Wait, CNN Was Partying With the Iranians in the UK?
Why a Member of Jasmine Crockett's Security Team Was Just Shot and Killed...
Wait, Did This CNN Guest Just Blame the US for the 9/11 Attacks?
This Quote From Gov. Stitt Is NOT Good News Regarding Who He'd Pick...
What These Two Girls Are Laughing About Is Beyond Chilling
Progressive Crackpots Vs. Environmental Wackos
The Road to Tehran Runs Through Baku
The Parent-Led Rebellion Against EdTech
It’s Time to Build America With U.S.-Made Materials
DEI Is Dead. Corporate America Just Hasn’t Admitted It Yet.
Affordability Is Not a Slogan. Democrats Treat It Like One.
From Panic to Therapy: Cycle of Faux Climate Fear
President Donald J. Trump Can Index Capital Gains With Pen
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Gavin Newsom
The First Time in My Life That I Have Come Into Conflict With...
OPINION

Ed DeMarco, at FHA, Deserves a Medal

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Ed DeMarco, at FHA, Deserves a Medal

The same people who helped create the $180 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now demanding the head of Ed DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some commentators have gone as far to say that the “single largest obstacle to meaningful economic recovery is a man who most Americans have probably never heard of, Edward J. DeMarco.” Of course, such a statement shows a stunning lack of understanding of both the mortgage market and the economy in general.

Advertisement

Why are so many upset with Mr.DeMarco? One simple reason: he is following the law. Some believe that broadly writing down the mortgages of underwater borrowers would turn the economy around, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer. While that assumption itself is highly questionable, it doesn’t matter. As I’ve detailed elsewhere, the current statutory language governing FHFA limits Mr. Demarco from doing so.

Yes, some proponents have found language elsewhere in the statute they believe allows sticking it to the taxpayer for another $100 billion. But their argument relies on general introductory sections of the statute, not the powers and duties of FHFA as a conservator. Statutory interpretation 101 is that more specific sections trump general introductory sections. General sections have “no power to give what the text of the statute takes away” (Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 535). One would expect senior members of Congress to understand that.

Of course, if some members of Congress believe we should spend $100 billion bailing out deadbeats, then why don’t they simply offer a bill on the floors of the House and Senate doing so? I’m sure House leadership would be happy to have a vote on the issue. The notion, instead, that an unelected, un-appointed, acting agency head should, in the absence of clear authority to do so, spend $100 billion is simply offensive to our system of government. Not to mention it probably violates the Anti-Deficiency Act, and would be hence subject to criminal prosecution.

Advertisement

Unfortunately, one of the common themes of the financial crisis was outright unlawful behavior by the financial regulators, such as the FDIC broad guarantee of bank debt, which lacked any statutory basis. Mr. DeMarco is to be commended for staying within the letter of the law.

If Congress had wanted Fannie and Freddie to bailout underwater borrowers, they could have simply written that into the statute. Congress didn’t, regardless of whatever spin any current members of Congress might want to place on the issue.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement