Wait, Maine's Nazi-Tattooed Dem Senate Candidate Hosted a Passover Seder?
Two US Planes Were Shot Down in Iran Yesterday, One Pilot Is Still...
We Know Why Justice Samuel Alito Went to the Hospital Last Month
A Thief’s Final Surrender
Elon: ‘We Are Making Some Progress’
It’s Time for a 'King of Kings' March!
Pro-Russian Parties Lead in Bulgaria, Raising Stakes for Ukraine and the EU
AI Water Use? That’s a Hoax.
The Image of Keith Ellison
Petition for Government Spending Caps So Our Grandchildren Can Prosper
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is? Union Leaders Still Making Political Donations...
With Omeed Assefi in Charge, America First Antitrust Is Alive and Well
The Day Nothing Happened — and Everything Changed
The White House Can Find Better AI Partners Than Ultra Woke Anthropic
America First Trading Policies Are Key to Defeating China
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