McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie
by  Human Events

Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below.

McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."

Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.

It was O'Bomb's idea McCain just took credit.

Of course I am kidding.

But, it is O'Bomb's style. He also warned about the mortgage crisis two years ago when it was really Hillary.

Second, just what was did this bill (S. 190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform bill) say? Without knowing that, it's impossible to know what "regulatory reform" really was. Was it regulating or de-regulating Fanny and Freddie? You could check the archives on the Thomas registry.

McCain has already admitted he doesn't know anything about economics. His signing the bill was an ignorant vote. One thing is, has he actually boasted about it and what it would have done?

That Congress was famous for its deregulating, and/or donothingness. Proposed by Frist, I doubt that it called for further insight.

What does it matter who wrote it?  In all matters relating to legislative history, it is common for one person to draft something and then get co-signers.  

Legislative action is by nature collaborative.  

It is more important to be a co-signer of something asking for action than for someone to be silent about it.

Who ever wrote it would have taken it to other people.  What is important is who joined on. (And who did not.)

Or maybe you think it was better to not express concern.

-- Modified on 10/12/2008 12:53:21 PM

There's a great difference between one who had the original insight and the one who said "me too!" That matters in and outside Congress. I'm not saying that McCain doesn't deserve credit for this-- once we determine what it really is. I'm saying it's factually wrong to say it was "his" letter. It was his name behind Frist's letter.

Do you have any other criticism? I mean the major criticism I made was that only the name of this bill has been identified here. The name may be an Orwellian inaccuracy, as many of the names of laws are. What would the bill have really have done? What is McCain being given credit for doing here?

"I'm saying it's factually wrong to say it was "his" letter. It was his name behind Frist's letter."

It is not a mistake or factually wrong. Four people sign a letter. It is all their letter.  "I got a letter from Bill and Jim yesterday." Co-signers are also senders.

In reality, very often co-signers of documents had actual input into the drafting of the document.  Of course, we don't know if that was the case or not here. But you can't assume it wasn't any more than you can assume it was. Either one is speculation.

If you sign a letter that I write and we send it to X, it is perfectly accurate for you to say "you sent a letter."  ("We" may be more exact, but the first statement would be true and correct.)

Just scroll down to page 2. Yes, there is one of those on this letter. I guess they all might have contributed 20 words each, or did a one minute round-robin on it. But Bill Frist's name is the one at that top of it.

With that in mind, are you still sticking with your contention that John McCain wrote or sent this letter? McCain has admitted he doesn't know much about economics; so now what is he doing advising the committee how Fannie and Freddie should be regulated. It would be out of character for him; he has consistently voted for less regulation and oversight. On that, he has been absolutely consistent.

And you STILL haven't answered me in finding out just what this masterwork of legislation was supposed to do anyway, and whether it was supposed to actually regulate Fannie and Freddie. If so, it would be out of character for him, the Senators who cosigned this, the entire senate, and the whole 109th Congress.

And BTW, would you have really been for MORE oversight and intervention yourself at that time? Didn't think so.

-- Modified on 10/12/2008 4:56:26 PM

-- Modified on 10/12/2008 4:57:43 PM

Nobody is saying exactly what this bill was supposed to do. I think maybe you should dig that up first rather than award John McCain with the wisdom to foresee the whole Fannie and Freddie mess, a wisdom that appears to have left him since, given his initial remarks when our financial system was first buckling.

I would have expected him to say "It's Fannie and Freddie, isn't it? I warned that pesky Democratic Minority, always having to get their way! I told  'em, I told 'em, me and Bill Frist and John Sununu all warned them Fannie and Freddie needed more regulation and oversight, but they didn't listen!"

Another important thing you might look into: did this bill actually pass?



-- Modified on 10/12/2008 5:32:41 PM

the Republicans for not trying harder (see link). They had control of the Senate and the House at the time. Not filibuster proof control and the Dems were shouting claims of racism (remember the affirmative action claims?). Raines WAS forced out of FM though.

-- Modified on 10/12/2008 7:45:10 PM