DO YOU HEAR YOUR INCUMBENT SHOUTING THAT OR ARE THEY RIGGING ELECTIONS BY NOT ALLOWING CANDIDATES WITH THESE ISSUES AS A PLATFORM NOT PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARIES?
TODAY-----HOW TO SPOT A NEO-LIBERAL AND IN MARYLAND ALL POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS!
The reason US infrastructure in crumbling is that since Reagan/Clinton corporations have been paying little taxes and corporate subsidy has skyrocketed leaving no money for public projects. Neo-liberals came up with the idea of public private partnership to dismantle the public sector and send all public money to global corporations to disperse as they developed the project and policies. These policies are what has infused our entire government with fraud and corruption with all oversight and accountability dismantled. Billions of dollars are lost from every state and local coffer because of these private partnership policies.
The reason there has been no infrastructure project as everyone calls for one is that neo-cons and neo-liberals have to get all the structures and policies in place to see the trillion dollars goes to the right people. The bill below is one of them as is Trans Pacific Trade Pact and the Senate Immigration bill. Note that Dulaney wants to create yet another non-profit fund to handle the money----you know, to get it away from public scrutiny.
I will talk more in depth about this plan but I wanted today to show you the difference between a Democrat and a neo-liberal. This article calls Dulaney a business-friendly Democrat. How can a pol be a Democrat and work so hard to hide the policy-making process and make sure that public money goes to every higher corporate profit? Remember, the amount of corporate fraud and tax evasion done in this country alone would finance all infrastructure development if stopped. We don't even need the repatriation of corporate taxes from overseas for this. So, this entire plan is simply to maximize corporate profit at public expense. HOW DOES THIS MAKE DULANEY A DEMOCRAT?????
The structure for public works has always been-----people and corporations pay taxes to the general fund------a community has a need for public work and let's City Hall know-----and City Hall sends public employees from the Public Works department with city equipment to do the work. It is very easy. There is no motivation for fraud; no padding of bills to buy new equipment for a private business; no loss of public revenue with unending tax break incentives for simply doing work. You have public money paying people a decent wage with benefits with the money not lost through fraud and profiteering. The outsourcing that does happens goes to small and regional businesses.
THIS IS HOW THE US BECAME THE LEADER IN FIRST WORLD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ----WITH A STRONG PUBLIC SECTOR AND CORPORATIONS PAYING TAXES.
No doubt there were political wheeling and dealing about which infrastructure projects were financed but not the billions of dollars lost each year to global corporate fraud and corruption. Not the killing of Maryland small businesses by allowing global corporations control of projects and then subcontract to subcontractors to make the locals beg for work that won't allow a profit. That is what this Clinton economic policy brought to the US
and it has killed the country......LITERALLY.
The election for Governor of Maryland was all about making sure only a neo-liberal that supports all of these public private partnerships and financial instruments that simply fill these deals with fraud and corruption would be elected. Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur. Brown was the Clinton candidate because Brown is as raging a Wall Street pol as O'Malley.
A business friendly Democrat from Maryland is quickly gathering bipartisan support for a bill (H.R.2084) that would create a $50-billion nonprofit infrastructure investment fund to provide bond guarantees and low-interest loans to various types of projects selected by state and local governments.
Delaney’s bank is the first to answer a recent call by
former President Bill Clinton to bring private capital and expertise more directly to bear in addressing public works financing needs. But it does that indirectly. Delaney would offer financial incentives for states to adopt the PPP project delivery model. But PPP capital raising would be supported only indirectly—by reducing the cost of state and local debt used as the public contribution to hybrid financings. Private developers would not be able to access the loan pool directly. And by lowering the cost
of public borrowing, the bill would further skew value-for-money analyses to traditional delivery with cheap public debt. P3 advocates are hoping to convince Delaney to level the playing field.
Here is a look at the same politician as Dulaney------a corporate neo-liberal looking to privatize all that is public------Elizabeth Warren. You know that 'populist' politician that embraces all the public policy wanted by the 99% of Americans all the while supporting Hillary and Bill Clinton and global corporate markets. WOW-----TALK ABOUT SPIN! Warren is the progressive poser as was Obama. Remember, Obama was to the left of Hillary last elected then served to the right of Bush. This is who Warren is. She supports a few progressive issues and then backs the worst of issues thinking the American people will follow her. Whereas Dulaney is openly a Wall Street guy, it is candidates like Warren and Obama who do the most damage to Democratic voters because they pretend to be what they are not.
