Why do you need to Lie about the Health Care Law?

It's about time I approached some of these "viral" attacks on the recent health care legislation.

Here's one:

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200 

Hmm... Let's take a look at HB 3200...

Oh, wait.  This isn't the health care bill that passed congress.  It never even came up for a vote.  The ones that passed congress were H.R. 3590 and H.R. 3962.

Oh, details, schmetails.  Fine.  Let's look at the bill.  Even if it didn't pass congress.

THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of  Marble Falls,  TX -  highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200
Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
  JUDGE KITHIL wrote:   ** Page 50/section 152:  The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. 

The legislation reads, "...(T)he Secretary of Health and Human Services shall . . . promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services . . . covered by this Act are provided . . . without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

It seems kind of weird that our emailer interpreted it this way.  At first glance, it seemed to me to state the obvious - that administrators couldn't make health care coverage decisions based on things like race, sex, religion, political beliefs, and so forth.

It makes sense.  And it stretches the imagination to think that this language would extend health care benefits to people who are in this country illegally, and subject to deportation.

But, in case you were wondering...  If our writer bothered to read ahead to section 242, he'd see that benefits are only available to "an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States."  So, it looks like our viral emailer wasted a good worry.

* Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. 

The sections included in page 58 and 58 refer to billing practices.  It ensures that, when you go to your doctor, you'll know as soon as possible if you're covered, and how much you will continue to owe the doctor after s/he's completed his or her services.  And it ensures practitioners that there will be consistent rules on how to do the billing.

As for the government having "real-time access to an individual's bank account" and having the authority "to make electronic fund transfers"?  Maybe our emailer was referring to the standard stating that these systems will "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance."

Note the word "enable".  In my mind, that means, "make something possible."  Not "make it mandatory".  Or, "allow a biller to have unlimited access to someone else's bank account".

It means that, as a patient, you may choose to pay a copayment by bank debit.  If you and the provider want to.

And doctors and hospitals, if they wish, can receive payment electronically from insurance companies.

But I don't see how this would have allowed the government to grab whatever they wanted from your bank account.

** Page 65/section 164:  The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

This section reads, "The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program . . . to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees."

So, when our viral emailer says that this is a "special" entitlement for unions and community organizations (particularly ones demonized by the right), it's an out-and-out lie.  These rules apply to any employment-based plan.

** Page 203/line 14-15:  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.  (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

The language is a little bit bizarre.

This refers to some taxes levied on high-income individuals to pay for the costs of the program.  Of course, congressional debate did change the parameters of these costs, which are detailed in plain English over here.  In the end, if you're making over $200,000 as a single taxpayer, you'll have to pay an extra 0.9% in payroll taxes.

This tax can't be used to offset the alternative minimum tax.  Thus, this tax is not considered "a tax" when it comes to calculating the AMT.

Hey, no one said that tax law made much sense to non-tax-policy wonks.

** Page 241 and 253:  Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

These pages refer to payment to doctors under Medicare.  And, for as long as I can remember, Medicare has always paid physicians according to a government-controlled payment schedule.

If a doctor feels that Medicare is paying too little, they have the right to refuse Medicare patients.  And they can continue to do so after passage of the recent health care bills.  So, in the end, nothing has changed here.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

Here's the text:  "The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if, under the system under this subsection, costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) with respect to ambulatory payment classification groups exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection (as determined appropriate by the Secreretary. Insofar as the Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide an appropriate adjustment under paragraph (2)(E) to reflect those costs incurred by other hospitals furnished."

So, how did "if we do a study and find out that cancer care costs more in certain places, we'll adjust Medicare payments to compensate" become "rationing of care due to age"?

Beats me.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

This is a (very slight) expansion to current anti-kickback law.  In order for doctors and hospitals to receive Medicare funds, they've needed to comply with anti-kickback provisions for quite some time.  Because Medicare felt it was unseemly to refer patients to hospitals that they owned, and services provided at these hospitals that they are subject to profit from.

They granted some exceptions to rural hospitals.  These rules tighten the anti-kickback rules governing such exceptions.  But it doesn't prevent the vast majority of hospitals from expanding as they please.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations.  Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)** Page 429,  line 13-25:  The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Oh, yes.  "Death Panels".  The proud recipient of Politifact.com's "Lie of the Year" in 2009.

For those who haven't kept up:  This version of the health care bill ensured that physicians who discussed advanced directives and living wills with their patient could be paid for this service.  It was never mandatory.

And these "end-of-life" orders?  They're signed by the patient.  The doctor only serves as a witness.

But, no matter.  None of these provisions made it into the health care bills passed by congress.

HAD ENOUGH????  Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.  

Funny how he suddenly stopped citing sections of the health care bill when he made this claim.

That's because... there's no exemption.  Members of congress are subject to the individual mandate requiring that they obtain health insurance of a minimum standard.  Fortunately for members of congress, most of the health plans that they're eligible for (as a virtue of their employment) qualify.

Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."  -    Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls,  Texas

This lie is so prevalent, I gave it a special article.

All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. 

There are lots of reasons why it's reasonable to object to the recently passed healthcare legislation.

These "facts" aren't among them.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: Congressional Retirement

Next, I'd like to talk about that next frequently-emailed complaint about congress: Their pension scheme.

And I've seen some whoppers.  Some emails have claimed that senators, after one disgraced year in congress, are immediately able to retire for over $15,000/month.

Now that seems unreal.  And it is.

The fact is, anyone who wants to see what the congressional retirement plan is can easily find it online.

So... let's take a look.

A tale of two pension plans

Actually, there are two (maybe three or four, if you want to get technical) congressional pension plans.

The first congressional pension plan started in 1920.  Back in those days, there was no social security.  And if you had a decent job, you were usually eligible for a defined pension plan from your employer.

So, in order for the federal government to attract reasonably qualified folks, they had to offer a pension as well.  And so, they did.  And senators, with a few minor tweaks (to reflect the fact that they faced a risky reelection process rather than less-risky professional performance evaluations), recieved the same pension plan that other federal employees recieved.

Well, time marched on.

Social security passed congress 15 years after the congressional pension plan was initated.

Unfortunately, that left legislators in a dilemma.  If someone were forced to pay into social security and the federal pension plan, they'd have to give over 13% of their salary toward their defined retirement plan.  And a lot of the features of these plans, essentially, would have been duplicated.

So, congress, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that most federal workers (including congressmen) were satisfied with the retirement benefits they already had.  And so, they were exempted from donating to, or recieving social security benefits.

Time continued to march on.  The "defined benefit" pension became a much rarer thing in the job marketplace.  Most folks were in 401(k)s, or similar plans.  And folks started wondering whether federal employees should recieve the "defined benefits" that most people no longer recieved.  Or whether they should be exempted from social security.

So, the federal retirement plan was modernized in 1984.

Folks who were initially elected into office before 1984 could choose one of four ways to proceed.  They could:

• Keep their old, expensive retirement plan, without social security payments or benefits.
• Keep their old retirement plan, pay into social security, have their costs (and retirement earnings) offset by what they contributed to social security, and recieve social security.
• Join the new (less expensive) retirement plan, recieve a lower annuity, and be eligible to set aside money in a "Thrift Savings Plan" (similar to a 401k).  Folks in the new retirement program, however, are required to pay into social security, and are eligible for social security benefits.
• Only pay into social security, and only recieve social security.

Folks who were elected after 1984 are only eligible for the "new" retirement plan, and have to contribute to social security.

This begs the question:  How many congresspeople can grandfather into the old retirement plan?

Not many.  As of this writing, only 9 senators and 28 representatives elected before 1984 are still holding onto their seats.

And of those congressmen, I don't know how many have decided to actually keep their old retirement plan.  Perhaps some more industrious bloggers will call their offices to ask...  but I'll stop here, only quoting the document above when it states that most congresspeople who kept the old plan also decided to utilize the social security offset.

The Pension Plan of the Modern-Day Congressman

First of all, congresspeople starting their first term after 1984 have to donate to social security.  No exceptions.

Now - for the defined benefit.

First of all, in order to collect anything from this plan, congresspeople need to:

• Have 5 years of eligible federal service.  Either as a congressman, or in another federal job recieving retirement benefits.  So, no, congresspeople unable to hold their jobs for 5 years get no federal pension.
• Avoid being convicted of certain crimes.  These include treason, espionage, bribery of public officials or witnesses, conspiracy to commit an offense against or defraud the United States, perjury, or subordination of perjury.  So, disgraced congresspeople don't earn pensions.  At least if they get convicted.
• Reach retirement age.  The conditions are a little bit complex (read the document if you want the full story), but in order to recieve a full pension, a congressperson must be 60 years old.  Early retirement can be taken as early as age 55, with a penalty.  So, no, unless you're old, or you've served 20 years in federal service (with 10 as a congressman), you have to wait to get your pension.

