Scott Brown: Fighting For Massachusetts

The Boston Globe has published story critical of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and his assertion that proposed financial overhaul bill would result in lost jobs in Massachusetts.

Senator Scott Brown’s use of as-yet-unsubstantiated industry estimates to predict the number of jobs that would be lost to greater financial regulation drew fire yesterday as partisan debate continued to heat up in the US Senate.

Brown said yesterday that his weekend prediction on national TV Sunday that tightening Wall Street rules would kill 25,000 to 35,000 jobs in Massachusetts was “based on my speaking with industry leaders’’ in recent weeks, but he did not cite any specific analysis.

That varied from an explanation offered by his representatives on Sunday, when his office said Brown was given the estimate by the chief executive of MassMutual, a large insurance company headquartered in Springfield.

MassMutual officials said Sunday, and again yesterday, that they did not give Brown any firm estimates of projected job losses in the Bay State.

The company said it warned of unspecified job losses in the future and provided him with estimates — dramatically inflated estimates, the company acknowledged yesterday — of jobs lost thus far in the current recession.

I’m not what the problem is. Estimates are exactly that: estimates. Based on information Senator Brown has, he gave an estimate of the number of lost jobs and has brought that issue to the forefront. Forget about the specific number of jobs lost…the real point is:  jobs will be lost.

The idea that the financial overhaul bill would cost jobs has not, until Brown’s weekend assertion, been part of the debate in Washington.

“No one has argued to us this is going to be cutting jobs as an overall in the economy,’’ said Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who authored the House version of the financial overhaul. “I have no idea where that figure came from. I don’t think anybody does. It may have just been spewed out by the Icelandic volcano with some of the other debris.’’

If Brown’s estimate on “Face the Nation’’ were true, the measure would eliminate up to 17 percent of the 207,000 jobs in the Bay State’s financial services sector.

“I stand by them,’’ Brown said in a brief interview yesterday in which he defended the remark. “And there will be larger numbers nationally.’’

Pressed to describe the source of his estimate, Brown said the figure was “based on my speaking with the industry leaders over the last month or so.’’

Brown aides last night also cited a study by the Business Roundtable — which largely opposes the current bill — estimating that a crackdown on a financial tool called over-the-counter derivatives would cause companies to be less profitable, resulting in 100,000 to 120,000 direct and indirect job cuts nationwide. The industry group did not provide any Massachusetts-specific figures.

Although MassMutual’s initial calculation put the number of financial sector jobs lost to date at 33,000, data compiled by the state’s Department of Labor and Workforce show there have been 18,700 jobs lost in all financial activities — including finance, insurance, and real estate — over the last three years.

There were 225,700 jobs in those categories in March 2007, and 207,000 as of last month.

The Boston Globe’s story is completely missing the point. As it stands today, this financial overhaul bill is will subject Massachusetts companies that didn’t take TARP funds, or contribute to financial meltdown, with huge fees and burdensome regulations, and will certainly cost the Commonwealth jobs. That is what Senator Scott Brown was saying on Sunday. Whether is 2,000 or 20,000, jobs lost in the Commonwealth is an end result we sent Scott Brown to Washington to prevent from happening. Thanks to him, now it’s being discussed.

Scott Brown is in Washington standing up for the interests Massachusetts. This bill, as currently written, would negatively impact the more than 200,000 Massachusetts employees. The financial services industry is important to the Massachusetts economy; and Scott Brown is fighting to keep those jobs. What more could we ask for?

Thank you, Senator Scott Brown, for doing exactly what we sent you to Washington to do.

Barney Frank Walks Off Live CNBC Interview

The guy continues to be an embarrassment to the people of Massachusetts…

Barney’s Little Bailout

In case you had little confidence in the federal bailouts being used appropriate, well, you should have even less confidence now–and you can thank Rep. Barney Frank.

Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn’t look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department’s bank bailout fund last fall.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.

Of course, we expect our elected officials to help bring federal money in Massachusetts–no surprises there. However, when it comes to the $700 billion bailout that has a bit of PR problem, how should that $12 million been best apportioned to help solve the economic crisis: giving it to a bank that meets the requirements of the TARP program, or Barney Frank’s earmark injection of funds to a failing Massachusetts bank that gave out bum loans and exorbitant executive bonuses?

Barney Frank was part of the problem with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and now has failed at being part of the solution for the bailout.

