“Folks we are here today forcing this issue because America is at risk,” said Brooks. “We are at risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because the socialist members of this body choose to spend money that we do not have. They believe in wealth transfer programs.”

Rep. Ellison interrupted. “Point of order. My point of order is I would like the gentleman’s words taken down referencing members of this body as socialists.”

After some discussion, Ellison asked, “Does the gentleman withdraw his word or not?”

Brooks did, but he didn’t do so without some complaint.

“Ladies and gentlemen of America, we all know what we are talking about here and we all know the what the definitional terms are, and I’m more than happy to resume this discussion off the House floor, but for whatever reason I’m not permitted to use one word,” he said.

Friday was a day of budget battles on Capitol Hill. The Republicans put forward their budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, with massive changes to Medicare, deep cuts to social safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps, and lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations through reforms the tax code.

Progressive Democrats put forward the People’s Budget which would raise taxes on the wealthy and propose deep cuts to defense and military spending mainly be ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After backing off his socialist claim, Brooks slammed the progressive budget proposal. “To the United States of America now, this progressive People’s Budget I submit to you is nothing more than a Trojan house. Why should anyone believe that the folks who have wracked up these massive deficit that is put America at risk are now going to change their stripes?”

California Rep. Maxine Waters of California had a different view of history.

“The gentleman from Alabama evidently has amnesia,” he said. “The Clinton administration eliminated the deficit and left a balanced budget; it was the Bush administration that created the deficit. I rise in strong support for this the Progressive Caucus’ alternative balanced People’s Budget.

She continued, “During the last administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle maxed out our nation’s credit card for wars and tax cuts for the rich all while saying that deficits don’t matter. Now they are in an identity crisis as a rationale to undermine programs they have never supported and push a divisive social agenda that’s a sideshow to our budget debate.”

Ellison and McCollum were the only two member of the Minnesota delegation to vote in favor of the People’s Budget, which failed with only 77 votes.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget passed the House 235-193 with no Democrats voted for it. The Minnesota delegation was split between the state’s four Democrats and four Republicans.

So far, GOP leaders are attempting to stay mum on the issue. Having gotten a lot of mileage out of decrying the ethics cases surrounding Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), repeatedly accusing Pelosi of not actually “draining the swamp” in Washington as she had promised, Republicans are attempting to avoid headlines that they would seek to loosen up ethics scrutiny in Washington should they take power:

Boehner’s spokesman tried to change the topic when asked whether his boss would keep the OCE if Boehner has the Speaker’s gavel in 2011.

“We are listening to the American people, who are focused on jobs and spending,” said Michael Steel. “This sort of hypothetical hasn’t come up.”

Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) spokesman responded similarly.

“Eric is focused on cutting spending and bringing an end to the cloud of uncertainty that continues to hang over job creators, families, and investors so that people can get back to work,” said Brad Dayspring.

While Boehner and Cantor won’t say anything for certain at present, they both opposed the OCE’s creation and tried to block the measure in March of 2008. The bill passed by a single vote (207-206), and requires reauthorization at the beginning of each congress. Many House Democrats, as well, are hardly pleased with the new office, especially members who faced a recent investigation into their conduct on the eve of the financial reform vote in December, as well as members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC):

CBC members have introduced legislation that would curtail the powers of the OCE, but those proposed modifications were swiftly lambasted by watchdog groups, including Democracy 21 and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington.

Republicans and Democrats in recent weeks have openly ripped the OCE’s investigative tactics amid an investigation into the fundraising activities of a bipartisan group of eight members during the Wall Street reform debate.

Last week, the OCE recommended that the House ethics committee further review Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) for fundraisers they held in the days leading up to the House financial reform vote last December. The OCE recommended dismissal of the probes against the five other members.

An ethics office that has roused the ire of both parties would appear to be living up faithfully to its independent watchdog mission. Unfortunately, it serves at the pleasure of the Congress it is tasked with investigating, putting it in a perilous spot come the beginning of the next session.

Sloan doesn’t exactly give an answer in her op-ed, but she hints that politics might have something to do with it:

With control of the House likely up for grabs, some — including Rangel — have said that Republicans on the ethics committee have refused to reach a settlement with Rangel specifically because of a desire to focus national attention on Democrats’ ethics problems and to gain an edge in the election. [...]

Intentional or not, releasing charges against Rangel and Waters so close to the midterms lends credence to those who assert that the charges are political. The timing undermines the ethics committee’s already weak credibility and jeopardizes the legitimacy of the ethics process. As a result, we may see members reluctant to buy in to a process they view as a politically motivated. Already, we have heard members of both parties call for the OCE to be dismantled, or at least to have its (limited) power severely reduced.

The Hill reports that Waters had originally considered holding a press conference on Tuesday, then later cancelled — placing her in sharp contrast with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y), who delivered a 37-minute floor speech about his own ethics investigation the day the House was back in session.

Waters did draw parallels between the two investigations on Tom Joyner’s radio show, however:

“The OCE [Office of Congressional Ethics] is poorly constructed,” Waters said. “You don’t know who is charging you with what or brought a claim against you or who brought the information to the OCE … of all the information claimed or accusations brought to them, they think that African-Americans are the only ones who they move further with investigation on.”

In truth, the OCE has recommended that a number of congressmen, both black and white, be further investigated, but the House Ethics Committee has chosen only to pursue those cases against Reps. Rangel and Waters. Waters’ attacks against the OCE reflected a general distaste that members of Congress share for the independent ethics body. In this case, however, it seems her indignation would be better directed against her peers on the ethics committee.

According to the Ethics Committee, around September 7, 2008 — the date that the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — OneUnited CEO Kevin Cohee contacted Waters to ask for her help in setting up a meeting with officials at the Department of Treasury regarding the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That takeover resulted in total losses to all Fannie and Freddie stockholders, including OneUnited [a bank on whose board Waters' husband used to sit, and a bank he remained invested in].

[...]

Waters called the Treasury Department on September 8, 2008 and arranged the meeting with Treasury for the National Bankers Association, a trade organization for minority- and women-owned banks of which OneUnited was a member. Though the AU investigation and Ethics Committee disagree whether anyone but OneUnited officials were in attendance, a group representing NBA and including executives from OneUnited met with Treasury Department officials on September 9, 2008 to discuss the impact of the Fannie and Freddie takeover on minority-owned banks. She then directed her chief of staff, Mikael Moore, to follow up on the results of the meeting.

At the same time, the Ethics Committee says, Waters had her chief of staff — Moore, her grandson — email Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the head of the House Financial Services Committee, to say the bank was in trouble. Frank advised Waters and her office to stay out of it because of her conflicts of interest. But she allegedly continued to intervene on the bank’s behalf. The bank ultimately received $12 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. The Ethics Committee argues Waters’ husband would have lost money were it not for that bailout.

The Ethics Committee charges that Waters violated three rules: dispensing a favor, not acting “in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House” and using her influence for personal benefit. Waters denies wrongdoing and has chosen to fight the charges.

Henry Waxman won’t mind if the “difficult” Dems lose reelection.

Next Michelle Obama will be telling us to eat cake.

Conservatives argue Prop 8 ruling shouldn’t count because the judge is gay.

Jeff Sessions won’t filibuster Kagan’s confirmation.

…and she will be confirmed today.

Barbara Boxer is leading Carly Fiorina (barely).

Maxine Waters wants her House ethics trial to be held before the elections.

Don’t be fooled by Real Housewives — DC is boring.

The allegations have percolated for months. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that Waters, against the advice of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the head of the House Financial Services Committee, had boosted the bank and called the Treasury Department on its behalf:

When Rep. Barney Frank was looking to aid a Boston-based lender last fall, the Massachusetts Democrat urged Maxine Waters, a colleague on the House Financial Services Committee, to “stay out of it,” he says. The reason: Ms. Waters, a longtime congresswoman from California, had close ties to the minority-owned institution, OneUnited Bank.

Ms. Waters and her husband have both held financial stakes in the bank. Until recently, her husband was a director. At the same time, Ms. Waters has publicly boosted OneUnited’s executives and criticized its government regulators during congressional hearings. Last fall, she helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasury officials.

When Waters called, her husband no longer sat on OneUnited’s board, but did hold its stock. Waters has vocally supported the minority-owned bank, which got into financial trouble due to its holding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock. It eventually received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. OneUnited executives have given $12,500 to Waters’s election campaigns, the Wall Street Journal says.

Waters has reportedly elected to go through an ethics trial, like Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), rather than accepting the charges. The trial will take place around the time of the midterm elections.

Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, headed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.), he says that home values still need to deflate 10 to 20 percent. To ensure that underwater homeowners do not simply walk away from their mortgages, Congress should create a right-to-rent program letting people undergoing foreclosure rent their homes for five or ten years:

[M]ost homeowners who purchased their homes near the peak of the market are unlikely to ever see any equity in their home. In addition, even they are likely to be paying more in ownership costs than they would to rent a comparable home, even if they were to benefit from a modification and receive a lower cost mortgage….[An] efficient approach would be Right to Rent legislation that would temporarily change the rules on foreclosure to allow homeowners to stay in their homes, paying the market rent for a substantial period of time following foreclosure. By incentivizing lenders to negotiate, Right to Rent would immediately benefit all homeowners facing foreclosure. Finally, Right to Rent could be implemented at no cost to taxpayers and would require no new bureaucracy.

The Treasury Secretary went on to say that the what’s being requested is merely “the authority to wind them [failed companies] down.”

What he didn’t mention is that the winding down will require taxpayer dollars, at least in the early phases of a takeover.Those losses are designed to be recovered within 60 months by tapping shareholders and creditors, and if necessary by imposing an after-the-fact tax on other large and solvent institutions. Yet the provision also allows the government to extend that 60-month recovery window indefinitely.

“It could be 60 years,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), in response to Geithner.

“Further,” Sherman said in a statement yesterday, “it is difficult to see how any tax on financial institutions would provide hundreds of Billions of revenue, which might be needed to repay a large bailout.”

Waters: When you bought the loan from this mortgage company, you had to look at it to see what you were buying, right?

Coffin: Not loan by loan.

Waters: Not loan by loan. You got packages?

Coffin: [Nods in agreement.]

It’s a curious response. You wouldn’t buy a car without taking a test drive, wouldn’t buy a house without a walk-through. Yet here were servicers snatching up mortgages with such urgency and nonchalance that they didn’t even care to investigate their soundness.

Waters says she has constituents who have been victims of mortgage fraud, their incomes falsified by mortgage originators to justify the terms and to make the loans look less risky than they were to entice the servicers vying to buy them up — situations that proved disastrous to all parties when the housing market tanked and home prices went underwater.

Complicating the issue, Coffin said, “many of the companies who originated those loans are out of business.”

Try squeezing the accountable party out of that mess.