I imagine I need explain no further what kind of politics flow out of an area so designated, nor the kind of politicians that come from same.

This reminds me of a recent show Glenn Beck had where he shreds the Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal for going after the AIG execs simply for publicity and puff up his resume. It was classic when he finally got him to admit that they had done nothing wrong and worth an investigation.

The keyword he uses is public policy, much like Barney did in his argument. How is it that public policy and the law are incompatible?

Barney Frank is one of the most disenguiniuos members of the congress. All one has to do is read this New York Times story dated 11 September 2003 where it clearly states that the Bush Administration proposed an agency be created in the treasury Department to “assume supervision of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac”. The entire article may be found here http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse

The article goes on to quote Congressman Barney Frank; ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Congressman Frank was taken to the woodshed Mr Sam Dealey of US News & World Report and issued the following rebuttal (read it here) http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/12/speaking-frank-ly–barney-frank-fires-back-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

Barney Frank and his cohorts in Congress utilized Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to push their utopian dream of ‘affordable housing’. They allowed both organizations to leverage more risky loans to more risky borrowers because they knew there was an implied promise that Fannie & Freddie were backed by the US government.

In a Wall Street Journal article dated 9 September 2008 Congressman Frank was asked about Treasury’s modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, “Good luck on that,” and that it would never happen.

Congressman Frank properly deduced that he had a “win-win” situation on his hands. As the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee; he was now in the position to ensure that these entities would now function as ‘home loan’ arms of the government and all people, regardless of means would be ‘given’ houses at government expense!

Little did he know just how successful at changing the paradigm he been. When AIG, the largest single insurer of credit default swaps became insolvent due to the payout they had to make because of failing mortgages; Congressman Frank realized he had inadvertently stumbled upon a progressive jewel beyond price.

With AIG on the ropes, and many of the larger investment banks reeling from the losses on their mortgage subsidiaries due to ‘mark-to-market’ rules he saw the possibility of not only controlling the ‘quasi-government’ lending houses; but also saw the chance for a liberal administration to gain significant control over a large portion of the financial sector of the economy.

Fast forward to today. The Treasury department is now looking toward Congress to give Treasury the authority to seize any company it deems as integral to the economy and troubled. Treasury also desires the ability to define those terms. The President of the United States has fired a Board Chairman, and is dictating the company’s future product line. The G 20 is proposing an international body to set compensation across all segments of the world economy, and NGO’s are meeting to devise the largest wealth transfer from large developed countries to small undeveloped ones through a global ‘cap & trade’ program.

This government is on the verge of significantly altering the manner in which the world does business. Suppose that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner receives the power to seize companies that he believes are failing; how he defines ‘failure’ is significant

Suppose a community action group, let’s say ACORN; decides that the Wal-Mart Corporation is a ‘social’ failure because it does not pay ‘living’ wages, is not unionized, and does not provide a 100% company paid health care benefit to its employees. Would the Treasury Secretary and the administration declare Wal-Mart to have ‘failed’ in its commitment to the community at large and seize the assets of the corporation? Even a profitable company can be fingered as a failure depending on the elasticity of the characterization. Looking at the evolution of this administration’s denotation regarding the issues of transparency, lobbyists, earmarks, and bipartisanship; one begins to get a feeling for just how malleable the definition of ‘failure’ could possibly become.

We’ve experienced this situation before when targeting tax increases. We watched as the definition of ‘success’, as it pertains to personal income; begin at $250,000 during the last presidential campaign. This number dwindled to $200,000, then to $150,000, and then to $120,000. How much longer does this continue until the pronouncement morphs into “If your net worth is more than $250,000 you are too successful” and a mandatory redistribution of your personal accounts becomes the subject of congressional legislation?

The administration wants to set up a ‘lose-lose’ condition. They are literally saying to business; “If you have too much; and we’ll define how much is too much, we will seize those profits. If you make to little; and we’ll define that too, we will seize your assets.

The Obama Administration has opened this door; capriciously establishing an upper and lower limit to both personal and professional success, after which the government steps in to assume control. Under such scrutiny the government would not only soon own substantial shares in all publically and privately held companies; but have considerable interest in controlling the balances of individual American’s personal bank accounts as well. What are the implications of Congressman Frank’s Committee having substantial control over agriculture, employment, health care, manufacturing, and personal wealth? Barney Frank: the Banking Queen!