Showing posts with label CRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CRA. Show all posts

Sunday, September 09, 2018

How Obama blamed backward and forward

Although President Obama complained for 6-7 years about President Bush and the economy he inherited, you didn't hear him mention the recession Bush inherited. Not the falling economy after 9-11, but the 2000 recession. The reason he didn't use Bush's method to restore stability was Bush had used a TAX CUT, not stealing from Peter the employed to pay Paul the unemployed.  Bush’s method didn't give Washington more power over our lives. Democrats hate, hate, hate for you to keep more of your money to make your own decisions.

Specifically, EGTRRA of 2001:

*Increased the tax-deductible contributions people could make to their IRA accounts.
*Doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.
*Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
*Provided greater tax deductions for education expenses and savings.
*Reduced the gift tax.
*Provided relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
*Phased-out the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes so that they were eliminated in 2010.
*Reduced the “marriage penalty” by doubling the standard deduction for married couples. It also doubled the income threshold for married couples for the 15 percent tax bracket. *Those measures made the tax rates equivalent to what the couples would have had if they were single.
*Eliminated the planned phase-out of personal exemptions for those earning over $150,000, and the phase-down of itemized deductions for those earning over $100,000.

And the burst housing bubble of 2007-2008? You can thank the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Our wise politicians actually believed that if you put a low income worker deeper in debt for a housing mortgage, you could lift the family out of poverty with just the appearance of affluence. They new better than local bankers. What? Require 20% down like our first home loan in 1962? You must be a bigot. And they invited speculators in. Sort of like the current education debt, which no one wants to examine, not even Trump.

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Obama goes after the second amendment

General Eric Holder's Department of Justice has used its "Operation Choke Point" to manipulate banks and third-party payment processors to drop whole categories of businesses the Obama administration disfavors, such as online arms and ammunition sellers, tobacconists, and payday lenders. Left-wing nonprofit allies of the Administration like the Center for Responsible Lending and Americans for Financial Reform have provided media support.

“This is not law enforcement. It is intimidation backed up by the might of the government.” http://capitalresearch.org/2015/03/operation-choke-point/

Manipulating lending institutions to achieve social ends.  Who would have thought?  Isn’t that how we got the housing bubble and bust beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1970s and ending in the Great Recession of 2008? (Actually, it isn’t over; you can still get zero down home loans).

And isn’t that how we’re accumulating mounting college loan debt—to achieve social ends by paying universities through the back door while unprepared students enter through the front? Sallie Mae is like Freddie Mac.  Equal opportunity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/29/fdic-retreats-on-operation-choke-point/

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/02/newt-gingrich-choke-point-beginning-real-tyranny-united-states/

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis#!

http://www.inc.com/mark-cuban/video-student-loans-bubble.html

Friday, December 20, 2013

The big lie Obama tells again and again

Another favorite lie of Obama is the BIG ONE--income gap/inequality. Few remember this but Bush took office with the effects of the 1999 recession on his hands; income of the top 1% plummeted well before 9/11. You've probably forgotten because Bush didn't waste a lot of breath blaming Clinton. And the income of the top 1% has been going up since, and has really taken off under Obama.  Have you heard him mention how well they are doing—surely you’ve seen the photos of the parties.

Also, wealthier households are usually married couples and better educated. Why promote education as a solution to poverty if you demonize those whose parents, grandparents and self have finished college? And do the math. Two wage earners with college educations are better off than a single mom who didn't finish high school. There will be a gap!

The biggest loss in wealth in 2008 was from the housing recession. Progressives will argue this to the grave, but it was our own federal bank regulations (the 1977 CRA and its expansion)  intended to help the poor by putting them in mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford and punishing banks if the didn’t, that created that. Blacks and Latinos were hurt the most in the housing collapse. CRA was bad for the poor and bad for the country, and ended up hurting everyone.

Also, people are retiring at a baby boomer rate--that means pensions pay less than jobs and people move down a quintile or two. We certainly did. Our children now have incomes much higher than ours, but it wasn't that way in 2000 when we had two incomes. Boomers also have different work rates and divorce rates than pre-boomers.  Women earned much more than previous generations, and the men earned less. After divorce, they both have less.

Yes, Obama’s big one is the wealth gap—the gap has always been there, but his policies plus factors he had no control over because they began years ago are the reason.  Yes, the federal government discourages marriage and encourages dependence on hand outs, and that’s not a good formula for wealth building.

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

How to create a new housing crisis

10170_521033161272223_468707549_n[1]

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) evolved to the mess that gave us lower standards for mortgages and the meltdown of 2007. Now Obama wants one of his own and is pushing loosened standards for credit and home ownership again. Now all we need is packaging the loans and selling them. What a concept.

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2013/04/obama-administration-wants-to-loosen-home-loan-availability-for-people-with-weak-credit.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/blog/morning-edition/2013/04/obama-urges-banks-to-loosen-credit.html

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

More bad mortgages if these guys have their way

These guys want to strengthen the Carter era legislation of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which helped create our current recession and explosion of defaults by lowering credit standards and recruiting marginally qualified buyers to be "home owners." I suspect they just want to keep their cushy jobs. Lots of money in workshops to recruit and train, and then more money on how to budget, then more on how to avoid foreclosure. Oh sure, it's House Dems who are pushing it, but whodathunkit without these guys?

http://206.130.110.176/wordpress/

Monday, September 28, 2009

Softball article on BOA and ACORN in WSJ

Isn't that just so sweet. James R. Hagerty wrote, Bank of America, "a corporate partner of ACORN" is going to end its relationship. I'm not diminishing the seriousness of the video'd prostitution sting at the ACORN offices, but really, these ACORN guys at the top of the chain were high class hookers long ago selling mortgages to people who can't pay for them. Clinton knew it; Bush knew it; Obama says he's clueless and clean. Sex just got the public's attention. Go to American Spectator to see how this works using Greenlining as an example. Greenlining is another nonprofit partner which you can see on this long list.

The requirements for an ACORN-assisted mortgage is still on their web page--it looks pretty loosey goosey to me. And we wonder why CRA contributed to the housing crash?
  • 2003 and 2004 year tax returns and W2s [what's wrong with 2007 and 2008?]
  • One month of current paystubs
  • 3 most recent bank account statements
  • $20 in check or money order for a credit report
  • Rental history for the last 12 months: cancelled checks, receipts, landlord letter, etc.
Banks were being forced to lend to non-credit worthy applicants, to set aside all the known principles of sound financing to reduce the possibility of default. Take a look at what minorities were borrowing, as compared to whites, and guess who was pushing them there--certainly not the banks! Immigrant homeowners were actually failing less than native born minorities--probably had traditional resources backing them.

From Winter 2000 City Journal:
    "The Clinton administration's get-tough regulatory regime mattered so crucially because bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
Now ACORN is back in the swim, getting federal dollars to run foreclosure workshops. Sweet deal. You get the homeowner in the mess, charge a fee and get a kick back from the bank; then get government funds to run workshops, collect fees, to get them out of the mess you made for them.

NeighborhoodWorks America is just another branch of ACORN, as are others on this list. ACORN has so many tentacles interwoven with state, local, federal and church agencies, we may never get it figured out.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Remembering how we got here

Was it just two years ago we woke up to the damage the sub-prime loans and putting people into mortgage products they couldn't possibly pay was going to do to all of us? Usually, I don't search out Wikipedia for answers, but this little paragraph really sums it up nicely. The numbers refer to its footnotes.
    The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3]

    Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5] The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. (See full text of Act and current regulations.[1] To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.[6]
Reading through it, you see all the intentions were good--by community activists, the FHA, Fannie and Fred, oh, and lookee here
    Community groups only slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations."
So soon banks and lending institutions were being threatened and pushed into unwise credit risks by these "community groups," [who were taking their cut from the applicants.] Hmmm. Now those same groups are threatening Americans who are exposing them--like the film maker in the Baltimore ACORN and Glenn Beck and Fox News. [I don't know if they've intimidated NYT and CNN and broadcast news, but they are certainly quiet.] Time to wake up, folks, You've been scammed big time--the intentions of the Democrats 30 years ago were good (I was one so I know). And the Republicans and business CEOs fell in line and were afraid of being called racists if they resisted. Who could not support a welfare mother or a Latina housekeeper with suspect documentation getting her own home?

Interesting that I got to this article through another article on "Centrally Planned Economies" which used the CRA to show how it's done in America.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The housing mess has a long history

We've all seen the pressure to lower standards and make homeowners of people who can't save the downpayment, can't pay the mortgage, can't meet the minimum standards, but I was unaware how far back government interference in the housing market went--back to the early 1920s with Herbert Hoover when he was Secretary of Commerce. Or even 1913, if you figure the home mortgage deduction. And I knew about rent controls creating an artificial "housing shortage" after WWII. I knew what had been required of us even with our first home purchased in 1962, but we never used FHA or VA, and sort of assumed that's the way it was until the 70s or 80s. Guess not. There's a lot I didn't know about how housing became a political football for both parties and invited crime and corruption to flourish. Catch up on the history beginning with Hoover, and follow it all the way up to now. See Obsessive Housing Disorder.
    "The next stop on the road to 2008 was a fateful campaign to lower lending criteria, which, the housing advocates argued, were racist and had to change. The campaign began in 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income. The next year, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

    The advocates also attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers."
So we're doing more of the same, trying to refinance these failed homeowners, offering rock bottom rates, wondering why it isn't working?
    "As Harvard economist and City Journal contributing editor Edward Glaeser has observed, mortgage lenders have finally “recovered their sanity”—only to have government dangling subsidized low interest rates and tax credits in front of them and their potential customers all over again. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost."
The author points out the damage the home mortgage deduction has done, as well as other government subsidies, regulations and programs. Good article. And Obama owes ACORN big time, so we're in for more of the same on the road to "recovery." Go read it.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Barney the dog has left DC

We'll enjoy the memories of his antics. Barney the Frank is still there, marauding through the halls of Congress, looking for plunder, still misleading us into more debt. Barney Frank, the Representative from Massachusetts has done more damage to this nation than the senior senator from that state could ever have imagined.
    Rep. Barney Frank asserted Thursday that the Obama administration can be more trusted than the Bush administration to ensure that banks do not misuse money they get from a $700 billion bailout fund. Chicago Tribune
Yes, good ol' Barn. He's the one who told us there was no problem with Fannie and Fred; he's the one with Chris Dodd whose oversite responsibilities got us here along with all the other Democrats and "can't we all get along" Republicans. He's the one who should be brought before Congress to do the mea culpa they are forcing on CEOs.

As my artist friend Charlie wrote, Barney is attempting to "wash his hands and those of the Democrat party of any blame for the mess, and lay total responsibility on the Bush administration and Republicans in General. The truth is that Frank and the liberal left generated the whole problem by coercing financial institutions to make loans to people who couldn't afford them and using their political clout in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to cover up the problem. (The loans were nicknamed "NINJA" loans....No Income, No Job or Assets)." Yes, I've written about that many times at this blog, and my man Bush certainly can take part of the blame. Four years ago he was praising the number of new home owners among minorities, pandering to the liberals in his own party and moderate Democrats. Owning a home isn't a "civil right," and there was a very good reason for 20% down and fixed mortgages. Once the government began demanding that banks become social workers and nannies, the scene was set for our current playbook.

If government would stay out of this, we could come out of this recession as we've come out of the last 5 or 6, without a massive Depression, but we're on our way! Wheeee! But now we have a $13 a week payback "to make work pay" for all those who believed in Hope and Change.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Two ways to judge the economy of the 21st century

If you're retired, or were near retirement in 2000, as I was, just go back and look at your statements. My pension carrier, State Teachers Retirement of Ohio, in the mid to late 90s was busy throwing money at art and a newly remodeled building with all the latest of everything for its employees. They had so much money they didn't know what to do with it. Then came the tech bust and the party was over by 1999. At least that's what my 403-b statements from TIAA-CREF said. President Bush inherited a floundering economy in 2001--and I don't blame Clinton--there were too many dollars chasing too few opportunities and people were throwing money at any app, widget and dot com business that had a 23 year old in sweats and T running R&D. My funds had fully recovered by December 2003, I think it was, and then soared. Not bad considering 9/11 and all the bad media sob stories about "this economy." Team Kedwards in 2004 really moaned about the terrible economy--worst since the Great Depression Kerry and Edwards said. The day after the election on 2004, the Democrats shut up. But not for long. They drug out the same sad, sad stories from Appalachia and poverty moving to the suburbs for the 2006 elections, and took many seats in Congress. And Republicans let them do it. Here in Ohio our candidate, an African American, was smeared because of Governor Tafts golfing misdeed. Also, he didn't talk and walk white or spread guilt around or write autobiographies about non-accomplishments. Democrats also said we were losing the war, but that's another non-story that worked.

I have another way to judge the economy, both that of the mid-90s and the mid-2000s. My premiere issue magazine collection. Advertising out the wazoo during the days when the media was telling us how awful things were in mid-2000s. Id' seen the same thing in the late 1990s--Wired was so fat you almost couldn't find the stories. Industry Standard, before it went belly up, was just an amazing array of ads. So much advertising, and much of it inappropriate for the readership, that you almost can't imagine what the marketing departments must have been thinking. People in those positions must have thought they had the golden touch, that they couldn't do anything wrong.

I'm getting ready to review the premier issue of Cottage Living, September/October 2004. Here's the ads that appear before page 60.
    Woodbridge wine--full page
    kitchen appliances 2 full pages, 1/3 mostly white
    women's fashion 1 full page each for J. Jill and Talbot
    Andersen window 2 full pages
    Pergo 2 full pages
    Princess Cruises 2 full pages
    VISA
    ROC
    Neiman Marchus
    Ford Expedition
    Chevy Equanox 2 full pages
    Levi Strauss 2 full pages
    Citi 2 full pages
    Highlander
    Jenn-Air 2 full pages
    LL Bean
    Lowes
    Harchow
    Bulova
    Megerian rugs
    Gevalia
    WISP (Glade)
    Emend (chemo therapy) 2 full pages
    Show House (Moen faucets)
    Norwegian Cruiseline
Yes, the run up was heady. So much money chasing so few products. Meanwhile, back in DC, every American had a right to a home, whether or not they could make the payments, whether or not their credit rating was awful, whether or not they when it balooned, they couldn't possibly make the payment. Money was being handed out by the fistful from a variety of government agencies to non-profits to make sure enough people got signed on--no down payment? no problema. No job--not to worry. The value of the house was supposed to go up. And so we had a really toxic mix; tainted investments, and the boys minding the store were just watching the boys.

Now we'll have to wait and see if we'll have the Bush-Obama version of Hoover-Roosevelt. Let's hope Obama doesn't give us a 10 year Depression the way FDR did.

Friday, November 21, 2008

From Community Organizer to President of the World

An amazingly brief journey when you consider how little we know about the building blocks of Obama‘s political DNA. Consider this. Barack Obama:
A Radical Leftist’s Journey from Community Organizing to Politics


The better term for "community organizer" is community agitator working within a 501(c)(3) frame work* as a non-profit. These organizations are very powerful now within the frayed fringes of the federal and state government because of their non-profit status which allows them full use of government funding without any security clearance or oversite. Unless a group gets more than $500,000 a year, no one questions what is done, and records only need to be kept 3 years, so good luck in tracking their activities or even their names. They split, reorganize and morph into new organizations eligible for additional grants. They were able to be participants through the various housing and home grants to threaten banks which brought down our economy with the aid of the 2006 Democratic take-over of Congress, who with the exception of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd and Obama, seemed unaware of the tainted salad bowl on the buffet table of pork. However, the chef's help was there from the Bush administration which grew these programs to unheard of amounts from the Reagan era and combined them with private partnerships which fueled the building boom.** In this way, the eight years of George Bush directly built the frame work for the Obama take over.

And the Communist Party USA hack intones the party line and fills in the bridges to somewhere--Kansas, Hawaii, California, Africa, Chicago, to Washington DC:

    “. . . an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside."
    -----------
*501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Technically, they are not supposed to use government funding for political advocacy , but that is a joke considering they can use it for “educational” purposes. Also, other 501C groups can set up a 501c3 for more money for education.

**Read through this advertisement Rally for Home Ownership which promotes "gift" downpayments and their relationship to "private" lenders (under threat using CRA guidelines) and home builders.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Unintended consequences

My favorite breakfast is a sliced Honey Crisp apple (preferably huge and from Minnesota, but I'll take Michigan or NY if nothing else is available) and half a cup of whole walnuts. The problem is I had a frenulectomy in 1977 to close the gap between my front teeth. Let me tell you, when you've had surgery in your mouth you'll know it forever. I can't actually bite into a whole apple--it has to be sliced. After that surgery, all my teeth started to shift. You wouldn't think a tiny piece of flesh removal could do that much, but it did. Probably because I still have all my permanent teeth, even four wisdom teeth, as well as most of my childhood fillings. Even brushing my teeth and flossing can't remove the residue from this sticky breakfast, so I often don't eat until I get back from the coffee shop where I might talk or smile. The tiny shift of my front teeth has affected the enamel on my bottom teeth wearing it thin--so on it goes, 30 years later.

Every time we do something to improve something else, or to discourage something, or to destroy something, there are unintended consequences waiting. For instance, polio was virtually unknown when my grandmothers were children. Improved sanitation of the 20th century actually created the epidemics that began around the time of WWI. Middle class people were much more likely to get polio than the poor, and there was a time when they thought African Americans were immune! But in fact, in earlier times, everyone had had some exposure as children, got sick, and then recovered but had continued immunity. After the public water supplies were cleaned up, no one was able to withstand the exposure, which occasionally still lurked in water.

Let's jump a head to a bigger problem. Slum housing. At least, that's what it used to be called. In the earlier centuries in America, poor people built or rented their homes, and moved up or down as their income and circumstances dictated. The freedom to own land was a huge appeal to the immigrants who came here in the 18th and 19th centuries. My maternal grandparents had rented in Wichita when they were first married in 1901, then returned to Illinois in 1908 and lived out their lives on a farm inherited from grandma's father. My paternal grandparents were tenant farmers in the next county in the 1920s, had a large family (nine children) and a disability (my grandmother was blind). My grandmother's parents and other relatives were very good about helping, but there wasn't a government plan to assist them like there would be today for disabled poor people. There was charity, of course--my dad got a grant to go to college from the Polo Women's Club. So first their own children helped with the farm labor doing age appropriate tasks, and eventually, their adult children pooled their money and purchased a small home for them in town during WWII. Later, my grandfather who went to work in a plant when all the younger men had gone off to war (he really wasn't suited for farming), was able to save money, buy another home, and then another home, renting one. That's how housing worked in the early to mid-20th century.

Both Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt extended what started as a panic, then became a recession and then a depression by inserting government programs into problems instead of letting them heal themselves. My maternal grandparents had already begun sinking because of the easy credit for agricultural land and products in the 1920s. Like today, it was an over extension of credit that brought the economy down, but my other grandparents, tenants who had nothing anyway, really weren't affected. The New Deal of the 1930s built on Hoover's (a liberal Republican) mistakes and extended the Depression another 8 years. But worse still are the long term, unintended consequences of those programs.

The New Deal began the federal government's interference in the housing market which extends right up to the balance today in our 401-k and 403-b. It went way beyond zoning and health and safety, long a concern of government. The reason for the housing shortage after WWII, for the existence of all those Lustron homes in Mt. Morris, was rent control, and the government giving a corporation money to develop a house to meet the need and use factories developed during the war. Cheap housing just disappeared from the market, so rent and home prices soared. The government created that shortage. We didn't have fewer buildings in 1946 than 1941, just more rules. So who benefited from that? Certainly not the poor. Then when the poor had no access to even bad housing, the government stepped in again and built public housing, which quickly became a cesspool of crime, rigid segregation by race and very inhospitable living conditions. When public housing failed (remember the demolition of Cabrini Green in Chicago?), the government came up with new plans to "solve" the housing crisis--housing vouchers, community development agencies and non-profits, tax breaks or subsidies, condemning large tracks and rebuilding with tax incentives which created gentrification and scattered the poor yet again!

You think Katrina destroyed housing and hurt the poor? Nothing like what the residue of our federal government's housing experiments over the years have done! At every step, private enterprise has either been discouraged through regulation, or allowed to run wild through lobbying efforts and kick-backs to government officials who hold the keys to housing very tightly. Fast forward to the latest failure of our government to help the poor and low income with housing: the creation of the Community Redevelopment Act under Jimmy Carter, and it's expansion during the Clinton era to the point where banks were held hostage by "non-profits" with massive amounts of government funding receiving huge fees for each low income family they stuffed, unprepared, into a mortgage that didn't fit.

None of this was intended. There were enough good intentions to wall paper Washington DC. But there are consequences when you try to change people's behavior through government programming or reprogramming. Don't be fooled by politicians who weep and mourn over our "selfishness" when we have spent trillions on these government created crises and have only kept the poor down longer than they would have been if we'd done nothing and only stood by and wrung our hands.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

The sale of National City, pt.2

I'm still looking for my last dividend check--the one for thirty two cents. The top three executives will get golden parachutes with a combined value of $40 million following the sale (adjusting I assume for the current value of the stock which must not be too terrific); Peter Raskind, Daniel J. Frate, John L. Garney.

Ohio's progressives, socialists and marxists will scream about greed and the failure of capitalism, but I won't. I owned a few shares for about 30 years and did nothing except open the envelope four times a year, endorse the dividend check, and take it to the bank. It was never huge--probably not more than $30-$50 a year, but it was more than the cost of gasoline to drive to the bank, which the most recent one wasn't.

Meanwhile, they were being paid big bucks to figure out how to manage demands that they live up to the crazy expectations of the law and regulations to loan easy money to people who may not be able to pay it back. A law, the Community Reinvestment Act, which started small and quietly during the 1970s, with good intentions. People whose homes may never appreciate, but may depreciate, to fund builders and city services which also jumped into "the American dream" bubble. Easy money--that's what government tampering with the banks and credit did for us. Even churches got into the act, although I don't think they did the political advocacy of the left wing, ACORN type organizations. They too set up corporations, hired people, fixed up homes, "stabilizing neighborhoods," "strengthening community," to help the poor, everyone from Mennonites, to Catholics to Lutherans. But they did it with government money so they'd qualify for loans.
    "The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being." "The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities," City Journal, Winter 2000
So yes, they were greedy, but when you try to strangle a business, any business, with regulations while also demanding that it perform as a sugar daddy social worker for the poor and low income, you just might find them looking for loop holes to outsmart those guys who float in and out of the beltway, who lobby, and populate endless think tanks.

It's Congress that I'd like to drop from a plane without a parachute, golden or otherwise. It was a stupid affirmative action scheme even back during the Clinton years, but there was time to remedy it. (Bruce Marks , primary culprit--story from 2004) Bush couldn't pull his people together when he had a Republican Congress, and the Democrat Congress blocked any effort, even those late ones, to fix the problem. If Gore had won in 2000, we'd be in exactly the same spot. Had you thought of that? We'd probably gone to war since the whole WMD meme started in the 90s with the Democrats, but even if we hadn't, the economic system still would have failed because the same policies chasing the same easy credit would have been there.

Now we're in a recession, and about to do the Hoover-Roosevelt two step all over again, only this time it will be Bush-Obama. Let's hope it won't take a decade of more tampering and 25% unemployment this time.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Let's stop grilling CEOs

For now. I don't care if they make $90 million a minute, if it's legal and their stockholders don't object. Franklin Raines (formerly of Fannie Mae) made far more than Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank who both make way more than I do, and after the first million or so, I lose track of who is being greedy.

First, let's serve up some toasted Congress for public heckling, disgrace, fines and prison.

So just how did a little ACORN bring down the mighty oak of our economy? By manipulating some very vague regulations about how banks should treat low income applicants for mortgages in a social engineering law of the 1970s. Doesn't this sound innocent enough? But it's a recipe for blackmail once ACORN started realizing they could rake in big money from the government by spinning off smaller groups to get government grants (millions and millions from HUD) and big pay-offs from the banks (more millions in hush money).
    The OCC encourages community and civic organizations, government, and other members of the public to express their views about a bank’s CRA performance to the bank and the OCC at the earliest possible time. This allows the bank to address any concerns and the OCC to take the public’s views into account in evaluating the bank’s CRA record and reaching conclusions about its performance ratings. If those comments are sent to the OCC, the OCC will also consider them when reviewing applications covered by the CRA. OCC Link
Some of you "get" the voter fraud stories we see about ACORN every election cycle--just 6,000 votes have determined a president in Ohio [Carter], the swing state, and this year they probably bussed in that many homeless in our one week marathon of register and vote the same day. Fox is all over this story today. Why not go directly to START? Voters and investors should be more outraged about how they've set in place the machinations to destory your retirement income (46% of Americans are invested in the stock market which has just recently lost trillions).

“Critics of the notion that CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995.”

Read the whole story. Planting Seeds of Disaster; ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party. By Stanley Kurtz

Monday, October 06, 2008

Gramm-Leach-Bliley

"Democrats largely supported it at the time, and one of their own, Bill Clinton, signed it. Now they frame it as a Republican bill that helped send the nation on the path to perdition."

Even Bill Clinton has been interviewed recently as saying it was a good idea, and of course, he could have vetoed it. So why do we let the Democrats get away with saying it is the Republicans and deregulation's fault? Here's what happened.
    Modernized the rules, says IBD.

    The mistakes had nothing to do with the 1999 law.

    Pumping up home ownership was good for business and good for the politicians--all of them.

    A new multitrillion-dollar market emerged

    And what happened from there to cause the collapse needs to be investigated.
Well, maybe, but we sure shouldn't put Barney Frank in charge, he definitely needs to go; and congress definitely shouldn't be patting themselves on the back!

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

A bank regulator tells his side

John Corby on 610 a.m. in Columbus offers a call-in show with topics from uses for bacon (yesterday) to what's the dumbest trick you pulled as a teen-ager. Today, the subject seems to be a bit more serious--the government bailout. As I walked in the door (I was outside picking up branches from the storm 2 weeks ago) I heard
    --a bank regulator saying the banks were forced into the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and each bank had to have a plan and a department. Bank field examiners spent over 50% of their time enforcing the Act, which took away from the enforcement of safety and soundness of the investments. Every bank in the nation, under the CRA, had to reinvest part of its own capital in the community, i.e. lending to borrowers, primarily minorities, who were not qualified for loans. This participation (which was forced) showed the banks were supporting the community. The caller said he and other bank employees who realized what was going on would have never been able to speak up for fear of losing their jobs, and that those who oversaw the CRA at his bank were the most liberal and militant in the organization. Then the banks were blamed for all the subprime loans they were forced to write. From the horse's mouth
Before we taxpayers fund the bailout, we need to dump the CRA which started the downward plunge and abandon this crazy idea that everyone needs "the American dream." And that includes its slush fund, Housing Trust Fund, which goes to the states for local organizations to put poor people in housing (which usually no one else would buy) including my own church. It's a nightmare for many. There needs to be good, sound, affordable housing stock. But it doesn't mean that every welfare mother who's taken a training program in computer programming and found a decent job should be shoehorned into "affordable" housing with a mortgage which will be a burden to her and her children. I'm sure this was all done with the best intentions, but the consequences have resulted in a national crisis. These same people in a good rental or subsidized housing with an adequate investment vehicle on the side would have been far better off and not experienced one more failure in their lives.

"The CRA forces lenders to spend money, time, and resources on documentation, PR, and other compliance costs. Moreover, the examination process to determine the level at which a bank is meeting its CRA obligations can sometimes take several months. This has become a major point of leverage—and source of funding—for “community” activist groups. Lending institutions, rather than face the increased expense of a slowed deposit facility application due to a CRA challenge, have committed over $7 billion to such groups and $23 billion to community development lending projects since 1977. Some companies seek to mitigate the threat by funding activist groups’ projects, instead of reforming their overall approach to community reinvestment, according to Jonathan Macey of Yale Law School.

Groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), aware that even small delays in approval can result in substantial losses of money for financial institutions, have been exploiting such a strategy for years. For example, Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan donated hundred of thousands of dollars to ACORN around the time that they applied for permission to merge." The Community Reinvestment Act's Harmful Legacy March 20, 2008

John Kerry unhinged

Watched him on Fox last night. A scary dude. So glad he was defeated in Ohio in 2004 which kept him out of the White House.

It's very clear the Democrats have dropped the bailout ball--going all the way back to President Carter in the 1970s when this social engineering of the poor began with the "American dream" of home ownership and expanded under Clinton in 1993. Did the rich get richer? You bet. Oh, and the agencies, lobbyists, and foundations that mushroomed to help the poor. How many jobs did they produce for recent idealist college grads? The rich usually benefit in these social engineering programs, particularly the people putting them in place with the regulations and loop-holes, blocking reform. The Chris Dodd and Barney Frank dog and pony show--wonder how much richer these guys were in 2007 compared to 2004? Well, guys, it's probably gone now, at least on paper--but the people in Congress don't seem to suffer that much, do they? Fewer rich people for Obama to tax. And you know what that means, don't you? The tax man cometh for you.

I don't always recommend a Wiki, but I'm in a hurry to get to my volunteer job today--if you're a Democrat or Marxist, there will be plenty of sources pointing the other way, but you'll have to find them on your own:
    "In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[4][6]

    The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages." " Community Reinvestment Act

Sunday, September 28, 2008

The bad news, the good news

Burning down the house.



The bad news is that Obama will probably be our next president; the good news is the Democrats have screwed him with the subprime crisis. He probably won't have any money to spend--but then, neither will we!