CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Sept. 21, 2008 – 9:12 a.m.
Fact-Checking McCain and Obama’s Economic “Early Warnings” Claims
By Adriel Bettelheim, CQ Staff
from Politifact.com
The economic crisis has surged to the forefront of the presidential campaign, and both presidential candidates have claimed credit for early warnings and actions. We examine both men’s records and find that they each stretch the truth.
Obama
With global financial markets shaken by the credit crisis, Barack Obama is promoting his ability to devise solutions for a troubled economy. In a Sept. 16 speech in Golden, Colo., Obama took credit for inspiring the economic stimulus package that Congress enacted and President Bush signed in February, saying its components had roots in an economic plan he outlined a month earlier on the campaign trail.
“In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress,” Obama said. He went on to criticize his GOP opponent, John McCain , for promoting corporate tax breaks at the same time.
The stimulus package was Congress’ attempt to promote consumer spending and revive the flagging economy through a combination of tax rebates, business tax incentives and housing provisions worth a total of $124.5-billion through the end of fiscal 2018. Despite most lawmakers’ initial optimism, recent signs are it hasn’t achieved its intended effect; August housing starts hit a 17-year low and credit rating agencies are forecasting weak holiday sales this winter.
But can Obama really take credit for having “formed the basis” of the plan? He did articulate some policy proposals that found their way into the package, but he was far from the only politician promoting ways to prime the economy. And in many cases, he was endorsing ideas that already had been raised by others.
The economic stimulus plan began life on Jan. 11, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev. sent President Bush a letter asking him to help hammer out a bipartisan package to shore up the economy. By enlisting White House involvement, Pelosi and Reid hoped to pre-empt a possible avalanche of competing proposals to address the nation’s economic problems. Bush endorsed the idea on Jan. 17, and the next day delivered an economic address calling for tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for businesses to deliver “a shot in the arm” to the faltering economy.
Obama announced his plan in a news release on Jan. 13. The backbone of Obama’s plan was tax relief for working-class Americans and senior citizens. He called for an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and a $250 bonus for seniors, to be delivered in their Social Security checks. He advocated further cuts if the economy continued to worsen. And he backed expanding unemployment insurance and providing relief to homeowners hit by the housing crisis.
Congress decided to go much further on the question of rebates. The final package incorporated a House-written stimulus plan that directed $600 payments to individuals who paid taxes in 2007 on wages or investment income, and $1,200 for couples. The payments would phase out beginning with individuals who made more than $75,000 in adjusted gross income and couples with more than $150,000. But anyone qualifying for a check would receive an additional $300 for each dependent child under age 17.
It should be noted that the practice of providing tax breaks in tough times is not exactly new, meaning no one in the current Congress can claim credit for thinking up the idea. President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, for example, sent rebates of $300 for individuals and $600 for married couples filing jointly in the hopes of stimulating the economy, though the payments in that instance were called “advance refunds.”
Obama’s call for expanded unemployment insurance never made it into the stimulus package, though Democratic leaders included an extension of the program in a supplemental war spending bill that Congress cleared in June. The provision, which gained traction after the nation’s jobless rate recorded its biggest jump in 20 years, extended unemployment insurance in all states by 13 weeks beyond the 26 weeks already authorized under law. States with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher got an additional 13 weeks. So while Obama might have broached the idea, it took dire news from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to prod Congress into taking action.
Obama’s somewhat vague call for relief to distressed homeowners also was not included in the stimulus package. However, similar, more detailed plans had floated around Congress for nearly a year, as the depth and intensity of the mortgage crisis became apparent. Lawmakers including Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut — a former Democratic presidential candidate — and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank , D-Mass., discussed ways of averting more foreclosures as early as March 2007, including creating public-private “rescue funds” that ease the way for borrowers to rewrite the terms of their mortgages.
Fact-Checking McCain and Obama’s Economic “Early Warnings” Claims
These discussions eventually led to provisions in a mortgage relief bill that Congress enacted and President Bush signed on July 30 that established a temporary government program to help borrowers who can’t afford current mortgage payments avoid foreclosure. The program, called HOPE for Homeowners, reinsures mortgages between Oct. 1, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2011, thereby making the government liable if the borrower defaults on the new loan and if the amount received in foreclosure is less than the outstanding principal. The costs of the program will be paid for by funds diverted from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As to Obama’s claim that his economic plan “formed the basis” for the package that became law, we see lots to dispute that. Congress had its own ideas about the size of tax rebates to individuals and didn’t adopt Obama’s ideas about unemployment insurance or homeowner relief. What’s more, lawmakers on committees with jurisdiction over the housing market discussed more detailed plans for helping homeowners months before Obama articulated them.
Obama clearly deserves credit for offering a plan to bolster the sagging economy before Congress acted. But he is exaggerating the role his plan played in the stimulus package, which was jointly constructed with congressional leaders and the White House. For these reasons, we judge his claim Barely True.
McCain
The turmoil on Wall Street is prompting the presidential candidates to offer prescriptions for restoring order to U.S. financial markets. John McCain is using the opportunity to remind voters that he called on Congress to crack down on government-chartered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Appearing on CNN’s American Morning on Sept. 16, 2008, McCain sought to blame much of the crisis on Wall Street greed and inept or corrupt government regulators. “Ask any American citizen who has been the victim of a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy,” McCain said. “I said two years ago that the Fannie and Freddie thing was a very serious problem and we had to work on it. And I have always opposed greed of Wall Street and I know how we can fix this.”
