A lesson from Fannie Mae: When you mix government and business, you get corruption
By: Timothy P. Carney Senior Examiner Columnist 11/10/10 4:55 PM EST
A new book on the financial crisis has some eye-catching passages on Fannie Mae, that government-sponsored enterprise that epitomizes public-private partnerships. This passage [via Marginal Revolution] begins by discussing Fannie Mae field offices:
There was a certain formula to these offices. They were staffed by someone close to power–the son of a senator, a governor’s assistant, a former congressional staffer. They held ribbon-cutting ceremonies, always with a politician present, to announce, for instance, that Fannie was going to put millions into a senior citizen center. There were as many as two thousand ceremonies a year in partnership offices all over the country….
Fannie Mae also funneled money to politicians….Over the years, the foundation became one of the largest sources of charitable donations in the country. It made heavy donations to, among others, the nonprofit arms of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Fannie hired key insiders to plum jobs..[long list of names,AT]…”It was like the local Tammany Hall operation–a jobs program for ex-pols!” says one closer observer.
When you combine the profit motive with the government-like trait of playing with someone else’s money (the implicit bailout Fannie always enjoyed), you’re asking for corruption.
Corrupt! Corrupt! Corrupt! Yep, Government + Business = Non-profits. (Of course, not all nonprofits have business interest in them). Whenever there is business interest, it seems to go down the corrupt end of the hill.
In Fannie and Freddie corporations can put lend and make profits without bearing substantial risks unlike when they lend direct via other banks - of course, there have been many FHA funded loans as wels with similar issues. Very convenient for the corporate interests to leave the citizens with the bag in the end.
Fannie and Freddie sure make ownership seem like an entitlement. Whatever happened to renting and living within your means!
I do not support entitlement in home ownership. Yes, all are entitled to a roof over head and a certain minimum decent housing - that can be in shared housing if none is affordable to a person on their own. Reliance on social systems of home ownership has to stop.
I view healthcare very differently. Getting sick is not something that a poorer person can avoid - there is need for a certain level of safety net in health care - it is both humane and in the interest of public health.
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010