So, after all that, what do you get?  The formula is:

(Average of highest 3 years salary x .017 x years of service through 20) + (Average of highest 3 years salary x .01 x years of service after 20) = Annual pension

So, let's say that a representative (under the "new" pension plan), is elected at age 25 (the minimum age), and retires at age 65.  Assuming that they're retiring this year (again, this is fictional), the average highest 3 years salary is $174,000.  So, our fictional representative is eligible to retire on $93,980 per year.  A nice benefit - but no where near the $15,000/month claimed in some viral emails.

Meanwhile, folks who only managed to eke out 5 years (the minimum needed to collect a pension)?  They earn $19,818 per year at age 65.  Again, not a shabby reward for 5 years work.  But, again, no where close to $15,000 a month.

But What About The Folks On The Old Plan?

I'm not going to go in as much detail here, considering there are only 37 congresspeople eligible for it.  And probably fewer are actually on it.

Under the old pension system, payments are capped at 80% of their final congressional salary.  This would occur after 32 years of congressional service.  So, if such a member were to retire today, they would earn an annual pension of $139,200.

A very nice retirement.  And actually starting to come (somewhat) close to $15,000/month.  But not that close.

So where did these inflated figures of congressional pensions come from?

Beats me.  It's just another frequently assumed falsehood.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: Getting Rich in Congress

It seems, lately, congressional pay and perks have been some of the most persistent complaints contained in right-wing emails.

Take this one that my father recently sent:

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete

You are one of my 20+. Please keep it going.

The funny thing?  I received this email on January 9th.

One day after Rep. Giffords was shot.

Great timing, dad.

But this email does repeat a lot of viral untruths... so I think it's time I took a break and started breaking this crap down.

Let's start with the most obvious:

I'm a congressman!  Gimme my money!
Very well.  You're doing a job, you are paid a salary.  Fair enough.

This year, congressional salary is $174,000.

You don't need to take all of it.  Many congresspeople don't.  But that's what's on the table.

Sure, that is really good money.  The average american earns around $49,777.

But, then, you have to realize:  We want a rate of pay that will encourage talented folks to compete for one of the 535 seats.  We'd like those seats to be filled by the top 535 legislators in America.  (I said we'd like to.)

Do you think that corporate CEOs would make good legislators?  The CEOs of the S&P 500 had a mean salary of 7.5 million dollars a year.  A congressional seat would be a huge paycut.

How about our country's highest paid lawyers?  They know the law, after all.  I can't figure out what the top 500 lawyers earn - but the highest paid 10% (making them the top 111,697) earn at least $145,600.  The 10th top paid lawyer earned about 12 million dollars in 2007.  So it's in between those figures - probably closer to the $12 million.  Again, this is looking like a pay cut.  And probably, a big one.

Oh, and let's not forget.  You're having a million reporters trying to dig up your personal dirt.  And there's the constant threats by random nutbags.

Hmm... maybe those radical free-market proponents might think about whether raising the salary might attract better congresspeople.  I'm not sold.  But I'm willing to listen.

Okay, salary's good.  When's my next pay raise?
Well, congress has voted against receiving pay raises in the last 2 years.

I don't want to be one of those folks saying "during these economic times...", so I'll let you come to the obvious conclusion of why a salary increase would be a bad political move.

But, our emailer wants more.  He wants a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that a congressman wouldn't vote for his or her own pay raise.

It's a good thing that our emailer identified 27 amendments.  The trouble is - if he read #27, he'd see it's already there.

Yes, congress can vote a pay increase into effect.  But they have to face reelection before they can get it.  And if they're out of line - they can easily be voted out.

So, the writer already has what he wanted - a set salary, with set COLA increases.

He doesn't need a "constitutional convention" for a "congressional reform act".

Come to think of it - you don't need a constitutional convention for a congressional act.  Last I checked, an "act" is a law, not a constitutional amendment.

Oh well.  We'll tackle more of the "frequently assumed falsehoods" in this email soon.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: My Chat with a Birther

My dad hasn't been sending me many emails lately.  Actually, this is probably a good thing - I'd like to see him doing stuff other than obsessing over this stuff.

Fortunately, an acquaintance of mine gave me enough material to write a different article.

Usually, this friend seems pretty normal.  Which is why this message surprised me.

Impeachment !!!!

How much more proof is needed?
 


Obama admits not being born in Hawaii .   (He made this statement before he learned that he had to be a natural born in this country to "citizens" of this country........We may not be as crazy as the press would want us to be.)  Circulate this before they yank it from the internet.

