"Bush Appointing The Next President's Treasury Secretary?"

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said President George W. Bush should consider nominating his successor's Treasury secretary to facilitate a ``seamless transition'' during the financial crisis.

Dodd said the president-elect should identify a successor to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson soon after the Nov. 4 election. Dodd, whose committee would consider the nominee, said Bush, a Republican, should send the nomination to the Senate in time for a ``lame-duck'' session to be held in mid-November. The new Congress will take office in early January.

``I think it's going to be very important there be a seamless transition,'' Dodd told reporters after a Banking Committee hearing yesterday. ``I would even go so far as to suggest that the next president ought to ask this president to submit the name of the secretary of the Treasury to the Senate to be confirmed in a lame-duck session.''

The Senate is reviewing how to reform U.S. financial regulations in the wake of the collapse of the credit markets. Dodd held a hearing yesterday to examine the Treasury's implementation of the $700 billion financial-rescue program enacted this month. Paulson has orchestrated the response to the collapse, and proposed and is leading the rescue plan.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said it could take until February or March ``before you get your people up and running'' in a typical presidential transition. Bush leaves on Jan. 20.

``I believe the next president must appoint that economic team as quickly as you would suggest your national-security team,'' Dodd said. ``Historically, presidents have announced their national-security team very quickly.''

Having an incumbent president nominate his successor's Treasury secretary ``has never been done,'' said Jonathan D. Varat, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. ``And, of course, Paulson would have to step down, you can't have two of them at the same time.''

Dodd said he's raised the issue with the campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama, an Illinois senator, and Republican John McCain, an Arizona senator. ``No one's jumped all over it,'' Dodd said of the response. Obama's campaign had no comment.

The Bush administration is ``committed to a seamless transition,'' especially on economic policy and national security, said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman. ``It would be more appropriate to direct any questions about specific positions in a future administration to the eventual president- elect.''

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".

Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.

From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."

One of the few journalists to see where this would lead was Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe. Last week he reminded his readers what he had written in 1995: "Our banks are knowingly approving risky loans to get the feds and the activists off their backs... When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians and regulators plans to take the credit?". Jacoby adds now: "Barney Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco."

It's true that the improvident lending was not initiated by Fannie and Freddie: their role in this was to buy these loans and sell them on – but then the music stopped. Cynical students of the American political system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee.

Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama. In August the Washington Post reported that Obama's presidential campaign team had sought the advice of Franklin Raines "on mortgage and housing policy matters". Perhaps Mr Obama's team just wanted to know where all the bodies are buried – there are rather a lot of them.

The saddest outcome of all this within America – apart from the crippling cost to the nation's taxpayers – is that the very people the Democrats had intended to help will be the biggest victims: for many years to come banks will demand the most stringent terms for mortgages to the least well off.

    Why in the world would Democrat Senator Chris Dodd propose the Bush Administration appoint the next President's Treasury Secretary? The so called "seamless transition" argument is bogus , as I see it. Seeing as Senators Dodd and Obama are the number one and two recipients of Fannie Mae campaign contributions and advisers, it is obvious who really stands to gain in any "seamless transition" and continuity between the Bush Administration's fiscal and monetary policies and the next Presidential administration. The Fed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street are pleased with their basically one party Congress. I pray to Heaven, America will be ready for a Third Party in 2012 after four more years of Bush policies, whether Obama or McCain is President.

tags: chris dodd  congress  politics  business  treasury secretary  takebackamerica  obama  mccain  fannie mae  freddie mac  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit