• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom

    The Obama administration’s game plan for passing their financial regulatory reform plan is clear: ignore the details of their bill, demonize Wall Street, and cast conservatives as the pawns of big bankers. But as Politico reports today, there’s a complication in their battle plan: “The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit.”

    Politico should be commended for acknowledging the left’s cozy ties with corporate America, but then they go on to write: “Some Democrats acknowledge that the legislation — and the harsh anti-Wall Street rhetoric — could cost them campaign contributions from the financial services sector in what is already shaping up to be a tough election year.” This is just flat wrong. As evidence and logic clearly demonstrate, the left’s harsh anti-business rhetoric and glee for expansive regulation is a boon to their campaign coffers. As USA Today reports, Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, and according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, 69% of the firm’s contributions went to Democrats while 31% went to Republicans.

    In fact, Goldman is not opposed to Obama’s Wall Street Bailout Bill at all. As a Goldman official told Politico Monday:  “We’re not against regulation. We’re for regulation. We partner with regulators.” This echoes reporting done by The Huffington Post on loopholes in the banking bill. HuffPo was told by a financial services lobbyist: “Obtaining a carve-out isn’t rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd (D-CT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) a ****load of money.” And loads of money is what Wall Street has been giving to the authors of the Wall Street Bailout Bill. The Wall Street banker at the center of Goldman’s SEC fraud complaint recently solicited money from his banker friends for Sen. Schumer describing him as “one of the few members of Congress that has consistently supported the hedge fund industry.”

    Sens. Dodd and Schumer are not the only ones colluding with bankers to profit from American taxpayers. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) scored $37,000 from a January fundraiser that included Goldman executives. And The Washington Examiner has detailed that not only did President Barack Obama receive seven times as much money from Goldman employees as President Bush did from Enron employees, but then-candidate Obama’s $950,000 2008 total from Goldman executives and employees is the most a politician has raised from a single company since campaign finance reform. It’s also more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House.

    There is a term for the Obama administration’s practice of using their government power to play favorites in the private sector: crony capitalism. Former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Gerald O’Driscoll writes in The Wall Street Journal:

    The federal government controls 90% of housing finance. Policies to encourage home ownership remain on the books, and more have been added. Fed policies of low interest rates result in capital being misallocated across time. Low interest rates particularly impact housing because a home is a pre-eminent long-lived asset whose value is enhanced by low interest rates.

    Distorted prices and interest rates no longer serve as accurate indicators of the relative importance of goods. Crony capitalism ensures the special access of protected firms and industries to capital. Businesses that stumble in the process of doing what is politically favored are bailed out. That leads to moral hazard and more bailouts in the future. And those losing money may be enabled to hide it by accounting chicanery.

    It is because of these crony capitalist policies that the United States has dropped out of the exclusive club of free economies and was graded “mostly free” for the first time in the Index of Economic Freedom‘s 16-year history. As Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis Director Bill Beach explains, this has a real impact on the lives of Americans:

    While the U.S. economy undoubtedly is righting itself from the most severe recession since the 1930s, it is doing so at a glacial pace. Clearly, the burden of public policies that reduce the free use of personal property and retard the unsubsidized risk taking of entrepreneurs are lengthening the recovery process. The real cost of this sluggishness are the millions of unemployed Americans who continue to wait for the return of economic spring and the millions more who hope for a better economic times. The real source of this human cost – the real driver of persistent economic want – is the erosion of our economic freedom caused by these government policies.

    Quick Hits:

    • Suspecting politics in Goldman Sachs charges, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to the SEC asking for any information showing coordination between regulators, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.
    • Noting that “while global CO2 emissions have continued to swell, the global temperature rise has leveled off,” Time asks, “Global Warming: Why Aren’t Temperatures Even Higher?”
    • Time also reports that thanks to high taxes, the number of U.S. citizens living abroad who renounced their citizenship last year more than doubled.
    • Unsatisfied with the extent Obamacare has already taken over the health care sector, Congressional Democrats have begun pushing legislation giving government regulators greater authority to set insurance prices.
    • Lockheed Martin Corp. said its first-quarter earnings fell 18 percent after it was hit by a big charge due to Obamacare.
    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    40 Responses to Morning Bell: The Crony Capitalist Threat to Our Economic Freedom

    1. Jerry Porter, Freder says:

      Here, here! HF. Your work is not only timely but very, very perceptive. One of my few thrills remaining in my limited years here on Terra Firma is reading THE FOUNDRY's Morning Bell. Bravo to your brilliant staff of researchers and writers. Bravo, bravo!

      Jerry Porter

    2. David Barth, CFA, Ju says:

      Crony Capitalism is an enemy of Free Enterprise. I don't even like the term Capitalism, a favorite perjorative of Karl Marx, as it connotes capital of free enterprise competition and oligarchism which often flows from fraudulent us of capital.

      Time to get off the Capitalism Wagon and onto Free Competitive Enterprise rewarding productivity and not pedigree. I have done so decades ago after first working on Wall Street and experienced merit was of little importance gouging the pension funds and clients for fees was all that counts except for those Statists in the Executive Wing who produced nothing but consumed everything to destruction.

      See China's Capitalism and Goldman Sachs to prove my point.

    3. Richard Cancemi, Arl says:

      A prostitute is one who sells one's self for money and then does whatever the payer wants.

      Does that mean that the politicians in Washington DC belong to the biggest whorehouse in the country?

    4. Gerald Poe, Los Ange says:

      How about conservatives; fiscal, and constitutional, get out the truth on just who has the money, how much, where it comes from. Who loses and who gains with this plan-type. Clarity is the cornerstone of purpose.

      Getting everyone to just take their own beliefs in their gut will get them past the smoke and mirrors game.

      Demonizing one for another is a game of pawns in which the pawns think they are kings. They can't tell the difference because their whole life has been one of entitlements, at the expense of some mysterious bad guys, to which they believe they are doing the world a favor taking the "gifts". Make sure everyone knows that these plans are not about money. It is a battle for control over our country's destiny and ultimately sacking anything and anyone in their path to get there.

    5. Gary Adler says:

      Mr. Issa is a Republican, of course, but The Morning Bell has a "D" before his name.

      QUICK HITS

      Suspecting politics in Goldman Sachs charges, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (D-CA) sent a letter to the SEC asking for any information showing coordination between regulators, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

    6. Gary Adler, Los Ange says:

      Mr. Issa is a Republican, of course, but The Morning Bell has a “D” before his name.

      QUICK HITS

      Suspecting politics in Goldman Sachs charges, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (D-CA) sent a letter to the SEC asking for any information showing coordination between regulators, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

    7. Tony Donadio (New Je says:

      Great column. One correction, though (on the "quick hits") — Issa is a Republican, not a Democrat.

    8. MJF, CT says:

      The reality is most of Wall St are registered Democrats! The reality is Dodd, Frank, Schumer and most of the Democrat boobs have proposed, no demanded that loans be given to people who had no way of being able to pay the loans back. The reality is no one listened to Conservatives when we said that blowing out the lending and loaning rules and expecting thousands of people to flip their properties at once was bad business. the reality is —————– where we are right now!!

    9. Scott Boise ID says:

      Great article. Is perhaps the term "crony capitalism", though accurate, a weakness in attempting to win the argument? Crony capitalism is really more "corporatism" than capitalism – which implies free markets and the like. The average citizen may be misled into thinking that crony capitalism is synonymous with capitalism – and thus conclude that all capitalism is bad. And thus play into the Obama/progressive strategy of demonizing markets and the free economy. Should the recent trends towards corporatism be made distinct from market driven capitalism – if for nothing else than to help those of us who believe in liberty, to win the war of words?

    10. David, Grand Rapids, says:

      It's called Capture Theory.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

      Big government benefits big business. The only way to reduce/stop it is to cut/slash government.

      Over $100 Trillion is exchanged every year. It would take an infinitely larger amount of money/power (i.e. God) to ensure that all of these exchanges are done fairly. Very simple rules are all that is required to ensure a level playing ground, but those rules have existed for a long time.

      This ridiculous idea that government can prevent people in business from doing "wrong" is being used as an excuse to line the pockets of big business people and politicians who are in bed with them.

    11. Rhonda says:

      The greasy hands of politicians and lobbyists make me want to hurl. People tell me that's just how politics works, but should it? When are Americans going to demand more virtue, transparency, honesty, accountability, etc out of DC? Or are we just stuck with this corrupt, wink wink nod nod kind of crap forever?

