The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > News > Editor Favorites

EDITORIAL: Bailing out Freddie and Fannie

By | Monday, July 21, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

President Bush could not have been more wrong in dismissing the term "bailout" being ascribed to his policy opening the door for mortgage monoliths Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to borrow from the Federal Treasury to cover their losses during the mortgage-foreclosure crisis. Despite Mr. Bush's contention, it is a bailout. In fact, the bailout provision is written into the charter of the two hybrid-public-private companies.

At the very least, announcing the potential for the bailout sent shock waves. In offering the two companies the ability to borrow from the Treasury at rates as low as 2.5 percent, Fannie and Freddie will have the ability to increase their liquid capital, as the Wall Street Journal noted.

That cash infusion may just buy the two companies enough time to weather the growing storm of foreclosures, which jumped another 53 percent in June. And it will give investors a reason to hang in there, leaving their money with the company instead of calling in their loans. This is often referred to as "raiding the bank," as those who act first get paid and those who don't lose their shirts. That is what happened to Bear Stearns and IndyMac this year already. While IndyMac was small enough to let die, Bear Stearns was deemed simply too big to be allowed to collapse, and Fannie and Freddie are much bigger, with a potential debt liability of more than $5 trillion, owning about half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.

Economists have been warning Americans that this was possible since 2002, when it became clear that the "housing boom," accelerated by the use of risky loans to help consumers pay inflated prices, was fattening up Fannie and Freddie to the point off bursting. "Lenders should recognize that there are repercussions for risky loans, and borrowers should realize that there are consequences for taking loans they can't repay. If it's financial collapse, or having your house foreclosed - so be it," said the Libertarian Party this week. And in an altruistic environment they are right. When a company gets overextended, owing more than it has in the bank and subsequently yielding low investment returns or losing them outright, it dies. But that can't happen here.

Fannie and Freddie are responsible for millions of mortgages bought by responsible homeowners who couldn't get a home mortgage in the marketplace. And if they were allowed to fail. who would buy up and guarantee the trillions of dollars in mortgages they own? The American taxpayer. Knowing that the government would be on the hook if there were a collapse is what got us here, whether is was implied, expressed or hinted. If the two companies manage to survive this without doubling the national debt, serious regulation and massive downsizing must be on the front burner.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

  • Associated Press.

Click the photo to enlarge.

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Clinton urged Obama to talk tough on Iran
  2. Rep. Kaptur gets $3.5 billion sweetener in climate bill
  3. EDITORIAL: Toss your ticket
  4. PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
  5. Why stagflation is coming
  6. Conyers supported project linked to wife
  7. U.S.-Afghan push targets Taliban haven

Most Shared

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Taliban buying children for suicide bombers
  2. PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
  3. American exceptionalism . . .
  4. Obama stands with tyrants
  5. U.S. 'ready' for N. Korean missile
  6. EXCLUSIVE: Colombian prisoners strain D.C. Jail
  7. Voight rebuts 'hate speech' tag
  8. Rep. Kaptur gets $3.5 billion sweetener in climate bill
  9. Why stagflation is coming
  10. Sotomayor advised critics of Bork

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

What did you think of President Obama's speech in Cairo?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.