The Wall Street Journal: When Charles E. Haldeman Jr. became Freddie Mac’s chief executive officer in August, the ailing housing-finance giant had already consumed $51 billion of government money to stay afloat. It’s likely to need even more.

Freddie’s federal overseers nevertheless have instructed Mr. Haldeman to focus on something that isn’t likely to make the bleak balance sheet look any better: carrying out the Obama administration plan to allow defaulted borrowers to hang onto their homes.

On a recent afternoon, employees at Freddie’s headquarters here peppered Mr. Haldeman with concerns about the company’s future. He responded that they were “fortunate” to have such a clear mission—the government’s foreclosure-prevention drive. “We’re doing what’s best for the country,” he told them.

[...]

But Fannie and Freddie remain troubled wards of the state, with no blueprints for the future and no clear exit strategy for the government.

Nearly a year and a half after the outbreak of the global economic crisis, many of the problems that contributed to it haven’t yet been tamed. The U.S. has no system in place to tackle a failure of its largest financial institutions. Derivatives contracts of the kind that crippled American International Group Inc. still trade in the shadows. And investors remain heavily reliant on the same credit-ratings firms that gave AAA ratings to lousy mortgage securities.

Fannie and Freddie, for their part, remain at the core of a housing-finance system that inflated a dangerous housing bubble. After prices collapsed, sending shock waves around the world, the federal government put America’s housing-finance system on life support. It has yet to decide how that troubled system should be rebuilt.

On Dec. 24, Treasury said there would be no limit to the taxpayer money it was willing to deploy over the next three years to keep the two companies afloat, doing away with the previous limit of $200 billion per company. So far, the government has handed the two companies a total of about $111 billion. ….

So, why are they doing this?

1: To keep the housing bubble inflated.

2: For political reasons – use our money to buy votes.

3: It’s a convenient way to spend our money without having to ask Congress for the funds.

They’ve learned absolutely nothing from economic crisis, other than not to let a good crisis go to waste. But they already knew that.

Politico: For a president who ran on uplifting themes like change and hope, Barack Obama spends an awful lot of time scolding Americans about how he hopes they’ll change.

He has advised parents to “replace that video game with a book and make sure that homework gets done.” He has urged members of Congress not to read blogs or watch 24-hour cable news. And he’s challenged lobbyists, lawmakers, bankers, journalists, insurance companies and other heads of state to do a better job.

He’s prodded people to get off the couch, eat healthier and exercise more. He’s even suggested Americans buy stocks, U.S.-made cars and energy-efficient light bulbs, while cautioning them not to max out their credit cards.

At times, having Obama in the Oval Office is like having a really powerful Dr. Phil around. …..

According to a source close to the Paterson camp who is familiar with the scope of the Times‘ reporting, the Times piece will be an in-depth profile of the governor focused on his personal character. There are likely to be new details about his marital infidelities, but the source added that it’s not going to be the bombshell the blogs have predicted. “The piece is PG-13, not XXX,” the source explained. “Not to say it won’t be problematic, but the Aqueduct situation? That’s potentially criminal. On his extramarital affairs, the question is who those people are, and what jobs they’ve held.”

In case you missed the story over the weekend, you can catch up here. Here’s a little background info on the “Aqueduct situation.”

Gov. Paterson’s top lawyer conceded Friday that politics was a key factor in picking the winning bidder for an Aqueduct “racino.”

Peter Kiernan’s stunning revelation came as Paterson hustled to cast the controversial selection of Aqueduct Entertainment Group as squeaky clean, insisting the losers who told of secretive and shady dealings were voicing sour grapes.

“A number of people who lose cry foul, and they think they can get some resonance,” Paterson told KISS-FM.

Kiernan, the gov’s chief counsel, said the weeding of bidders was more about political reality.

“It’s not a typical [bidding] process,” Kiernan told the Daily News. “It is not governed by procurement law. It is a political process because you have the three political leaders that have to make the decision.”

Just politics as usual, huh? Unfortunately, a big juicy sex scandal would get people’s attention. People will lose interest in the Aqueduct bidding process faster than you can say “Aqueduct bidding process.”

Via memeorandum

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.  If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.  Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance.  Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

Robert Gibbs responded. In short, he said “no.” The long version is here. The Hill summed it up:

Gibbs reiterated administration arguments that Obama had worked with Republicans throughout the year, and said that the president is “adamant” that lawmakers finish their work on health reform.

At least he refrained from saying “we won.”

Via memeorandum

Hotline on Call: Independent voters see Pres. Obama in a negative light by a nearly 2-1 margin, according to a new Marist College survey, while almost half of voters say he has failed to meet their expectations.

The poll, conducted Feb. 1-3, showed just 44% of registered voters approving of Obama’s job as president. 47% disapprove. But among indie voters, Obama’s approval rating sits at a terrible 29%, while his disapproval rating is at 57%.

Obama’s 44% job approval rating is the lowest he has scored in any non-internet poll since moving into the WH, according to a review of data compiled by Pollster.com.

As D.C. continued to dig out from Snowmageddon and is keeping an eye on another storm system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was busy making a climate change announcement.

NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.

Earlier snowmelt? That would be nice.

Turns out the release was planned prepared ahead of the snowstorm, which shut federal agencies today and forced its senders to hold a press conference by telephone instead of at the National Press Club. …….

It looks like they may have to delay the release for a few more days. Another blizzard could hit DC Tuesday or Wednesday.

I think the blizzards are God’s way of slowing down the Democrats and their agenda. The more time wasted, the closer we get to the mid-term elections. That, and sending a clear message that human beings can’t control weather or climate.

According to state law, the governor has ten days once the vacancy is officially declared to decide on the date for the special election, which can come no sooner than 60 days following that proclamation.That likely means the special election will be held on May 18, which is the date already set for federal primaries around the state. (Special elections costs the state huge sums of money and it’s likely that Gov. Ed Rendell will choose to go with an already established election day to save some cash.)

Special elections are quite costly. A good way to reduce the number of special elections is to set term limits. Isn’t it about time we stop electing politicians for life?

Via memeorandum

The Hill: House Democrats say leadership has their work cut out in convincing the public to support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000.

Centrists and liberal Democrats told The Hill they support allowing President Bush’s tax cuts on those making more than $250,000 to expire, but said leaders must win public support by portraying the tax increase as reducing the nation’s record budget deficit. “I believe there is a message from back home that is loud and clear: do something about these out of control deficits,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), a centrist whose district was won in 2008 by GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

“Failure to address that would produce the worst consequence for the country and therefore the worst consequence politically,” Pomeroy said.

What a dope. The Bush tax cuts fueled economic growth and increased revenue to the federal government.

Americans do want to see the government get these deficits under control. A good place to start would be for the government to stop spending so much money.

Via memeorandum