    12. Rick says:

      Richard Cancemi – You are giving the 'oldest profession' a black eye when you compare them to Congressmen.

    13. Russ Errett Sebring says:

      ?The competitive enterprise system is like any other competitive system such as baseball, football, basketball, etc. which has written rules and regulations and penalties when rules are broken. What are the rules and penalties "are there any written" of the competitive enterprise system.

      When a company becomes non competitive, is a tax payer bailout a penalty, When housing is over priced, is tax payers subsidised housing a penalty.

      The commerce clause, the welfare clause and the taking clause have been manipulated so much that we are so far in debt we are near bankruptcy.

      Not Yours To Give – Colonel Davy Crockett
      http://www.juntosociety.com/ patriotism/ inytg.html

    14. Bob Andersen, St. Ge says:

      The greed and corruption is destroying our country. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, although it goes far beyond them. We must first get on bended knee and return to putting God first, followed by family, then our country. Then, we will heal and restore the best system the world has ever created for producing wealth and happiness.

    15. R.M. Allen, Huntsvil says:

      Lordy! This is nothing! What about General Electric and CEO Jeff Immelt?

      What you call cronyism is turning into economic fascism through unconstitutional law, regulation, but with huge payoffs for cooperation. General Electric and the Obama Administration are now one and the same.

      Just an example of the rock that hasn't really been looked under:
      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas

    16. Blair, Franconia, NH says:

      Greece got into trouble when its public sector unions went on strike for better pay.

      Will we be the next Greece? The deficit is thirteen trillion. Add another ten trillion to

      it and it will be twenty-three trillion. Within ten years, it'lll eat up 40% of our income.

      We have three choices: Cut taxes, raise taxes, or cut government spending. Why can't we do both? Why can't we cut taxes and cut government spending for everything except Social Security, Medicare, and defense? The Preamble to the Constitution says in part: "Provide for the Common Defense, support the General Welfare——" The first thing we should do is put more money into the Social Security

      and Medicare. Now how could we do that? How about this for a solution? Scrap Congress' Rolls-Royce health care plan and have members of Congress, and yes, even the President, Vice President, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Court, pay into Social Security and Medicare just like the rest of us.

    17. Bob Andersen, St. Ge says:

      We must return to God and to a real capitalistic system. One without the other will not work! However, free markets are the best at keeping most honest.

    18. Norbert Stager says:

      It looks like some in the news media can't help themselves. The Dems are giving them such juicy stories they can't hold back any more. Unleash the hounds upon the game. We in the conservative movement have been yelling about the progressives and their corrupt practices for months and years.

    19. Dave, Provo, UT says:

      When they include Fanny May, Freddy Mac, the Federal Reserve and FHA in the bill it might be worth looking at. Until they do the bill will be just half a jack ass attempt to con us again.

    20. Pingback: Michelle Malkin » All the president’s Goldman Sachs men

    21. bigdave, Ocala says:

      Why don't we just look to the dumbass Michael Moore? He HATES conservatives and CAPITALISM! Of course capitalism made him rich beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Isn't this the LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE way? Make a movie about Capitalism/conservatives and just LIE, SPIN and generally just make stuff up to appeal to the FEELINGS of braindead liberals,AND MAKE A FREAKING FORTUNE OFF THE MORONS?! JUST LIKE THE REST OF THESE HOLLYWOOD CLOWNS! RICH and trying to shove SOCIALISM(OBama style!) down our collective throats! These people are HIGHLY paid to PRODUCE NOTHING!!! OK Mr Moore and you Hollywood types, if your REAL CONCERN is for THE PEOPLE, then START WORKING FOR FREE so "the people" can afford to see your stupid movies! Then you will make PEANUTS and demand CAPITALISM so you can afford a decent house! This includes the IDIOT SPRINGSTEEN! How 'bout some FREE CONCERTS FOR THE PEOPLE you clueless rat! You get wealthy off capitalism then promote a MORON like OBAMA ?! You should get on your knees and PRAY FOR ANOTHER RONALD REAGAN!!! No offense meant to Mr O. Its not his fault clueless morons voted for him.

    22. Tom, NJ says:

      Three words for every progressive including our president. Traitors! Frauds! and Liars!

