Senate Bill S-190, Introduced 1/26/2005 To Prevent Financial Problems (votes, democratic, Republican)

[mrbob]

Bet you any amount of money that McCain KNEW it would die and never be enacted when he spoke out in favor of it!!

That way he can pump-up his phony reputation of being a Maverick!!!

[NewToCA]

Seems a bit odd to criticize a person for going on record as cosponsoring a bill, and then giving a specific speech in support of it. No chance this is true, whatever the situation.

Actually, quite a bit of the objection to the bill came from the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, which voiced objection to the bill due to:

language to disqualify nonprofit organizations from participating in a new Affordable Housing Fund – a fund meant to increase the supply of affordable homes for low and extremely low-income families – if the organizations have, in the previous twelve months, engaged in nonpartisan voter registration, get-out-the-vote, other voter participation activities, or certain forms of lobbying and grassroots lobbying.

LCCR opposed the amendment. While there is nothing wrong with prohibiting Affordable Housing Fund recipients from using federal dollars for voter registration or other nonpartisan election-related activities, the amendment would prohibit recipients from even using their own separate funds for such efforts.

http://www.civilrights.org/resources...h_congress.pdf


Perhaps it was the threat of a filibuster.

[MovingForward]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Seems a bit odd to criticize a person for going on record as cosponsoring a bill, and then giving a specific speech in support of it. No chance this is true, whatever the situation.

Actually, quite a bit of the objection to the bill came from the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, which voiced objection to the bill due to:

language to disqualify nonprofit organizations from participating in a new Affordable Housing Fund – a fund meant to increase the supply of affordable homes for low and extremely low-income families – if the organizations have, in the previous twelve months, engaged in nonpartisan voter registration, get-out-the-vote, other voter participation activities, or certain forms of lobbying and grassroots lobbying.

LCCR opposed the amendment. While there is nothing wrong with prohibiting Affordable Housing Fund recipients from using federal dollars for voter registration or other nonpartisan election-related activities, the amendment would prohibit recipients from even using their own separate funds for such efforts.

http://www.civilrights.org/resources...h_congress.pdf


Perhaps it was the threat of a fillibuster.

I doubt the filibuster angle was there. It's usually the Republicans who filibuster. In fact, that Republican Congress filibustered more than any Congress in decades.

There were MANY people against this bill, from both parties as well as from the Council you reference (good info--thanks).

[NewToCA]

This American Enterprise Institute "Short Publication" produced on Sept 12, 2005 seems to indicate that McCain would not have been grandstanding on this issue:

The problem is the opposite in the Senate. There, the bill is said to be stalled because it was so tough that it came out of committee on a party-line vote; without bipartisan support, some argue, there will be no action in the Senate.

The conventional wisdom, however, is wrong in this case; it has not taken into account the position of the administration, which since 2003 has shown itself to be relentless in seeking the toughest possible regulation of Fannie and Freddie. The bill that emerged from the Senate Banking Committee is exactly what the White House wants, and it is doubtful that this administration--and this particularly determined president--will let the opportunity pass. An administration that has gained some measure of tort reform, approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, bankruptcy reform, and an energy bill--none of which received significant bipartisan support--is unlikely to shrink from pushing through Congress a bill that achieves one of its most important government reform priorities.

AEI - Short Publications - Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

[thebigr]

Oh this is not important. We are more concerned about Palins daughter.

[MovingForward]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

This American Enterprise Institute "Short Publication" produced on Sept 12, 2005 seems to indicate that McCain would not have been grandstanding on this issue:

The problem is the opposite in the Senate. There, the bill is said to be stalled because it was so tough that it came out of committee on a party-line vote; without bipartisan support, some argue, there will be no action in the Senate.

The conventional wisdom, however, is wrong in this case; it has not taken into account the position of the administration, which since 2003 has shown itself to be relentless in seeking the toughest possible regulation of Fannie and Freddie. The bill that emerged from the Senate Banking Committee is exactly what the White House wants, and it is doubtful that this administration--and this particularly determined president--will let the opportunity pass. An administration that has gained some measure of tort reform, approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, bankruptcy reform, and an energy bill--none of which received significant bipartisan support--is unlikely to shrink from pushing through Congress a bill that achieves one of its most important government reform priorities.

AEI - Short Publications - Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

I don't think McCain was grandstanding on this bill, either. I think he was doing the bidding of Wall Street lobbyists. It was a bill that would have, in essence, privatized regulatory agencies, and exempted more than one sector of the financial industry from accountability.

[MrsMtnsOnTheMind]

Why don't they ever just say what they mean and mean what they say? Why are we always getting the run around?

[Miborn]

Lets remember this Bill!


Politically, the pertinent question is this:

Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it?

As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans

to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by

the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.

McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by domergurl

It's too bad it died. McCain is good at blowing his stack, but there's no follow through.

McCain's floor speech on S.190 was on May 25, 2006. Democrats controlled Congress at this point and shot it down. He had follow through, but Dems blocked it from even reaching a vote. They didn't want anyone touching their "babies" - Fannie & Freddie.

[SGrey]

Originally Posted by Miborn

Lets remember this Bill!


Politically, the pertinent question is this:

Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it?

As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans

to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by

the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.

McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006

Politifact now has an interesting assessment of McCain's involvement with that bill and his warnings on Freddie & Fannie. PolitiFact | McCain's 'warning' on Fannie & Freddie

They rank him as barely true on the F&F stuff.