Quote:
The Journal's recent misleading and inaccurate editorial on my relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaves out one central fact, and it does so in a very revealing fashion ("Fannie Mae's Patron Saint," Sept. 9).

At the bottom of the first column of the editorial, the Journal begins by saying that "By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform." A reader unfamiliar with the facts would have no idea that I did not simply argue in favor of reform, but presided over passage of a very tough reform bill.

When the Democrats obtained the majority in the 2006 election, and I became chair of the committee, I made a very strong reform bill one of our highest priorities and worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to break the logjam that hindered the bill in the past. As a result, the Financial Services Committee, which organized under the Democrats on Jan. 31, 2007, passed the bill restructuring the regulation of Fannie and Freddie, specifically including all the increased powers that the Bush administration requested on March 28, 2007. The full House followed, by a vote of 313 to 104 in early May. The House passed these important reforms in May 2007, only four months after we became the majority. It is true that the bill was held up for over a year by inaction in the Senate, but that is not surprising given the difficulty the Senate has moving controversial legislation on any subject.

Additionally, when we were considering the stimulus package in early 2008, I proposed to Mr. Paulson that in addition to raising the jumbo loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we include the GSE reform that the House had passed. He did not agree, fearing that it might slow things down.

In fact, my reform efforts had begun when we were still in the minority. In 2005, I joined Michael Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in supporting legislation to increase the regulation of Fannie and Freddie that passed the House by a vote of 330 to 90. When former Congressman Richard Baker proposed to examine the compensation structure of Fannie and Freddie's top executives, and some members of Congress tried to block him, I explicitly spoke out in support of his right to do that and our right, as a Congress, to examine the GSE's compensation practices.

There is another glaring distortion in the editorial, driven by the Journal's opposition to our efforts to help build affordable rental housing. The editorial laments the fact that as part of the ultimate package I received my "biggest payoff" in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. While that is true, I am struck by the Journal's absolute inability to understand that some of us think that the plight of people who do not have adequate rental housing ought to be addressed. The bizarre belief that adequate housing means home ownership and not rental housing was one of the push factors in the subprime crisis. That is apparently the basis for assuming that the only reason we would support an affordable housing program -- along with such nonpartisan groups as Catholic and Lutheran Churches, Habitat for Humanity, and Enterprise Community Partners -- was so that we could personally profit from this politically. The truth is that the way this fund will be created, members of Congress will have no say over its disbursements. To the right-wing ideologues who write the Journal's editorials, funding to build affordable residential housing is "loot." Fortunately, that is a distinctly minority opinion in the Congress and in much of the country.

I acknowledge differences between myself and the Journal as to whether or not we should be trying to build affordable rental housing and as to whether or not some public role in housing finance is worth supporting. But the Journal's assertion that support for those two entities meant opposition to reform is entirely wrong, and it is presented in one of the most dishonest pieces of journalism I have seen. The Journal's error concerning what happened when the Democrats took over the majority early in 2007 is a classic example of ideological bias. It is important to repeat that the editorial omits the key point, that it was exactly in that period that the House Financial Services Committee, that I chair, passed and helped pass through the House a bill that embodied the reforms asked for by the Bush administration, and that was the basis for Secretary Paulson's and FHFA Director James Lockhart's recent actions. Your readers deserve the whole story.

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)

Quote:
Hi Rifter,

You seem to be leading the lynch mob, can we wait to string him up till the facts are in? WSJ (Wall St Journal) was saying way back in 2002 that Fannie & Freddie were cooking the books. Why didn't the republicans do something then? Many people are to blame for this mess; were not going to improve anything by endlessly, saying such & such is more to blame. What we need to focus on, is the plan to get us out of this mess. Also I've said this before, as well as Brian  no one intentionally wanted this mess to happen & everyone thought what they were doing was for the best.

Take Care
Rico

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Why is it, that folks want to cherry pick from a post, what they will comment on? If you have a face to face conversation do you get to just ignore part of the conversation?

Rifter - I'm sure if enough evidence can be had, someone will prosecute the law breakers. Rifter your the one who's upset with Frank & Schumer, like if only Rico would open his eyes, he would see, how these people caused all the problems. Yet you expect me to do the investigation, If you have the smoking gun, then post it! Again your trying to convince people, people of something, then it's your obligation, to make the point with proof. Your proof will be more acceptable if you use diverse sources of information.

Skip - Filibuster, super majority, BS filibuster I'm confused here what does this or how did those thing cause economic crisis? Those Dems must be really powerful, even when there a minority, the republicans still can't get anything done.

If laws were broken, & sufficient proof/evidence become available, lawbreakers will be prosecuted. Until then the folks mentioned are presumed?

What happened to 'personal responsibility' in this matter? If I max. out on credit cards & can't pay who's responsible, me or the credit card company for issuing a card to me? I'm responsible you guys sound like you want to blame the credit card company. Blame blame blame. Blame does not solve the problem. Again if a law was broken, & can be proven someone will be prosecuted.

The ignored portion of my post dealt with, intentions of the parties mentioned, and solutions or focus, on how to get out of this mess.

Take Care
Rico

Quote:
What happened to 'personal responsibility' in this matter? If I max. out on credit cards & can't pay who's responsible, me or the credit card company for issuing a card to me? I'm responsible you guys sound like you want to blame the credit card company. Blame blame blame. Blame does not solve the problem. Again if a law was broken, & can be proven someone will be prosecuted

Quote:
Before you talk about these kinds of things, you really should do some research.  Using credit card companies, as your example, was a bad choice as they have been forcing people into a vicious cycle of debt for years.  You see, unlike morgage contracts, the credit card company can raise your interest rate on a whim.

Quote:
I will give you an example.  I had a credit card with a very good interest rate, 5.9%.  I used it when I took my family on vacation.  Because I didn't want to carry that much cash, I used the card...along with another one...to pay for the trip and all expenses on the trip.  When I got back from my trip I had a notice waiting for me statung that the company had raised my interest rate to 25%.

I asked them why and was told that, based on some odd formual, they determined I was a bigger credit risk.  I told her that didn't make any sense as I always payed off my card each month.  I was told that my payment history didn't matter, they could up my interest rate whenever they wanted.

Fortunately, I had money budgeted to pay for the trip so I promptly paid it and cut up the cards.  Many people are not so fortunate.  People who are able to pay down the prinicple at the initial interest rate, are simply paying for interest after the interest hike.