    23. Al Alfonso says:

      Very interesting, especially when considering the contributions to Dirty Harry and Obama. Do as I say and not as I do…the hypocracy is overwhelming. What happened to reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    24. Matt Erkert, The Lan says:

      Wasn't it President Adams that said, "…one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." ? I don't know if this quote is attributed to the original author, but it makes sense to me. Wasn't our Lord persecuted by teachers of the law? Maybe we should pass a bill refusing to allow anyone with a law degree to be elected to congress? Oh, wait, how could we possibly get that bill passed, because that little, insignificant, PAC called…what was their name again, was it the Trial Lawyers Association, might possibly lobby against passage.

      Never mind, Rosann Rodannadanna

    25. Billie says:

      David Barh is right. "Free Enterprise" is a much more adequate definition and advertising of "FREEdom." The term "free" should be used everywhere appropriate, especially regarding the "free market," "free economy," etc, as understanding of the word will set into the open minds of free thinkers.

    26. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Let's face it, big daddy government is growing ever bigger. Might as well scrap the U.S. Constitution's limited powers and its commerce clause addressing appropriate taxation for same. We're so far off track from our founder's design that it's doubtfull will ever find our way back. I'm usually an optimist but have to admit the congressiona democrats and president have negatively "CHANGED" my perception and given me zero "HOPE".

    27. Pingback: BlueRidgeForum » All Center-Right Voices: Help Stop Obama-Dodd “Reforms”

    28. Bruce Ogden, Provo, says:

      Beginning in the Clinton years, and extended through the new millennium by the Democrats (like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank), financial institutions were “encouraged” by the federal government and “extorted” by organizations like ACORN (and their lawyers like Barack Obama) to provide “subprime” mortgages to individuals of high credit risk, so that low-income people that ordinarily wouldn’t qualify to buy a home, could now become homeowners. The federal government guaranteed these subprime mortgages, largely through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that this Democrat-driven “social justice” might be achieved.

      Smaller financial institutions made the initial home loans, and then sold packages of these loans to larger institutions like Fannie and Freddie. Wall Street firms purchased some of these larger loan packages and converted them to derivatives, which were sold to investors. Ordinarily, such high-risk loans and financial devices would not be made or bought in any form by anyone. However, all along the way from the initial lender to the derivatives, the financial devices WERE sold because they were considered “low-risk”: ultimately, these devices were all guaranteed, in full, by the federal government.

      Predictably, low-income, subprime mortgagees began to default on their loans and the supply of homes for sale rose dramatically, leading to deflation of home values, which led to further defaults on mortgages and further declines in home values. This cascade of defaults led to insolvency of many banks and insurance institutions, Fannie and Freddie, and the Wall Street firms, which were all bailed-out by Uncle Sam using taxpayer money/deficit spending.

      The reason financial institutions took on high-risk mortgages was two-fold: They were goaded into doing so by the federal government, and the high-risk mortgages were backed by the federal government. If we cease to require banks to make subprime loans, and cease to guarantee subprime mortgages and derivatives, these institutions will stop doing these high-risk financial devices. Getting the federal government out of the financial and mortgage business will make these financial institutions susceptible to market forces. These businesses will no longer take excessive risk when they know the federal government will not be there to bail them out. As such, regulation to force businesses to avoid excess risk is not needed.

      Proposed financial reform legislation would needlessly create a new federal bureaucracy, assure financial institutions that they will be bailed-out if they take excessive risk, allow for federal takeover of financial institutions at the will of the Administration, and arbitrarily limit low-risk Wall Street derivatives. In addition, reform proposals do not include two of the major offenders, Fannie and Freddie, or many other banks. These proposed elements of reform must not be made into law as they serve to grow the size and scope of government, moving us further toward a European-style socialism, while stifling U.S. investment and economic growth. Any steps towards positive financial reform should avoid these negative elements and should include Fannie and Freddie and other banks as well.

    29. Mike, Chicago says:

      Darn right we need less crony capitalism, just like we had during the Bush regime when we got rid of so many of those pesky regulations that just hampered the relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar.

    30. toledofan says:

      Great article; it is just amazing that these guys think nobody's watching and that nobody cares about what the Chicago Machine is doing in Washington. We don't need any more government departments; we need the people who are supposed to be the watch dogs doing their jobs; where was the SEC, Federal Reserve, the Banking Committee or whatever other agencies are supposed to monitor this? Everytime government fails, we have to add another department or agency. I guess that would be ok, if the poeople who screwed things up were'nt the ones in charge or the ones that didn't do their jobs in the first place. Who's watching Fannie and Freddie, we sure hope it isn't Dodd and Franks?

    31. Sue From Detroit says:

      Washington is nothing but a mafia city. They are all evil. I hope God gets them for that.

    32. Drew Page, IL says:

      We need to be a little careful here. I'm a conservative and generally in synch with the majority of opinions expressed here. But in this instance, I think we need to tread carefully. Part of the reason we are in our financial mess we findourselves is due to poor regulation on the part of the SEC and poor regulation on the part of state Departments of INsurance and on the part of federal banking regulators. Trying to convince the American public otherwise is folly and will lead them to believe that conservatives want there to be no regulation of Wall Street, the banks and insurance companies.

      Where were the federal banking regulators when Freedie and Fannie were buying up unsecured mortgages? where were they when banks were being given quotas on the number of mortgage loans they must make to those who obviously didn't have a chance on repaying those loans? Where was the SEC when Wall Street brokerage houses bundeled up these toxic loans and marketed them as "mortgaged backed securities" to mutual funds and other financial institutions? Where was the New York Department of Insurance and their regulators when AIG decided to insure the toxic mortgages and :mortgage backed "securities", without having the necessary reserves on hand to cover such losses?

      Asleep at the wheel, that's where they all were. Anyone who fights against government regulation of financial institutions is fighting a losing battle. Here is where bipartisanship is necessary, by working with Democrats on this, Republicans can obtain some concessions to parts of the legislation they disagree with, without standing against the entire bill.

    33. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Bruce of Provo, UT said it right. Removing federal intervention from the fiscal mix of private markets is what's critical to stabilizing and bringing back the U.S. Economy. Let the individual states oversee such domestic matters as is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s hard fought for tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights. .

    34. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » RINGO STARR: “Everything government touches turns to crap.” UPDATE: Related: The Crony Capital…

    35. Mike, Michigan says:

      What a society we live in. The bitter irony is that the observations made in this piece and throughout the conversations in response could just as easily have come from a host of progressive/left-leaning commentators (how many times I have seen a similar headline accompanying a piece on HuffPost I cannot even count) and do not fall far from the general musings of Michael Moore's "Capitalism – A Love Story" (albeit where to proceed once the corporatist structure of the federal government is dismantled would provoke a resounding disagreement from most pro-free enterprise individuals). Yet I refrain from fingerpointing at either Rs or Ds, no matter how reprehensible their actions may be/have been. Haven't "We the People" largely let them get away with it? I'm tired of all the sudden outrage since President Obama was elected. While I concede he and President Bush have (perhaps unintentionally) done more to expose the fraud the two-party system in the context of the current political climate has become and as a result caused mass outrage among the populace, this sham has been going on for decades.

      American prosperity and wealth has been the ultimate blessing and curse. Over the last half-century most of us have gotten a little more fat and happy which has led to a well over-exaggerated sense of entitlement and worth beginning with the Boomers and carrying on unfettered through the Millenials. Yes, we now live in a culture where children get "thanks for participating" or fifth-place trophies, everyone gets into some college no matter their credentials, high schools give out 4.2s, etc. I now see a lot of Boomers/Gen Xers, the parents of these "special individuals," wondering why their mortgages aren't worth the paper they're printed on, their credit cards cannot be paid off and they are now stuck working more for less longer into their lives often without the same guarantees of pensions and savings accounts, as their parents may have had.

      I certainly understand why people are flaming mad but maybe a look in the mirror is in order. Our society and in particular our government officials have operated on the policy of you can have whatever you want, whenever you want without consequence. Taxes can be lowered while fighting multiple wars, SS/medicare can be funded indefinitely, pork projects signed off without question because frankly, all legislators and direct recipient constituents love them. Could you imagine if a president in today's day in age came out and said, "Look, this war will require a tax increase to pay for it, the restructuring of private factories to produce products that will go directly to the war effort and rationing of food/goods among American families"? Yet few would doubt WWII was not worth it or was an impediment to one's freedom (save interned Japanese-Americans). Today, however, I suspect such a leader would be called nothing short of tyrannical for advocating such personal sacrifice and restraint for the greater cause of our country.

