Even though Obama’s proposals would lead to even more junky loans in the future, both he and Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) claim that his proposals would fight the “status quo.”  But they are part of the status quo.  Dodd is famously corrupt, having received sweetheart loans from the reckless, bankrupt subprime lender Countrywide, and having received a massive gift from a crook, Edward Downe, in the form of a luxurious “cottage” in Ireland he received in a “cut rate real estate deal” for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than fair market value.  Obama was the third biggest recipient in Congress of campaign contributions from the government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which went broke, costing taxpayers perhaps $200 billion.  (Fannie Mae was a corrupt bully that engaged in massive accounting fraud and used intimidation to fight reform.)

Banks will now be pressured to make even more risky, low-income loans. Obama has sent to Congress his proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”

Government pressure on banks to make low-income loans was a key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Yet Obama’s disturbing proposal would empower the new agency to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.  The Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

The mortgage crisis was also caused by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants (“GSEs”) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and by federal affordable-housing mandates.

But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

Worse, Obama’s plan is “largely the product of extensive conversations” with two lawmakers responsible for the corrupt status quo, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, and it expands the reach of regulations that have been used by left-wing groups to extort pay-offs from banks.

The chief financial officer of mortgage giant Freddie Mac committed suicide today in his basement. The Obama Administration forced Freddie Mac to run up billions of dollars in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, including irresponsible high-income households with modest mortgages.

Until last year, Freddie Mac was a GSE — a Government Sponsored Enterprise, an entity chartered and subsidized by the federal government, but owned by private shareholders. But the federal government seized direct control of Freddie Mac last year after it ran up big losses.

Ironically, although the government took over Freddie Mac in the name of reducing its risky mortgage practices, it ended up doing just the opposite. The government made Freddie run up even bigger losses buying risky loans in an effort to artificially stimulate lending. In conduct reminiscent of Enron, federal regulators tried to prevent Freddie from disclosing to the public and the SEC how Obama’s mortgage bailout was forcing it to lose even more money.

The Government’s politically-motivated mismanagement of Freddie Mac shows why recent proposals to effectively nationalize the banks are a bad idea. Why should we trust the Administration to turn around failing companies, when the Congressional Budget Office says that the Administration’s $800 billion stimulus package will actually shrink the economy in the long run?

Insurance giant AIG, bailed out by taxpayers for $170 billion, is using taxpayer money to pay executives in the division that brought it to the brink of collapse millions of dollars in bonuses! (AIG may have hoped its donations to liberal politicians, such as $103,100 to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) in 2008 alone, would shield it from scrutiny).

The Senate voted down an amendment by Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that would have kept federal stimulus money from hiring illegal aliens, resulting in up to 300,000 jobs being filled by illegal aliens rather than citizens.

In an unrecorded voice vote, the House of Representatives voted down a proposed amendment to keep people who lied on their loan applications from receiving federal bailout money. The vote was unrecorded so that liberal lawmakers in conservative districts (who camouflage themselves as supposedly-conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats) could hide their vote from their constituents. The stimulus package funds groups like ACORN, which helped spawn the mortgage crisis by promoting “liar loans,” and which has an extensive history of financial fraud and vote fraud.

Federal spending commitments for bailouts now exceed $8 trillion, including a “stimulus” package that the Congressional Budget Office admits will actually shrink the economy “in the long run,” and that guts the 1996 welfare reform law (contradicting Obama’s claims in his 2008 campaign ads that he supported welfare reform — even though he had fought to undermine welfare reform while in the Illinois legislature).

Law professor Ronald Rotunda, co-author of a treatise on constitutional law, doubts the constitutionality of the stimulus package’s “bypass” provisions.

Meanwhile, healthy banks that sold shares to the federal government only under pressure from the Treasury Department (which argued that they should accept federal money so that unhealthy banks also taking federal money would not thereby be stigmatized as a result) are being harassed by liberal lawmakers like Barney Frank (D-Mass.) for spending much smaller sums than AIG on deserving managers and employees, and for failing to make risky mortgage loans to people with bad credit.

Money is pouring into the Washington, DC area, as up to 250,000 new bureaucrats will be hired as a result of the explosion in federal spending (Obama has pushed through more spending in his first 60 days in office than Bush spent on the entire Iraq War, and federal deficits are at unprecedented levels, something that not even the proposed massive tax increases will fix).

(By the way, Washington, D.C. now has the highest AIDS rate in America — a rate of more than 3%, higher even than most of Africa, qualifying as a “generalized and severe epidemic.” Congress has plenary power over the District, but neglects its most basic oversight functions, resulting in a thoroughly incompetent D.C. city government).

Meanwhile, the economy faces a “litigation tax” from an explosion in lawsuits, as a result of recent changes in employment law, trial-lawyer earmarks in the stimulus package (such as HIPAA lawsuits), and a proliferation of products liability lawsuits resulting from anticipated anti-preemption bills in Congress, and the Supreme Court’s newfound reluctance (perhaps in response to liberal victories in the 2008 election) to limit runaway lawsuits in state courts.