This Has The Look Of A Zombie Lie

The right-wing narrative has been set - the federal government forced the lenders to give houses to black people and Hispanics, they couldn't pay back, "Fannie and Freddie went wild," and they brought the whole system down.

It should be noted that we've had housing downturns before in this country, and none of them caused the financial markets to collapse (the Depression was more about monetary policy, stock speculation, and trade). The extreme leveraging (and the exemptions given to investment firms to double their leveraging limit) and bundling of exotic securities, as well as authorizing awful loans, is the new element here, and both the CRA and the GSEs have nothing to do with that.

Let's clarify the causes of current circumstances. Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie & Freddie:

• Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?

• 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?

• What about "No Money Down" Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?

• Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?

• Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?

• Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?

• How exactly did legislation force Moody's, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA?

• What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment -- at the same time?

• Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn't have been: Titled How to Get an "Iffy" loan approved at JPM Chase. (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)

• The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act ?

• Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income?

• What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood

• What was it in the Act that forced banks to make "interest only" loans? Were "Neg Am loans" also part of the legislative requirements also?

• Consider this February 2003 speech by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozlilo at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference. He advocated zero down payment mortgages -- was that a CRA requirement too, or just a grab for more market share, and bad banking?

The answer to all of the above questions is no, none, and nothing at all.

Honestly, most of these charlatans on the right probably don't know what Fannie (FNMA) and Freddie (FHLMC) stand for. They just want something to yell about. And the GSEs sound as good as anything else.

I'm glad that activists are fighting back against this not-too-subtle racism. It won't be successful, but at least they're putting another narrative out there.

The head of the National Urban League is calling on Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. to refute statements by conservative politicians and pundits that subprime mortgages provided to minorities led to the financial crisis and a $700 billion federal rescue of Wall Street.

In a strongly worded letter to Paulson this week, Marc H. Morial said Paulson has "an obligation to correct the misinformation that is spread concerning the root cause of the current financial crisis."

Morial, a former mayor of New Orleans, said in an interview yesterday that the effort "to pin the subprime crisis on African Americans and Latinos" is a "big lie."

"It's an effort to shift the climate away from deregulation and the lack of oversight," he said. "The numbers are becoming clearer each day that a large number of people who ended up with a subprime loan could have qualified for a prime loan. That's the abuse that's inherent here."

I think that ultimately, reasonable people would agree on that as the cause of the crisis. Those who want to believe something else are being fed an alternate take. It's disgusting.

Pointing One Finger Outward Means Three Are Pointing Back At Yourself

The wingnuts are really ramping up this blame of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (I always like to put the date in there, just to show how ridiculous it all is) for the current financial crisis. It's bunk. What actually happened is that the tech bubble popped and there was a lot of global investment money that needed a place to go, so the financial industry packaged these mortgages and created a demand for them, which led to lax lending regulations, so they could give out more mortgage-backed securities, which led to more demand, etc., to create a new bubble. And now we're seeing this one pop. Despite the complexity of the financial instruments, it's pretty simple. But the wingnuts don't want simple. They want to muddy the waters and reduce the blame to the darkies.

In fact, even if this was about loaning to the "wrong" people the Bush Administration was in the position to stop it. But the "homeownership rates are high" talking point was valuable in a struggling economy with stagnating incomes, and their Wall Street friends were making bank, so they let it happen.

But it wasn't. The CRA has nothing to do with this crisis.

• The CRA was passed in 1977—over 25 years before subprime loans came into vogue. So the timing is wrong.

• The CRA only covers commercial banks and savings-and-loan institutions—not other forms of mortgage-offering enterprises. Fact is, most subprime loans weren’t made by the lenders subject to CRA.

Fannie and Freddie aren't to blame either:

• Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize subprime loans. Such loans didn’t meet their conforming loan standards. In fact, as the subprime market was building, Fannie and Freddie lost market share because they were under stricter standards. Thus, their participation in the secondary market did not assist in the creation of the subprime market.

• It’s true, however, that Fannie and Freddie were damaged by the subprime crisis because everyone in the housing sector was damaged by falling home prices and, more significantly, the two companies branched out into a broader investment portfolio. In that portfolio were included mortgage-backed securities that hurt all of those who purchased them. Fannie and Freddie weren’t the biggest players in this and, most importantly, started this practice very late in the game. In fact, the subprime market had already started to go bad when they started their purchases (which speaks poorly for Fannie and Freddie’s decision making, but precludes them from responsibility for the crisis).

• Fannie and Freddie were supposed to be more closely supervised than other lenders—with their own regulator, which was supposed to keep a special eye on them because they are important institutions. Those regulators, who were part of the Bush administration, failed along with the rest of the Bush regulatory apparatus to stop the problem.