Out-of-District Money Flooding Congressional Campaign Coffers

Congressmen from Massachusetts are getting most of their campaign money from outside their districts, and in some cases, outside Massachusetts, according to MAPLight.org.

The Bay State’s congressional delegation hauled in nearly $11 million in campaign cash between 2005 and 2007, 81 percent of which came from donors living outside their districts, a new study reveals.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) took in the most campaign cash of the Massachusetts delegation – $2.4 million – 91 percent of which came from outside his district and 73 percent of which came from out-of-state, according to campaign watchdog MAPLight.org.

Frank spokesman Peter Kovar said Frank’s chairmanship of the House financial services committee and involvement in gay rights and other “high-profile” national issues explains the high percentage of out-of-district donations.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden) topped the Bay State list with 93 percent of his $1.1 million coming from out of his district. Markey ranked 45th of 421 House lawmakers in the study.

Nationally, House members raised $700 million, 79 percent of which came from outside members’ districts.

The study tracked donations of $200 or more.

“Instead of a voting democracy, we have a dollar democracy – may the biggest-spending special interest win,” said MAPLight executive director Daniel Newman.

Other Bay State lawmakers’ donations included:

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Springfield), $1.1 million, 90 percent out-of-district, 22 percent from Massachusetts;

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville), $1.2 million, 85 percent from outside his district, 45 percent from Massachusetts;

Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester), $1 million, 82 percent out-of-district, 47 percent in-state;

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Quincy), $802,000, 81 percent out-of-district, 52 percent in-state;

Rep. James Olver (D-Amherst), $971,000, 79 percent out-of-district, 45 percent in-state;

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-S. Boston), $1.45 million, 73 percent out-of-district, 62 percent in-state;

Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem), $769,000, 58 percent out-of-district, 57 percent in-state.

A Frank Discussion on Racism

Racism. Racism. Racism.

Much like the children and teenagers in YouTube videos chanting for and pledging their allegiance to Obama, Democrats are trying to label any criticism levied by Republicans regarding the current economic crisis, and Barack Obama in general, as veiled racism.

Yawn… same old tricks again. Let’s be fair, it is page one of the Democrat’s playbook, and Rep. Barney Frank, who is blaming anyone and anything but himself for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac hoopla, is now trying to say that Republican criticism of the subprime mortgage fallout is an attack on the poor, and of course, those poor people are being targeted because of racism.

Frank told a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston today that Republicans are appealing to their base by blaming the economic crisis on efforts to expand affordable housing.

He said “the fact that some of the poor people are black doesn’t hurt” the GOP critics with their political base.

But the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee says the Community Reinvestment Act has helped expand affordable housing to low- and moderate-income buyers.

He says the larger subprime mortgage mess is instead responsible for the vast majority of foreclosures and the financial problems on Wall Street.

Again, classic page one tactic.

Barney Frank is an idiot. Is this the best he can do? Blame it on Republicans being racist? How about we blame the folks who doled out subprime loans to those same poor people simply because of their race. Oh yes, that is most certainly what was going on… giving out mortgages to poor people, minorities especially, who couldn’t afford, nor should be considered for mortgages. It was Affirmative Action at its worst (worse than it is by definition).

As a conservative and registered Republican, my criticism of this economic crisis is of the rich people who gave out the subprime mortgages when they knew it was bad, and the poor people who let themselves be convinced they could afford a mortgage. I don’t give a hoot what race you are, but I do take issue with blatant stupidity. When things go awry, you need to criticize, and hiding criticism because you might insult or offend a minority is equally racist.

Barney Frank is an idiot. (Does my calling him an idiot make me anti-gay?) The commission-happy mortgage brokers (of any race) are idiots. The poor people (of any race) who took on subprime loans are idiots. All the politicians (of either party) who ignored the crisis, and pushed it along anyways are idiots. The Senators and Representatives (of either party) who voted ‘yes’ on the bailout are idiots.

I hate stupidity, and I won’t censor my labeling of something stupid. Stupidity is colorblind.

Nice try Barney, but instead of levying baseless charges of racism, take some responsibility and let’s worry about keeping this from happening again, so people like me who don’t have a mortgage with my name on it, but have a small share in thousands of mortgages for properties I’ll never get to see, don’t have to bailout another $700 billion worth of subprime mortgages.