Will some one tell me why this guy is not being impeached??? 
 If you just watch the first 30 seconds your mouth will drop open.

 Obama admits he is not a citizen
Hmmm...maybe the "birthers' are on to something...
THE AMAZING PART OF THIS TRAVESTY IS AMERICANS CONTINUE ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO BE RULED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.
Watch it before it’s pulled!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

The birther phenomenon has always fascinated me.  The proof of President Obama's citizenship is overwhelming, in my opinion (details later).  And, yet, birthers persist.  Kind of like the folks who still believe that the earth is flat.  But, until now, I didn't think I knew any real birthers.  Even my father only said that they should look into it, and only because he'd rather see him impeached.  Whether the charges are true or not.

But let's set aside the "trying to overrule a legitimate election" thing.  If my friend was the real thing, I wanted to learn more.

I'm curious - I don't run into many real "birthers".

What, to you, would be considered proof that Obama was born in the US?

Here are some folks who've actually looked at the documents:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

She replied:

Really Scott, why should we look for any more proof (he was born in the US) when he has already admitted HERE he was born in Kenya?  Did you watch the excerpts where he admitted he was born in Kenya? What's up with that? This email proves he was born in Kenya because he is in the picutre speaking about being born in Kenya. Sorry if I seem contentious. Our Constitution does not allow an alien to sit as president.  He  needs to be IMPEACHED!!! and quit occupying the White House.

Oh, boy.  Yes, I did see the video.  It was an obvious forgery.  I even looked into it further and replied:

Really?  I thought the video was a very obvious forgery.  (And in the beginning, it was intended to be, it turns out.)  They explain it here even better than I can.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/aug/05/chain-email/e-mail-sends-readers-youtube-video-where-obama-adm/

So, why do you insist on believing in a video with very obvious changes in pitch, the fact that his face isn't visible during key admissions, there's no reaction from the audience that was seated RIGHT THERE in the audience, the fact that no news organization (not even Fox News) picked it since it's been up in March?  And why ignore all of other evidence that he's a citizen?

Again, why do people seem to grasp at any excuse to believe that he's not a citizen?  Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Please explain.

She replied:

I perused the Obama clip again.  It doesnt seem bogus to me. I dont put much credence in East Coast or West Coast political views. Yes, there are different takes in the clip; that dosnt make it bogus.
We have studied Islam forty years.  Obama is a muslim.  Muslims hate Jews. Goes back to Ishmael and Jacob----brothers, but not the same mother. The mother of Ishmael was Egyptian. Jacobs's mother ( and wife of Abraham) was a Jew. The hatred has lasted thousands of years. It will never end-----until Messiah comes.
The old adage------"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck............).
Obama is a muslim and muslims hate Jews. Dont look for him to do anything for Israel. 

Okay...  Got it.  She's got that special edition of the bible that says Obama is a Muslim.  Forget the fact that his family and Reverend Wright's church go back for decades.  Forget the fact that he's publicly been seen drinking, and has never been seen observing any dietary restrictions, observing Muslim Sabbath or Ramadan, attending calls to prayer, or making a pilgimage to Mecca.  And forget that this video is a very obvious forgery.

We're clearly in crazy-land now.  Maybe a little bit of talk will bring her back to rationality.  Because I really do want to understand this movement...

The original author of the video has admitted it was meant as a joke.  Don't know what else need to be said.  Unless you think Superman and Avatar were real too, because you saw them on film.

I didn't vote for Obama either.  I just think the energy of the "birther" movement would be much better spent on debating his policies, than debating the overwhelming evidence in favor of the fact that he's a citizen.

She gets a little more rational.  But only a little.

I dont mean to belabor this topic, but would you send me the link that will prove the "original author of the video admitted it was a joke"?  Although Obama does come close to being a cartoon character, unfortunately he is real.
The energy of the birthers HAS been spent on debating his policies, but it has fallen on deaf ears.  Some Americans are now waking up, but it is too late.  They  awoke in Oz. 

Like I said, only a little.  And, clearly, she didn't read my original reference to the video.  So, I spelled it out for her:

In the opening seconds of the original video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ObamaSnippetsDotCom#p/u/7/dJUxsFBwcbs

And, there you have it.  It's timestamped by YouTube.  If any birther can point out a source with an earlier timestamp, I'll admit I was wrong.  But I doubt it's going to happen.

I never heard from her again.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: Barney Frank Caused the Financial Meltdown

You know, a lot of these email messages keep saying that Barney Frank caused the recent financial crisis.
They say a lot of things that aren't true, don't they?