Below you see Warren trying as hard as any Republican to end the Post Office as a public service by tying it to Wall Street. Raise your hands if you can see how tying anything to Wall Street will end up imploding an institution----you know, like the Federal Housing Authority FHA with Freddie and Fannie; Federal Student Loans with Sallie Mae; Federal Credit Unions now operating as Wall Street banks. Remember, credit unions were created to do just what this Post Office as bank wants to do. In each case these partnerships imploded the Federal agency with fraud and corruption to the detriment of the American people. They can say all they want that this banking idea is different----it is not. The intent is to end the Post Office by filling it with fraud and corruption. The Post Office is perfectly fine the way it is.....it only needs Congress to stop outsourcing to private corporations all the services that bring in profit.
So, Warren is doing with the Post Office what Dulaney is doing to our public works departments----Warren says if the people won't allow direct privatization, we'll do it the Wall Street partnership way!
Know how easy it is to start a State Bank-----a public banking system? That is what Warren is fighting against and she is doing it for Wall Street.
Elizabeth Warren Has A Radical Plan To Remake The Post Office
- Feb. 3, 2014, 4:22 PM
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to solve two American problems with one solution — turn the country's increasingly empty post offices into simple retail banks for low-income citizens without bank accounts. In an op-ed in the Huffington Post, Warren writes that "about 68 million Americans — more than a quarter of all households — are underserved by the banking system. Collectively, these households spent about $89 billion in 2012 on interest and fees for non-bank financial services like payday loans and check cashing, which works out to an average of $2,412 per household."
That means poor Americans spend roughly 10% of their income on basic banking services, according to a recent report from the Office of the Inspector General.
Meanwhile, we've got an entire infrastructure of post offices and postal employees who are seeing the number of letters and packages they deliver dwindle more and more by the day.
The services Warren and the OIG are suggesting aren't complex — just check cashing, small international money transfers, small loans, reloadable prepaid cards, and bill paying. The OIG insists that the USPS wouldn't become a bank. In fact, it insists that these services would merely use the USPS's ubiquitous network to complement what banks do and go where banks can't go.
Other countries have already done this, and the OIG says that if even 10% of what underserved Americans pay on interest and fees went to the USPS it would generate $8.9 billion in new revenue per year.
Hey, if it works ...
You know what would bring $8.9 billion in new revenues----STOP OUTSOURCING POST OFFICE SERVICES
Here Warren yet again making public private partnerships the solution for the implosion of the FHA caused by public private partnerships. This article indicates Warren is splitting the progressives------WARREN IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE SHE IS A NEO-LIBERAL PRETENDING TO BE PROGRESSIVE. Democratic voters must look at what a politician is pushing as a whole to know that when they say they are for the people----they are not.
The problem with Freddie and Fannie is that as public private partnerships they allowed themselves to be loaded with toxic subprime mortgage debt----they were used just as AIG was used to take the toxic mess to the taxpayer. It was a plan. So, the almost trillion dollars of toxic fraudulent mortgages loaded onto Freddie and Fannie simply need to be written off by the banks as bad loans. THAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BAD DEBT. Then, Fannie and Freddie need to be dissolved as public private partnerships so the Federal Housing Authority can go back to being a public agency that does good work for the low-income people. Before the partnership status the FHA ran a great operation with no malfeasance or losses.
THIS IS WHAT A PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT WOULD WANT TO DO------
Warren has never stated any of this and as this article shows her solution to the massive holding of toxic fraudulent loans it to create a different kind of public private partnership......we'll call it a public utility neo-liberals say. IT IS INSANE!!!!
As you see in this article the use of the word progressive has nothing to do with progressive legislation. It is not progressive to see public housing coupled with private entities that we know skew operations. It appears Sherrod Brown sees this problem.
IF YOUR POL IS NOT SHOUTING THAT THE PROBLEM WITH FREDDIE AND FANNIE IS THAT ALMOST A TRILLION DOLLARS IN FRAUDULENT SUBPRIME LOANS ARE BEING LEFT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF FREDDIE AND FANNIE----THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS. GET RID OF THEM.
Elizabeth Warren Splits Progressives On Mortgage Reform
Posted: 07/14/2014 7:31 am EDT Updated: 07/14/2014 7:59 am EDT Huffington Post
Warren is negotiating with Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) over a housing finance overhaul that cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May. The bipartisan bill, authored by outgoing Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), has been sharply criticized by bank reform advocates, including Warren, and some conservative groups for recreating many of the same problematic incentives that took down Fannie and Freddie in 2008.
