First, for people trying to follow this, the gentleman from Alabama has confused several programs in this conversation, most of which aren't up today. We are dealing with one at a time. He talked about money that went to Los Angeles and went to a group instead of the county. That has zero to do with today's program. Zero. And in fact, it doesn't have to do with individual homeowners. It's a program that gives aid to municipalities, which we will be debating later, probably next week, which gives aid to municipalities to deal with property that they have been stuck with. So it has nothing to do with today. But the gentleman does make a good point about the deficit. Unfortunately, he does not put his votes where his rhetoric is. The CBO says that this program is going to cost not $8 billion, but if it's fully operational over a 2-year period, which is its life span, will cost $175 million. Now, that's money. But do you know what it is? It's much less--and the gentleman from Alabama voted during that same period to send money to the cotton farmers of Brazil.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses misconceptions about funding programs and the deficit in a debate.
Share
More from Barney Frank
It was a great mistake to push lower income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it.
I do think there is a tendency for an overreach by the FSOC. I do not think straightforward insurance companies or money managers should be covered and regulated as SIFIs.
I was one of three Members of the House who voted against that. Three of us, Ron Paul, Dave Wu, and I voted to allow this bigot to continue to demonstrate his bigotry.
Just as I would say if you say you'd believe in racial discrimination or religious discrimination, any time you are at an agency that's in charge of protecting and enforcing constitutional rights and you express your view that that…