Well, yeah.  But they say it a lot.
I hear you.  Doesn't mean it's true.

Well, did he actually do anything that might make people say this?
There are a few things.  But it's almost impossible to say that these things caused the financial crisis.

They keep on mentioning Barney Frank's opposition to regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the cause of the meltdown.
They can say that.  But it seems pretty darned unlikely to anyone who looks at facts, rather than just bulk-forwarding emails that support whatever beliefs they already had.

Probably.  You know these emails.  But why would Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be involved in such a scheme?
Well, they did create and securitize mortgage-backed securities.  And, as you know, mortgage-backed securities provided a central role in the financial crisis.

Aha!  So, if there were better regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage-backed securities would not have failed, and the economic crisis wouldn't have happened, right?  And Barney Frank opposed this regulation?
We'll get to the second part of that question later.  But for the fist part?  Uh... No.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were far from the only companies producing mortgage-backed securities.  Little companies like Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and many others also created these securities.  And sold them aggressively.

Okay, so Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't create all of these toxic assets.  But they made some pretty risky loans in low-income neighborhoods, didn't they?
Depends what you mean by "pretty risky".  If you mean the floating rate, low down payment, interest only (or negative amortizating), or no-documentation types of loans made to folks with low credit scores?  They took less risk than the private market did.

Private market?  You mean that the Government was producing these toxic assets?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were started by the government, under FDR's administration.  But, until the meltdown occurred, they were private companies.  Many investors, however, thought they were safer than private companies, under the assumption that the government might bail them out if they got into trouble.

But - the government DID bail them out.  So that assumption turned out to be correct!
True.  But they also bailed out AIG, which was threatening to go bankrupt in it's attempt to securitize mortgage based securities that were not issued by Fannie and Freddie.   I don't think anyone had reason to believe AIG had government support...

Okay, so Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were only part of the problem.  So, what did Barney Frank do to cause so much trouble?
He's made some awkard statements, and done some awkward things.  And he did hold a role on the congressional committee that these regulations would have come from.

Okay... What regulation did he block?
As far as I can tell?  None.

Okay, maybe I asked the wrong question.  What regulation is he accused of blocking?
Well, in 2003, the Bush administration suggested moving supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from congress to a division of the Treasury department.

And Barney Frank objected, right?
He initially expressed objections.

Well, why?
Well, the Bush Administration implied that Fannie Mae needed more capital reserves, in case it's underlying investments went bad.  He expressed concern that tightened capital reserves = less money to loan = less of a support mechanism for home sales in poorer areas.  As he said, ''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.''

Wait - Fannie and Freddie needed government bailouts.  So there was a financial crisis.
Yeah, with 20/20 hindsight, that's a pretty regrettable quote to make.  But if so many people didn't believe in the safety of mortgage-backed securities, the financial crisis wouldn't have happened.  He was as wrong as most people were back then.

Is there any other reason that Barney Frank might have been against this?
I can't read minds.  I can only read what he's written, and make some assumptions based on what he did.

Well, I heard that his boyfriend was a Fannie Mae executive.
Yes.  He had a 11-year domestic partnership with Frank Moses.  The conservative blogosphere has varied statements regarding what role he had in the organization - some saying that he was Vice Chairman of New Product development, others saying he was a vice president.  They all cite the National Mortgage News as the source of this information.  Unfortunately, I'm unable to find any articles from them mentioning his name.  (You can try searching yourself at this website.)  Nor has the reference been linked to by any articles that normally cross-reference their sources.  (An example here.)

Isn't this a conflict of interest?
I think it might be worthy of further investigation.  But, considering we don't even know what Frank Moses' role was, it's hard to figure out what legislation Barney Frank may have proposed or voted on upon the advice of his domestic partner at the time.  And no one in the conservative blogosphere has made any specific links between Frank Moses' specific interests and specific actions of Barney Frank.  Other than vague insinuations that such a thing might have happened, based on the fact that they were an open homosexual couple.

Personally, I think the easier explanation of Barney Frank's actions is that he had a consistent record of advocacy for affordable housing measures.  Even when these measures were financially problematic.

That's it?
Well, when there are relationships, people consider them.  For example, when George W. Bush was a governor, no one criticized him for his educational policy initiatives because his wife was an educator.  They may have considered this connection when evaluating his statements and policies.  And they would be correct in doing so.

But no one claimed that a sitting governor's statements were corrupted by his relationship, or insinuated that he should remain silent on educational policy because of his "conflict of interest".