The dispute among Democrats on the banking committee is mostly over tactical considerations, but it has unearthed an ideological fault line in the progressive movement: Should Fannie and Freddie be reformed to be more friendly to the middle class, or should their operations be scrapped in favor of a private -- or fully public -- system?
"The whole Crapo-Johnson approach ... seeks to replace a mortgage system the size of JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup combined [and] is a dangerous and misguided approach that creates unprecedented complexity in the form of an experiment that may not work -- and at worst, will roil and unsettle markets and risk our system of mortgage finance," said Josh Rosner, managing director at Graham Fisher & Co. "It is worse than GSEs were at their worst."
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is also involved in the talks, but it's Warren's seal of approval that has some progressive housing advocates fretting. According to multiple Democratic sources, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of the most forceful Wall Street watchdogs in Congress, would prefer to see the bill scuttled entirely. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), arguably Warren's closest Senate ally, is sitting out the negotiations. And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who consistently votes with Warren on the committee and is emerging as a surprisingly reliable skeptic of big banks, has also avoided the talks. Six Democrats on the committee voted for the original reform bill, which Warren voted against. Negotiators need to secure at least three additional votes to convince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring the bill to the floor.
Warren's progressive opponents argue that her chief goals are at odds with one another, and a significant strategic risk is attached to having her name on a bill that could change dramatically either on the Senate floor or in the House. Supporters argue that she is targeting core problems with the bill, and believe a bipartisan Senate consensus would make it easier (eventually) to enact a good bill.
"This is a long game," said Barry Zigas, a former Fannie Mae senior vice president who now serves as director of housing policy for the Consumer Federation of America. "The economy needs a fair and durable mortgage finance system, and the Johnson-Crapo bill solidified bipartisan support for critical parts of that, including a federal guarantee for mortgage securities. But it needs more work, and Sen. Warren's, Sen. Corker's and others' efforts on both sides to improve it -- especially to make sure it serves the broadest possible range of creditworthy borrowers and holds its participants accountable for doing so -- are really important."
Fannie and Freddie exist, ostensibly, to lower the price of mortgages for consumers. The firms purchase mortgages from banks, pool them into securities, and sell them to investors, while guaranteeing those investors against losses. That guarantee increases investor appetite, which allows banks to offer mortgages at lower interest rates.
Prior to the crash, that system hinged on an implicit government guarantee: Investors knew that if anything ever happened to Fannie and Freddie, taxpayers would take the hit. But this support encouraged Fannie and Freddie -- which officially functioned as for-profit companies -- to engage in increasingly risky activities in the pursuit of higher payouts for shareholders and executives. When Wall Street banks started scoring huge profits on subprime loans, Fannie and Freddie followed their lead and, like the big banks, were ravaged and bailed out.
In an era of congressional stalemate, the mortgage finance status quo has its advantages. Liberal economist Dean Baker has emphasized that government control of Fannie and Freddie eliminates the core problem of the old order: private profit at public expense. The government is currently on the hook for losses, but it also books the profits from Fannie and Freddie's dealings.
There are also problems. Then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner set up a bailout repayment plan for Fannie and Freddie that makes it impossible for the firms to establish a capital cushion. The profits from their current operations are simply swept back into Treasury every quarter. Without beefier capital levels, Fannie and Freddie are barred from changing mortgage standards that would allow many creditworthy middle-class families to buy homes.
"Sen. Warren opposed the Johnson-Crapo bill in committee because she believes that it would make it harder for creditworthy borrowers to get affordable mortgages and for smaller lenders to compete against larger ones," Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose told HuffPost. "But she is also very concerned about the lack of access to mortgage credit in the current system for lower income families and African-American and Hispanic families."
U.S. homeownership rates have long been sharply stratified by race, a phenomenon Suzy Khimm recently detailed for MSNBC. Even in the heyday of the housing bubble, most African Americans did not own a home. Today, the figure is about 43 percent, compared to 72 percent for whites. While lending standards for Fannie and Freddie have tightened already, a botched overhaul could easily leave much of the market, particularly people of color, without good options.
The current alternatives to Fannie and Freddie are, at the high-end, the jumbo mortgage market, and at the other, the Federal Housing Administration. The jumbo market is for loans that are too big to qualify for Fannie and Freddie treatment, and features higher interest rates since its loans don't benefit from government backing. The government runs FHA to assist first-time borrowers seeking smaller-sized loans, and conservatives have long waged an ideological campaign against the agency's very existence, as affordable housing advocates are well aware.
"We don't want a housing apartheid, where you've got one system over here for the better heeled homeowners and then everything else is dumped in an FHA bucket," said Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial.
Warren has focused on two central aspects of Johnson-Crapo. First, the bill's weak language on affordable housing provides no homeownership mandate, and no requirements to make loans in underserved markets. Second, its potential to exacerbate "too big to fail" by turning over many of Fannie and Freddie's powers to Wall Street, replete with government subsidies. Tackling either issue is a tall political order, and in some ways, the two goals are in conflict.
Johnson-Crapo offers two replacement regimes for Fannie and Freddie. One would allow Wall Street banks to sell mortgage bonds that put private-sector investors on the hook for 10 percent of all losses, with the government shouldering the remainder. It's easy to understand why banks have been lobbying hard in favor of such an arrangement. It would give them a piece of Fannie and Freddie's game, allowing them to offer "low-risk, high reward" products -- a financial holy grail that doesn't currently exist on the private market. It's also the same public-risk-for-private-profit model that brought down Fannie and Freddie, and a big new line of business for banks that are already too big to fail.
Warren wants to forgo that model in favor of the other system outlined in Johnson-Crapo, which would require a public utility to issue mortgage bonds, with 100 percent of any losses insured by a heavily regulated private company. The government would only step in should the insurer fail.
Every bank reform Democrat on the banking committee agrees that Warren's "bond guarantor" model is an improvement. But the model has credible detractors, including Rosner, a longtime critic of Fannie and Freddie who was one of the few to accurately diagnose the problems that eventually brought them down.
"This is the worst Rube Goldberg approach: Rather than fixing the GSEs as fully private, well-capitalized entities with real capital and rate-of-return caps and no guarantee, which would lead market participants to price deals based on the GSEs' capital, deals will be based on a government backstop," Rosner said. "It's a horrible subsidy that ensures a future systemic event."
By focusing on the types of public-private hybrids that might be acceptable, the ideological scope of the housing reform talks has narrowed significantly since the years immediately following the crisis. Rosner and other reformers, including Raj Date, an ally of Warren's at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the agency's formative years, had advocated doing away with the convoluted subsidies of the Fannie and Freddie system in favor of a private market with more straightforward tax credits. Rosner advocates a special tax program to help low-income families save for a down payment. He has also argued that the mortgage interest deduction, which rewards families for taking on debt, should be swapped out for a mortgage equity deduction, which rewards families for paying it down.
Such an approach to housing subsidies would be far more efficient than anything currently being contemplated by the banking committee. And its efficiency is one reason why it has little political support. Conservatives are reluctant to vote for a direct subsidy, even one that would ultimately save taxpayers money. And elected officials consider any move away from the very popular mortgage interest deduction to be politically toxic.
The basic, legitimate social goal of giving citizens access to an affordable house and financial foundation is also a convoluted game of insider rewards: Any piece of mortgage-related legislation typically has to benefit various interest groups -- from realtors all the way up to hedge funds -- in order to actually pass Congress.
To advance the "bond guarantor" model, Warren will have to work out tricky technical details. Capital is the buffer between the bond insurer and taxpayers, and that buffer needs to be robust to protect the latter. But among Democrats, progressive and otherwise, there are real differences on the subject.
Warren subscribes to a widely held belief in high finance that hefty capital standards make loans more expensive, although some recent research on capital has concluded that this idea is simply wrong. But Warren, with backing from some affordable housing nonprofit groups, is pushing to reduce capital levels in the name of cheaper mortgages.
When they were taken over, Fannie and Freddie backed about $5.5 trillion worth of mortgages, and they burned through $78 billion of their own capital and more than $187 billion in taxpayer funds -- combined capital a bit less than 4.9 percent of the total mortgage book. Johnson-Crapo requires each regulated bond insurer to take on a 10 percent threshold, although it doesn't define what would count as capital (some kinds of debt are often permitted). Warren wants to bring that number down, and accompany it with a serious affordable housing mandate to prevent the new system from locking out creditworthy borrowers of modest means.
If one believes that deeper capital reserves make things more expensive, then one must strike a balance between protecting taxpayers with capital buffers and serving the market with affordable mortgages.
And then there are the very real political considerations. Even if Warren could cut a deal that included affordable housing standards and eliminated the most noxious of the public-private partnerships, she would still need to protect the core reforms on the Senate floor. The House, meanwhile, is pushing a bill that would simply eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and let the market do what it will. Reconciling the two bills would be difficult, and given the political gulf between the chambers, the possibility of reaching such an agreement in 2014 borders on fantasy. If Democrats hold on to the Senate in the November elections, Brown is likely to serve as the next chairman of the banking committee, giving a Wall Street watchdog and Warren ally more leverage over a bill to chart the future of Fannie and Freddie.
On the other hand, if Republicans take the Senate, any deal Democrats could get becomes that much less favorable to the party's core constituents. Then there's always the status quo.
"I think it's a good idea to try and move the ball," said the Urban League's Morial, "but a deal that doesn't create a system that's better than the current system is not one that we can support."
The FHA before privatized Freddie and Fannie operated with sound lending, helped low-income people who could truly support a home, and never had a problem with staying within its budget. The Post Office is just as the FHA was.....it is doing its job for the American people at no cost to taxpayers. Neither need a public private partnership. These PARTNERSHIPS have as a goal only to place the public in the position of subsidizing corporate profits and to weaken the public entity attached to the partnership. Neo-liberals work for small government to such a degree that they want all public agencies under corporate control and they want public money subsidizing profits all with no oversight and accountability. That is the economy created since the Reagan/Clinton neo-liberal transition.
The first thing Obama and neo-liberals in Congress did to Freddie and Fannie when they had a super majority in 2009 was to extend the Federal protection to housing loans to $700,000 homes. Do people affording a $700,000 home need government assistance? In the midst of a crisis they took the FHA to funding homes for the wealthy while the low-income housing funding stopped.
NEO-LIBERALS FIRST STEP WAS TO END THE FHA AS A LOW-INCOME HOUSING AGENCY TO PLACE THE EMPHASIS ON PROTECTING THE RICH. THEY ALLOWED FORECLOSURES TO CONTINUE WHILE SENDING TRILLIONS TO CORPORATIONS TO EXPAND OVERSEAS. THESE ARE NOT DEMOCRATS FOLKS.
The Democratic Party is not failing the 80% of labor and justice that identify as Democrats. It has simply been taken by a group of plundering sociopaths. Below you see 1968 ......Nixon Administration Fannie Mae became private
It was acquired by the Housing and Home Finance Agency from the Federal Loan Agency as a constituent unit in 1950. In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act made Fannie Mae into "mixed-ownership corporation" meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock; in 1968 it converted to a privately held corporation, to remove its activity and debt from the federal budget. In the 1968 change, arising from the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Fannie Mae's predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae").
But it took Clinton and neo-liberals to set the stage for the subprime mortgage fraud. Remember, it was Robert Rubin....Clinton's partner that started Citigroup and all of the illegal financial dealings. This had nothing to do with helping low-income----it targeted urban areas for fraud at the expense of the taxpayer.
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.
In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."[1
We simply need to take HUD back to its mission.
HUD Historical Background
The federal government’s interest in housing conditions can be traced back to the first national investigation of large urban slum areas in 1892. HUD is the successor to a number of federal housing agencies, which gradually evolved following a major effort during the great depression to stimulate housing development. The following narrative highlights major events and legislation tracing the Department over the past decades.
1930 1950 1970 1990 1940 1960 1980 Present
The 1930s In the midst of widespread unemployment and financial collapse, Congress passed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932, creating the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). This was the government’s first major involvement in the housing field. The RFC was authorized to make loans to private corporations providing housing for low-income families. Also in 1932, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was established to make advances on the security of home mortgages and establish a Home Loan Bank System.
However, these efforts did little to assist individual homebuyers. The average home loan at that time required very short-term credit, with terms generally ranging from three to five years. Large down payments, second mortgages, and high interest rates were commonplace. As the depression ended, and the prospect of improved financial status for individual families increased, the National Housing Act of 1934 was passed to relieve unemployment and stimulate the release of private credit in the hands of banks and lending institutions for home repairs and construction. To accomplish this, the Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA continues to this day, under the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, as the main federal agency handling mortgage insurance. Title II of the Act of 1934 established two basic mortgage insurance programs: Section 203 mortgage insurance for one to four family homes; and Section 207 multifamily project mortgages. The FHA’s assumption of risk, through its insurance programs, made possible the amortization of mortgage loans with regular monthly payments to reduce the size of loan.
