As for the CRA, a
commenter at TigerHawk put it very well:

Focusing on CRA ignores the elephant argument: regardless of which law, the Congress, led by Dodds Shumer Frank, dictated the rules by which Fannie and Freddie lost over $3 Trillion.

Follow the money, you win the ideological argument by default. Follow the ideological argument, and the money is forgotten in the rush to defend housing for all. It’s the money that matters most, even to those who want to preserve and defend low income housing.

(Every so often I read or hear what I’m saying and I’m appalled at how easily we are all now throwing around amounts in the trillions. I was talking to someone yesterday about the exposure to credit default swaps and I first said “million”, then corrected myself to “billion”. My conversational partner gently pointed out to me that we were actually talking about “trillion”. Ugh.)

Oh, and good point about the CRA. The CRA was a product of the same Congressional mindset that pushed Fannie and Freddie to embrace bad risks but it’s not all the same thing. I think some people are using the CRA as a catch-all for the larger issue, which unfortunately makes it harder to argue the actual facts when critics wave away the actual CRA as unimportant.

The bailout did not contain only previously passed by the House, certain to pass by the Senate provisions. The Bailout bill is HR-1424. The original HR-1424 was passed by the House on March 5, 2008, 268-148, and contained only the provisions for equitable treatment of mental health care. The Senate took that bill as their “shell”. They added into it the provisions of HR-6049 which had passed the House on May 21, 2008, 263-160. HR-6049 contained the energy tax credits and the alternative minimum tax provisions.

After the original HR-1424 was passed by the House in May, no action had been taken on it by the Senate before it was transformed into the bailout. After HR-6049 was passed by the House in May, it failed two cloture votes in the Senate in June.

HR-1424 was also amended to pick up other provisions such as exempting wooden bows and arrow for children from an excise tax (originally introduced as HR-6564, never acted on) and allowing Exxon Valdez plaintiffs to income average (HR-1334, never acted on). There seem to be other provisions in HR-1424 (See Title V, Subtitle A) but I have not tracked down their origins.

An excellent source for tracking these bills is http://www.govtrack.us/congress

I’m far more in favor of ‘de-social engineering’ than I am in favor of ‘deregulation.’

I’m opposed, however, to knee jerk reactions to increase either or both.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….