But... it's unseemly.
Well, maybe.  But their relationship was open and public.  Any statements Barney Frank would make could be considered in this light.  No one did - until the financial crisis hit.

And he accepted a lot of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.  Isn't that kind of unseemly?
Yes, he did accept campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.  He's on the Financial Services committee - if anyone's going to get a contribution, it would be the members of that committee.

Now, as to whether such things should be allowed?  That's a legitimate area of debate, in my humble opinion.

Wait -- my paranoid brain is thinking --
Uh, oh...

Fannie Mae makes a ton of money at the height of the mortgage craze, and donates tons of money to politicians that let it go underregulated.  Fannie Mae goes under, and gets government bailouts.  So the Democrats created a giant campaign slush fund (the campaign donations) at the people's expense (the bailout), right?
Uhhm... that's an interesting conspiracy theory.  It's got a couple of fatal flaws though.

Oh, yeah?  What?
Well, for one, they spent a lot of money on Republicans too.  The Democrats got 7% more, yes.  That's $336,000 more (by my calculation) for the entire Democratic party than the Republican party.  It's more - but in competitive congressional races, spread out for the entire party?  It doesn't add up to much.

But it's still buying influence!
Apparently not enough.  Read the article again: Fannie Mae lobbied in favor of the Bush Administration proposal.  If Barney Frank were influenced by Fannie Mae's contributions, or by his boyfriend, wouldn't he have been more inclined to speak in favor of the proposal that their company favored?

Well, okay.  But he still blocked regulatory reform!
I don't see how he could.

Of course, he could block regulatory reform!  He's a powerful senator in the Financial Services committee!
At the time this legislation was proposed, he was the ranking minority member.  Giving him the awesome power of casting one vote.

But he could block the legislation, right?
No.  House subcommittee votes, even on procedural matters such as tabling a bill, are on majority vote.  And Barney Frank held one minority vote.  He didn't have the power to kill anything.

But - he worked with other people to block the bill in subcommittee, right?
No.  He takes credit for creating a compromise - increasing funds for other affordable housing initiatives, while providing Fannie Mae with oversight from the executive (rather than legislative) branch of government.  He voted for the compromise legislation in subcommittee.

So, he blocked it in the House, right?
Well, he voted against it on the floor.  According to him, a Republican amendment stripped out funding for affordable housing, and the compromise was essentially shot.  At least according to Barney Frank's tastes.

However, he didn't block it.  The legislation passed the house.  Over his "no" vote.

So - he worked with his buddies in the Senate to block the bill, right?
I can't find any evidence that he did.  The bill was tabled in the Senate - ostensibly because Bush threatened to veto the bill.  Apparently, the compromise legislation was still too generous for the sitting president.

So let me get this straight.  He made some statements skeptical of the need for Fannie and Freddie to be reformed.  But he voted a reform bill out of subcommittee, and it passed the house over his objections.  However, the Senate tabled the bill because the president threatened to veto it.   So, how did he block legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Beats me.  And it doesn't even answer the question of whether this oversight may have actually prevented their collapse - all it did was change the office that regulated their business.  And this argument doesn't address whether Fannie Mae's collapse was necessary for the current financial mess to occur.  After all, Fannie Mae wasn't the only producer of the "toxic" mortgage-backed securities.  There was a lot of market demand for them, after all.

Oh.  Well, thank you, Scott Grey, for your insightful analysis.
Thank you.  Feel free to email it to your right-wing friends (under the terms of the Creative Commons license, of course!).  Not that they'll listen.  But it might buy you a few seconds of quiet.

Frequently Assumed Falsehoods: An Introduction

In partisan politics, I've noticed one not-so-subtle tool of influence.

It starts when an unproven, but catchy idea starts to emerge.

The idea is either promoted through the media machine ("John Kerry's medals are illegitimate"), or become viral ("Barack Obama is not an American Citizen").

They're fully discredited by investigators.  But, proponents still stick to their story.  And just by the fact that they continue to repeat the same crap, folks start to believe it.

And, as time goes on, they write more stuff.  Stuff that assumes that their already fully discredited ideas are correct.  Such as yesterday's blog post that assumes the legend that Barney Frank single-handedly created our current economic crisis.

Obviously, I can't continue to include rebuttals to frequently assumed falsehoods in every viral email that asserts them.  So, I'll start these rebuttals as a feature.

That way, when they return (as they usually do), I can just refer back to my Frequently Assumed Falsehood post.

My first frequently assumed falsehood?  Coming soon.