Friday, September 26, 2008

Bush Administration, Congress at Fault for Economic Crisis, Eliot Spitzer Warned in February

Here's the editorial written by Eliot Spitzer that should end the debate as to who is responsible for the economic meltdown. Both parties are not "equally to blame" for the problem.

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? The answer is a resounding no. Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.


  1. Behold, the myth that Democrats who know the true cause of the financial must necessarily cast upon an unsuspecting public.

    The exact opposite is true.

    See how the word "government" is substituted for the words "Fannie May and Freddy Mac" when discussing predatory lenders, a brilliant neologism created for the purpose of propelling the myth. Notice how all the blame, in its entirety, is simplistically heaped upon the despised Bush and not a single Democrat to blame. When it was Bush himself who attempted to rein in these two agencies but was blocked by Democrats in Congress. Notice too how the exceedingly culpable Community Reinvestment Act is conveniently omitted.

    The writer of this article thinks you're all too stupid to notice. Your intelligence and power of observation are being offended here.

  2. You are so wrong, especially when you make sweeping generalizations about no one blaming Democrats. Many got caught up in the fever, even though they were the minority party. This is your ideology, you own it, now give it up. It doesn't work.

    Today sometime, I will be dealing with the Community Reinvestment Act, and how it ISN'T a part of this mess.

    I always love how you free market zealots blame big government Democrats and their "regulations," except now, when your big theory seems to have blown up in your face.

    I'm loving the part where I get to see you twist in the wind.

    Thanks for your gleeful response.