Morning Must Reads — GOP tests Dems’ commitment to reform

The government-subsidied mortgage buyers helped the GOP cause Wednesday when Freddie announced another $7 billion in losses for the first quarter and hit up taxpayers for another $11 billion to prop up its balance sheet. That would take the cash dump into the faux companies to $137 billion since the Panic of 2008.

The Journal Editorial Page breaks down the GOP proposal in splendid fashion.

“If they can survive on their own, they would have three years before the expiration of their federal charters, during which time they would have new operating restrictions. Messrs. McCain, Shelby and Gregg would repeal the affordable housing goals previously legislated for Fan and Fred and which contributed to their terrible mortgage bets, and the companies would have to reduce the mortgage assets held on their books by nearly 50% within two years and raise their capital standards.

Fannie and Freddie would also have to start paying state and local sales taxes, lose their exemption from full registration at the Securities and Exchange Commission when they issue securities, and start paying fees to repay the taxpayer for the value of federal guarantees. The $400 billion limit on taxpayer assistance would be reinstated, and for as long as they are in federal conservatorship or receivership, they would have to be included in the federal budget.”

New York Times — Money Woes, Long Silences and a Zeal for Islam

In one of the most hilarious episodes of willful ignorance in media, there is an actual debate about the Jersey Shore Jihad’s motives in trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Was it his foreclosure? Was it marital problems?

Writers James Barron and Sabrina Tavernise give us the fullest portrait yet of Faisal Shahzad and despite some very American troubles, the 30-year-old seems to have been most afflicted by his contacts with the Taliban on more than a dozen trips to Pakistan in recent years.

He’s the rural Pakistani equivalent of minor nobility whose parents had hoped to see him succeed as so many of his countrymen have in America (he was working at Elizabeth Arden HQ and was a devout Facebooker.) But over time he became more radical. And for those who look to blame his mortgage woes for his attempted attack, ask yourself this: If you were already radicalizing, how would you feel about making mortgage payments to the Great Satan?

Investigators now suspect that he was working directly with terror plotters in his home country, not a goofy young man who got so crazy ideas in his head. Thank God that he was so bad at his mission.

“Last year, one Pakistani friend said, he even asked his father, Bahar ul-Haq, a retired high-ranking air force pilot in Pakistan, for permission to fight in Afghanistan.

Mr. Haq, now in his 70s, adamantly refused, according to a person familiar with the conversation, saying that he disapproved of the mission and reminding his son that Islam does not permit a man to abandon his wife or children.”

Wall Street Journal — Close Election Could ‘Hang’ Parliament

Examiner colleague Michael Barone has an interesting model for how Britain’s Conservatives could pull off a win in today’s very close election based on winning seats that had been thought safe Labour.

But most expect that Conservatives will not be able to win an outright majority in the 650-seat House of Commons.

Writer Cassell Bryan-Low explains how the first “hung Parliament” since 1974 would work and how the weeks ahead would play out.

“In the event of a hung Parliament, Labour leader Gordon Brown would remain prime minister—at least temporarily—even if Labour wins the fewest seats. His grip on power would depend largely on Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, whose party’s seats would be able to hand a majority to either of the other major parties….If Mr. Brown is unable to form a government—or loses so badly that it’s clearly impossible—he would be expected to resign.

If the prime minister resigns, the queen has a formal role of appointing his successor to form a government. In practice, however, ‘she has no discretion because the test is who can command confidence in the new House of Commons,’ says Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London. ‘It doesn’t need to be an overall majority, it just needs to be a bigger group than anyone else,’ he adds.”

Washington Post — Obama urges work on immigration bill ‘to begin … this year’

Speaking at the White House Cinco de Mayo celebration, President Obama again denounced Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration as racist and reiterated his pledge to initiate “comprehensive” immigration reform this year in order to “close the door on this kind of misconceived action.”

The president is caught between two political realities. Immigration activists and Hispanic groups, which make up an important part of his party’s political base, are boiling mad over the Arizona law. And as we saw from lackluster Democratic turnout in Tuesday’s primaries, the party can ill afford to disappoint any part of its special-interest coalition.

(My column on the top-down political approach of the Obama Democrats and how it may suppress liberal turnout is here.)

But on the other side, the Arizona legislation is generally popular and survey after survey shows that moderate and independent voters don’t support the idea of “comprehensive” reform that couples enhanced border security with an amnesty program for the more than 12 million already here illegally. Most voters would prefer the security part to be completed before any discussion about a “pathway to citizenship.” The two-step idea, though, is very unpopular with pro-immigrant groups that believe the second step would never come.

So, Obama cannot afford to take no action because his base would be further dispirited. But neither can he afford to alienate more independents who are already fired up about the health bill and other liberal initiatives.

Most likely, he will try to just keep talking about the issue, expressing solidarity with pro-immigrant groups and hoping that Election Day gets here soon.

Scott Wilson was there for the White House fiesta.

“Obama suggested recently that immigration reform would not be possible this year, drawing some criticism as a result. His comments Wednesday appeared to reinforce the view that passing a bill this year is most likely impossible.”

Associated Press — New NATO idea to avoid killing innocent Afghans

U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan might soon be eligible for a “courageous restraint” medal awarded for not using force.

The idea is to encourage troops to the central component of the Obama-McChrystal strategy: protect Afghan civilians both from the Taliban and our efforts to defeat the Taliban. In a very direct sense, the plan asks Americans to die for the security of the Afghan population in an effort to establish the trust needed to build a new nation that is less hospitable to radical Islam. It envisions forming a common bond with the indigenous people against the common enemy of the Taliban and doing so on a timetable.

We all remember George C. Scott’s line in Patton: “I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”

Scott did not have to consider the third option of dying for someone else’s country.

Writer Sebastain Abbot reports from the field:

“But some U.S. Army soldiers here at Forward Operating Base Ramrod in Kandahar province are skeptical that the chance of winning an award is going to change the way troops make decisions on the battlefield.

‘Not a single one of these guys does it for the medals,’ said Capt. Edward Graham, referring to the soldiers in his company.

Graham, whose company is part of the 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, said soldiers are constantly forced to weigh the duty they have to protect their colleagues against the goal of avoiding civilian casualties.

‘The bottom line is I have to find a way to go to sleep at night,’ said Graham. ‘If I hurt women and children, I’m not going to sleep. If I lose my men, I’m not going to sleep. I have to find a balance.’”

–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.