The Act of 1934 also authorized the FHA to create a national mortgage association to provide a secondary market where home mortgages could be sold. The allowed more money to be available for home loans. In 1937, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, was chartered by the FHA as a subsidiary of the RFC.
While these early measures were a major government effort to stimulate housing construction, they did not help those lower income families most in need of housing. Because of the needs of this group, the United States Housing Act of 1937 established the public housing program. The Act, administered by the United States Public Housing Authority, authorized loans to local public housing agencies for lower-rent public housing construction expenses.
The programs created by these acts guided the direction of federal housing policy for the next 10 years, leading to the creation of the urban renewal program. Over the years, all of these original programs have undergone some changes and additions. However, they continue to reflect the federal government’s aim to marshal both public and private resources to improve housing conditions for low-and moderate-income families.
The same year that the public housing program was approved by Congress, the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act was passed to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to make rural housing loans. The separate administration of rural loans continues to the present with the Farmers Home Administration’s (FmHA). FmHA direct loans for rural housing may be used in conjunction with other housing assistance such as Section 8 housing assistance.
While another major housing act would not be passed until 1949, government housing agencies underwent several reorganizations between 1937 and 1949. In 1939, the United States Public Housing Authority was transferred to the newly created Federal Works Agency; and the Federal Loan Agency was created to assume responsibility for the FHA, the RFC, Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and the Home Owners Loan Corporation. Three years later, the National Housing Agency (NHA) was established to handle all non-farm housing programs. The Federal Home Loan Bank Administration, the FHA, and the Federal Public Housing Administration became constituent agencies of NHA. In 1943, the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA), HUD’s immediate predecessor, replaced the NHA. Back to top.
The 1940s World War II caused a temporary moratorium on domestic housing construction except for defense proposes. Legislation during this period, however, has a major impact on housing. The 1944 authorization of the Veterans Administration (VA) home loan program has guaranteed millions of single-family and mobile home loans since its inception. The market increase in housing construction following World War II, which led to the growth of suburban areas, is in part attributable to this financing program. This exodus to the suburbs in turn led to the need for new housing programs to deal with declining urban areas.
Congress responded to this urban decline with the Housing Act of 1949 (1949 Act). Title I of the 1949 Act authorized funds to localities to assist in slum clearance and urban redevelopment. This program, as earlier programs, once again emphasized new construction. In addition, it provided funding for activities not directly related to housing construction. Open space land, neighborhood facilities and basic water and sewer facilities were all made eligible for federal assistance. Back to top.
The 1950s The Housing Act of 1954 amended the 1949 Act to provide funding, not only for new construction and demolition, but for the rehabilitation and conservation of deteriorating areas. These amendments represented a substantive change in the evaluation of housing problems. The gradually shift from new construction to conservation has had a major impact on today’s housing policies where rehabilitation rather than demolition is encouraged. Two years later the Housing Act of 1956 added special provisions under Sections 203 and 207 and the public housing programs to give preference to the elderly, and amended the 1949 Act to authorize relocation payments to persons displaced by urban renewal. Federal involvement in housing was rapidly expanding to include not only the financing of new construction but measures to preserve existing housing resources and develop better communities. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. Back to top.
The 1960s Legislation in the 1960s expressed the social concerns of providing decent and sanitary housing and ensuring that such housing is made available to all. In that sprit, Executive Order 11063, Equal Opportunity in Housing, was issued in 1962 and represented the first major effort by the federal government to combine civil rights with housing. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 assured nondiscrimination on federally assisted programs. Equality in housing opportunity was legislated by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination in the sale, financing, or leading of housing. The full protection of the law was expanded by the Fair Housing Amendments of 1988, further prohibiting discrimination based on familial status or handicap.
In 1965, the Housing and Urban Development Act created HUD to succeed the HHFA as a cabinet-level agency.
The 1960s brought a new method of developing low-income housing. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 initiated a new leased housing program to make privately owned housing available to low-income families. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (1974 Act) replaced Section 23 with the Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance Payment Program (Section 8). Title I of the 1974 Act created a new community development block grant (CDBG) program. Back to top.
The 1970s In the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, laws were enacted to define and protect the rights of consumers in the areas of interstate land sales and real estate settlement procedures (RESPA). The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1976 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1978 attempted to have lending institutions reveal where they were making their housing loans in an effort to discourage geographical discrimination in the mortgage lending industry. Back to top.