Illegal Contrabutions From Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae…

Sep
16 admin

Illegal Contributions From Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae…

Who are top “earners” of campaign contributions from the Federally Created Lending institutions. I submit that any Federally Created entity cannot lawfully give one thin dime to politicians - but despite that lets take a look at how much and how fast these illegal contributions have been going to the politicians from institutions that were created ostensibly for creating and managing housing loans for Americans (data from OpenSecrets.com here).

(by the way, the table does not show up properly on the combined view of the blog, so select the name and look at the post individually to see the entire table)

Here are the top four:

Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500

Wow, the top three are Democrats (real surprise there), but the real interesting thing to note is that Barack Obama, who has only been a senator for 3 short years, has almost caught up to Christopher Dodd - who has been at this racket for 34 years… Soooo… This makes one wonder how Mr. Obama has achieved this unprecedented level of illegal contributions from these illegally created quasi governmental organizations.

It’s simple really, these are corrupt organizations controlled by corrupt politicians.

To put his into perspective, Chris Dodd has made $4864.71 per year on average from these bogus companies. But B. Obama has made $42116.33 per year! almost ten times the rate as Mr. Dodd.

Notice the John McCain is 62nd on the list… and he has been a politician for 16 years (so he only made $1346.88 per year).

McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550

So what can we gather from the fact that our government created these two monumental failures - which the constitution does not give them the right to create and wich can never work because free market capitalist principles are not at work within these behmoths of governmental inefficiency?

We can gather that those politicians who operate with corrupt principles will prosper from such corrupt organizations - and it is the corrupt philosphy of liberalism that lead to this current state.

not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.