The FDA Is Working Against MAHA
DOJ Is Trying to Investigate Stephen Miller's Doxxer – Democrat Officials Are Trying...
Here's How an Actor Just Ended the Case for Reparations
WI Senator Ron Johnson: Democrats Are in a Complete State of Denial Over...
Chicago Declares War on Faith
Illinois Poised to Become First Midwestern State to Legalize Assisted Suicide
How Do You Say 'America First' in Chinese?
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 293: What God Says About Himself in the...
Really Listening to the Voters
Trump Tariffs Will Pay $2,000 Check to Many Americans, President Says
Mexican Citizen Sentenced for Trafficking 18-Year-Old Victim to Texas for Sex Work
Man Who Terrorized Christian Churches With Bomb Threats Sentenced to 6 Years in...
From the Heart to the Ballot Box: The Policies We Elect Reflect the...
Suspect in Black Jeep Fires at Border Patrol Agents in Chicago, DHS Reports
Trump Urges Senate Republicans To Redirect Money From Insurance Companies to People
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.

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