      I would love to gut much of the waste in government as much as anyone but when I look objectively at history, no president no matter which ideology ever seems to do this. Even President Reagan, the hallmark of modern conservatism, raised taxes at times, did little to curb SS/Medicare even though his harsh rhetoric derided such entitlements as "socialism" and he frankly never really dismantled union power or forced "Welfare Queens" to actually get jobs. He was surely conservative, but his reining in of big government was much more incremental and not nearly on the scale he may have initially promised. He did, after all, preside over (at the time) record deficits (that sounds familiar, huh?). Ironically, major entitlement reform and elimination of the deficit would be overseen by a democratic president, President Clinton.

      This is not to say democrats = smart with money, republicans = bad with money or vice versa. I'll actually give credit where it's due to President Bush 43 for trying to take SS/Medicare in large part out of the public sector. Yet this produced a huge backlash from the entitlement-hungry populace across ideological lines and helped turn a solid republican majority into an exactly opposite democratic majority (if not even larger) just two short years after Karl Rove confidently proclaimed an ushering in of a permanent republican majority.

      President Obama is spending like a drunken sailor, no question. Yet aside from spending maybe in different arenas (healthcare, stimulus) I do not see how he has made a marked shift from some fantasy-land where fiscal responsibility once reigned proudly until January 20, 2009 and now is under full-scale assault. And considering one of the three biggest complaints coming from republicans during the recent healthcare debate was "Obama's going to cut medicare and kill grandma" I have very little confidence that if they "take back" Congress this fall that fiscal responsibility will return in any meaningful sense. Lastly, let's be honest – President Obama might be a shill for Goldman Sachs/Wall Street, but Sen. Minority Leader McConnell was the one recently meeting with Wall Street leaders in an effort to get them to donate more money to republicans for the upcoming election cycle.

      Interesting times we live in, indeed.

    36. Pingback: CRONY CAPITALISM « Muddy Ruminations

    37. FMD, Missouri City, says:

      Bruce of Provo, it didn't start with Clinton. You need to go a few years back, to our formerly worst-ever president (O is a shoe-in to take the trophey) and look at Jimmy Carter and Affirmative Action. Clinton merely upped the ante, then repealed Glass-Steagall to complete the coup-de-gras.

      Bush surely added fuel to the fire, for he pushed just as hard for sub-prime mortgage lending. Although, in a "too little, too late" move, Bush made several attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie.

      Of course his efforts were obstructed by clean, wholesome Democrats, especially Frank and Dodd. Then Raines made off with around $93 million in bonuses, then bailed right before the feces hit the air-circulation device.

      Financial "reform" now depends on Obama's efforts to follow his game plan: create a scapegoat (Wall Street) responsible for our problems, paint any opposition as co-conspirators, and rush to pass as much legislation as possible before the midterm elections.

    38. Pingback: Token Conservative · Daily Briefing 04/23/10

    39. Zack says:

      Less then 15% of the entire housing market share was under CRA or any other government regulation from 1998-2008. Federal deposit insurance company reports have already released the numbers over 3 years ago. Why does it take that one statment to destroy every single conservative talking point on this blog?

      You guys should stop the (copy and paste) tactic from conservative articles and do some personal research. This battle was lost by republicans/conservatives already. You blame Clinton and worse, Carter? Can any of you produce numerical evidence….ever, just one of you?

      So 85% of the housing market that the government NEVER touched is somehow not to blame? This dead argument by republicans/conservatives is like trying to convince people that the earth is still flat. Pick another battle. 12 years of republican/conservative congressional control, 8 years of republican/conservative executive power, 12 years of republican/conservative banking and finance committee chairs and 12 years of republican/conservative treasury secretary's- not a single piece of legislation for regulation and or regulatory reform and you blame Barney Frank for one quote?

      And what's with this "Acorn" blame. How the heck did that get thrown in the mix? When did cra or government regulation stop checking credit, debt to income ratio, etc.? I thought this issue was resolved long ago but I forget i'm dealing with legislative and economic ignorance.

      Seriously, what are you guys doing?

    40. Pingback: Selected Blogs and Headlines | UNCOVERAGE.net

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×