Of course, it's a lot easier to blame the victims of predatory lending instead of the predators themselves. It's easier to cast blame instead of taking the hard look inward. In this brilliant essay, Thomas Frank says that the GOP instinct for blame-evasion is world class:

This is a movement, after all, that blandly recasts its greatest idols as traitors once their popularity has crashed; that routinely sloughs off responsibility for . . . well . . . anything since, by its logic, conservatism has never really been tried in the first place. Consider in this respect Mitt Romney's remarkable speech to the Republican convention a few weeks ago, in which he rallied his party against Washington -- a place his party has controlled, to one degree or another, for nearly three decades -- by listing the city's various institutions and crying, "It's liberal!"

Or consider the way the House Republicans torpedoed the bailout bill a few days ago. The real reason they did it was almost certainly to evade responsibility for an unpopular measure but the announced reason seemed designed to convince the nation's 7-year-olds -- because Nancy Pelosi said something mean.

On economic questions the standard exculpatory maneuver is even simpler. When some free-market scheme blows up, one needs only find an institution of government in close proximity to the wreckage and commence accusing.

And the reaction to being called on this lie on the right is to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they never heard it.

It's entirely possible, indeed probable, that nothing proposed is a solution to this crisis we face - if housing values continue to plummet, which they should in a functioning economy to deflate the bubble, all the trickery in the world won't be sufficient. But the key conservative goal here is to elude responsibility, for responsibility might mean having to actually change their practices and have their free-market fundamentalism collapse upon them.

When In Doubt, Blame It On The Darkies

I thought the idea that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 isn't responsible for the financial crisis of 2008 would be self-evident, simply because you would have to believe that the system worked fine for 25-30 years until now, which is just ridiculous. But I underestimated the ability of Republicans to willingly delude themselves. They are desperate to find a scapegoat that doesn't have an (R) next to their name, and people with dark skin are an inviting target. I mean, you have one House Republican getting out the Photoshop and painting his opponent as a bearded darkie (the guy is in fact as white as could be and clean-cut).

So here we go with the blaming of the CRA and minority homeowners, claiming that the government forced the banks to give bad loans out. It doesn't matter than the biggest foreclosure regions are in rural areas and exurbs. It doesn't matter that the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts, and not across the lending market, and certainly not where almost all subprime mortgages were created. Bonddad has the best refutation:

While we're on the topic -- the CRA had nothing to do with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac either:

Note, too, that Fannie and Freddie have nonpareil lobbying operations and formidable political strength, owing to their hefty donations and penchant for hiring former political operatives. Besides, the agencies claim they've landed in their current predicament through no fault of their own. As Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron recently put it, the GSEs have been hit by a 100-year storm in the housing market, accentuated by some higher-risk mortgages that they were forced to buy to meet government affordable-housing targets.

The latter contention is more than disingenuous. A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.

A simple Google search with help from Wikipedia would have revealed how clueless the CRA caused this mess claim is. But that's not the point. The entire financial system is under tremendous stress on the Republican's watch. It's their policies that are under the microscope right now. And they just don't look that good. So now the political game is to shift the blame to Democrats. And who better then to blame then ... Jimmy Carter.

It's just utter know-nothingism, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans before. Good for the CBC to challenge these racists directly, pivoting off of comments supporting this nonsense from Rep. Michelle Bachmann:

In a new letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) obtained by ThinkProgress, 31 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) call Bachmann’s claims “ridiculous” and ask Boehner whether her comments represent the views of the Republican Caucus:

It is clear from Rep. Bachmann’s comments that she believes that the bipartisan laws enacted over the past decade ensuring that minority communities have equal access to banking and other financial services are the cause of this financial situation. […]

There is no evidence to support Rep. Bachmann’s assertion that “minorities” caused the current financial crisis. Laws designed to open opportunities for equal access to credit do not require banks or thrifts to make loans that are unsafe or unprofitable. In fact, laws like the CRA mandate exactly the opposite. […] Additionally, research clearly shows that the majority of the predatory loans that have led us to this financial mess were originated by non-bank financial institutions and other entities that did NOT have a CRA obligation and lacked strong federal regulatory oversight. Shifting the blame for the current economic crisis to laws that allow equal access and opportunities to communities of color is ridiculous.

As members of the CBC, we simply ask if Rep. Bachmann’s position that it was lending to minority communities that caused the current financial crisis, represent the position of Republican Caucus?

I'm waiting for an answer.

Can We Blame The Blacks?

Anyone who tells you with a straight face that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is the cause of the financial crisis of 2008 is either a mindlessly dishonest or deeply stupid person. See the entire right-wing blogosphere for the proof. And see this for the debunk.

CRA loans constituted only 23% of all loans and 9.2% of high-cost loans.
CRA loans were twice as likely to be retained in the originating banks portfolio than loans made by other institutions.
CRA loans were less likely to be foreclosed upon than other loans.