To my surprise, when I opened Monday's Daily, I found an interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) conducted by Michael Bendetson. I hoped to find an enlightening view into the thoughts and opinions of Rep. Frank, but instead read what amounted to a pro-Barney Frank op-ed, with many informative questions and answers but little challenge to the congressman's opinions. I must take issue with a few aspects.
It is disappointing that Bendetson does not even attempt to hide his bias in favor of his interviewee: His admiration for Frank seems to hold him back from pushing for answers. Initially, he calls Frank "one of the 133 geniuses who voted against the Iraq War Resolution," and later he compliments him as an "economics expert," asking him for his thoughts on Bush's economic theory, labeling the entirety of it "supply-side." Regardless of the validity of either statement, the hero-worship is a bit unnecessary. Frank has no background in economics, having received a law degree from Harvard University. He is a career politician, serving in the Boston mayor's office, then in the Massachusetts House of Representative and then elected to Congress in 1980.
Next, in an apparent effort to keep the interview short, Bendetson never pushes Frank on any of his questionable responses. Most suspect was his question on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from which Frank has received more than $40,000 in campaign contributions. He asks if there might have been a conflict of interest — a plausible reason for Frank to look the other way — after receiving these donations. The congressman responded by asserting that Fannie and Freddie donations are no different than donations from labor unions, grocery stores and automobile dealers. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC), does he really believe there is no distinction? And does Bendetson really take him at his word?
Frank tries, as any good politician does, to reduce every argument against him into a good versus evil scenario. Indeed, in the interview, Frank says, "The Democrats are for regulation, and the Republicans are not." Regulation has no inherent positive meaning: It just refers to any legal restrictions on anything put in place by the government. It was his code for saying he favors helping people, and Republicans do not. Unfortunately, the argument is more complex than that. The cornerstones of Frank's House record, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are two of the most heavily regulated enterprises in the country.
It is true that Frank supported regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As chairman of the HFSC, he indeed played an integral part in regulation that forced Fannie and Freddie to give out more mortgage loans to high-risk individuals. Bendetson elicits an evasive, telling response to questions of Fannie and Freddie abuse. Bendetson asks, "Did the government make a mistake in forcing banks to lend money to high-risk people?" Frank responds that banks did not have to lend to "high-risk" people; they only had to lend to "poorer neighborhoods."
Apparently, he did not observe any overlap between the two groups. Much of the reason for the Freddie and Fannie problems can be traced to excessive regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises. In the 1990s, in part cheered on by Frank, then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo investigated banks for not lending to the poor under the guise of "racial discrimination." As a result, home ownership went up as many poor Americans received loans that were beyond their means, and 10 years later, these loans are defaulting. Bendetson fails to confront Frank on any of these points.
Most disappointingly, Bendetson never asks a single question that doubts Frank's record, and he never touches on the following quotations from the congressman:
"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."
— The New York Times, Sept. 11, 2003
"I think we have to recognize the reality that we don't have a choice now of debating whether this [$700 billion bailout] is a good or a bad thing."
— BBC News, Sept. 23, 2008
"In the debate between those who believe in essentially unregulated markets and others who hold the reasonable regulation diminishes market excesses without inhibiting their basic function, the subprime situation unfortunately provides ammunition for the latter view."
— The Financial Times, Aug. 20, 2007
If Mr. Bendetson had pressed Frank on any of these quotes, readers could have seen a more vulnerable side of the congressman and seen him take some form of responsibility for his prior irresponsibility. Alas, his admiration overrules his journalistic curiosity, and the article follows suit.
Nevertheless, kudos to Michael Bendetson for attaining this high-profile interview. It was a good read about a respectable congressman and worth the time.
--
Jonathan Danzig is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