McCain echoed his remarks later in the day during a speech in Tampa, saying, “Two years ago, I warned the administration and the Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed to be fixed. It turns out, the problem was even bigger. They waited too long, and now we have a housing crisis, three bailouts with taxpayers’ money, and a financial crisis.”
In both appearances, McCain was referring to his 2006 decision to sign on to a Republican-led regulatory overhaul of the mortgage-financing firms, which both went through multibillion-dollar accounting scandals earlier in the decade. The occasion that prompted McCain’s involvement was the release of a 340-page report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight that concluded that Fannie Mae had manipulated earnings and violated basic accounting principles. It describes an “arrogant and unethical corporate culture” in which executives were more concerned about their bonuses than meeting the company’s housing mission.
The findings, based on a 27-month investigation and resulting in a $400-million fine paid to the government, prompted McCain to join other critics and call for more scrutiny of Fannie and its sibling, Freddie Mac. “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,” McCain declared in a May 26, 2006, news release.
So it’s true that McCain spoke out — after a widely read report drew attention to chicanery at the firms. But the implication in McCain’s remarks is that his remarks in 2006 were in some way a warning about the financial markets disaster that struck in 2008. That strikes us as quite a stretch.
First of all, congressional efforts to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extend back to the early 1990s, making McCain a latecomer to the debate. The regulatory efforts proved unsuccessful because of Congress’ complicated relationship with the firms, whose dominance in the home financing market makes their stability critical to the economy.
Fannie and Freddie are government-sponsored enterprises — a type of private corporation created by Congress for an explicit purpose; in this case, to lower the cost of capital in the housing market. Though critics have long maintained that the firms were too large and didn’t have enough capital to guard against risk, many lawmakers worried that stricter regulation would interfere with the firms’ role in the housing market. (The now-defunct Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, known as OFHEO, oversaw Fannie and Freddie but had limited regulatory authority.)
In his appearances, McCain tries to connect the accounting scandals with the broader meltdown in the mortgage markets. But the current crisis arose because banks and mortgage companies made risky “subprime” loans to people with poor credit histories that were then packaged into securities and sold to institutional investors. As interest rates rose and home prices began to fall, homeowners unable to refinance the loans or sell their properties began to default, unleashing a cascade effect through financial markets. That phenomenon had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie’s internal problems; in fact, both firms were praised for cushioning the financial free fall and keeping the market afloat by spending billions of dollars to purchase subprime loans.
Fact-Checking McCain and Obama’s Economic “Early Warnings” Claims
Even if the 2006 effort to strengthen oversight had succeeded, it’s debatable whether it would have averted the subprime crisis. The extent of the problems was not yet fully known, and it’s a leap of faith to suggest that regulators granted expanded power would have noticed a deterioration in Fannie and Freddie’s loan portfolios soon enough and would have sounded an alarm. Shaken by the extent of the subprime crisis, Congress and the Bush administration earlier this year completed a regulatory overhaul by combining OFHEO and the Federal Housing Finance Board into a new regulatory body, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Last weekend, the government took the additional step of placing the two firms into conservatorship — essentially a government takeover in which Treasury will extend up to $200-billion of support to the companies.
Barack Obama ’s campaign responded to McCain’s remarks by labeling his desire for tougher oversight a myth. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor noted that McCain in 1992 voted against imposing stricter controls on Fannie and Freddie during Senate debate on a broader housing bill, and this year argued against providing big government bailouts in response to the crisis, whether for big lenders or homeowners.
We give McCain some credit for weighing in on problems surrounding Fannie Mae, even though he got involved after a comprehensive government report issued a loud alarm to anyone watching. However, his attempts to depict those efforts as some sort of early warning that could have lessened the current credit crisis just don’t wash. All McCain was talking about then was the potential fallout of accounting troubles in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He didn’t say anything about a freewheeling climate among creditors that had major financial institutions becoming badly leveraged on bad loans. We rule his claim Barely True.




Comments
This isn't fact checking. It is pro-Democrat partisan spin. I don't see how you get from Senator McCain's warning - "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," McCain declared in a May 26, 2006, news release. - to the statement that McCain was pointing only to cooked books. But, because you have to find some way do say Senator McCain is as guilty as Senator Obama, that is the best you have. Outrageous lies from the left and their handmaidens in the press, which now apparently includes CQ.
This financial disaster is the result of a Clinton administration failed social experiment in which the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) known as Fannie and Freddie committed $1 trillion in '94 and $2 trillion in 2000 to the secondary home loan market. This "American Dream Commitment" (as it was called) emphasized the purchase by the GSEs of loans that lenders had written to minorities, women headed household and other who had been "left behind" in the economic boom times of the late 90s. And that $3 trillion didn't just alter the secondary loan market, it became the market. Lenders knew they could sell their paper to the GSEs at a nice profit if the loans went to folks on the margins or beyond... folks with bad credit, no down, no income verfication, etc. Go to the "internet archive" and search the fanniemae.com website ipages from 2000 and you will find the long since scrubbed from their site info about this outraegeous program that is the direct cause of this horrible mess. Google "Bush proposes new agency NYtimes" to see what happened when Bush tried to reign in the GSEs way back in 2003: The dems howled that there was no problem and that Bush just wanted to make it harder for the poor to obtain housing. That's just a start for anyone who wants to know how this happened, there is la lot more out there. Bottom line: McCain tried to stop the runaway train while Obama hoped onboard and took $123,000 from Fannie, the second most of any congressman. I voted for Clinton twice but I will never vote for a democrat again. Not ever.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: