Skip to main content

Dodd and the Monopolists


The senator from Connecticut is the best friend monopolists ever had.

Among all the piffle and patter concerning the housing crisis, it has not been sufficiently noticed that this is a “made in Washington” fiasco.

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, both teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, are quasi- governments creatures -- federal monopolies, in fact – that pushed the envelope on awarding housing loans to people who could not support them because they knew taxpayers would pick up the tab when they engaged in risky and possibly criminal lending practices that Dodd's children would scorn, if they were grown-up like their Daddy.

This is not a point one expects to be discussed at length by Connecticut senator Chris Dodd during any of his senatorial inquisitions as the banker’s banker-in-chief in Washington.

Perhaps The New Yorker could develop a suitable cartoon showing the connections between bought and paid congresspersons and infinitely stupid bankers for its next cover.

Fanny and Freddy were able to drive other responsible home lenders from the market, assuring a virtual monopoly in home lending for themselves, because no other lender was given preferment’s from wall-eyed congressmen like Dodd.

These are the same people who want to manage wars and the nation’s health insurance.

Since a tax payer’s bailout of idiot bankers appears to be a virtual certainty, why not withdraw those preferments from Fanny and Freddy in the future and open the process to real, responsible lenders?

Dodd and other pocketed senators in the legislature should think about it. The solution to a corrupt monopoly is to break up the monopoly.

Comments

Bob Swick said…
This monopoly should end up costing taxpayers at least 10 billion dollars once the mortgage debacle clears out and if this law is enacted. I guess my family will just have to pay more taxes to help support those who lived well above their means. That is why a taxpayer's strike sounds so nice right about now.
Don Pesci said…
The worst part is that nothing in the legislation will prevent the same senario. Fanny and Freddy made risky loans because the loans were underwritten by the feds. The obvious solution to the problem is to withdraw governmental security. If bankers want to write fradulent loans, let'em -- provided the individual banks absorb the debt, not me. And if that menas they go out of business, well and good; that consequence should temper their risks.

Dodd wants a bailout and paper regulations. Crap!

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...