Regulationssubjugated in the name of political correctness
Dear Editor,
            Alright,alright, I tried to retire from socio-political writing, but dang it, “just whenI think I’m out, they drag me back in!” (Michael Corleone, Godfather Pt. III).I herewith unretire.
            My dismayedcritics may blame it on Chris Zaferes’s curious assignment last week of blamefor the American banking boondoggle. I’m sure Chris’s vice-chairmanship of thelocal Democratic Party didn’t affect his objectivity, and he would never try tomislead readers for partisan gain, but it’s about as easy to lead cats asDemocrats, which must be stressful for Chris, so you can’t blame him for beinga touch overwrought.
            Forinstance, I know Chris didn’t mean to give you the idea that Republicansspawned deregulation when it actually began in the trucking and airlineindustries during the Democrats’ fabulously successful Carter administration.
            There are morethan enough regulations already in place to have headed off the current financecalamity if enforcement hadn’t been subjugated for nearly 20 years in the nameof political correctness.
            Chrisprobably meant to tell you that beginning in 1992, a Democratic Congressmandated that Fannie and Freddie increase mortgages for low and medium-incomeborrowers.
            The Clintonadministration investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposedthat 50 percent of Fannie’s and Freddie’s portfolio be loans to low andmoderate-income borrowers by 2001.
            Clinton’sFederal Reserve actually demanded under threat of litigation that banks countwelfare payments and unemployment benefits (!) as valid income to qualify for amortgage.        
            In Bush’sfirst year, the White House chief economist warned that the government’s”implicit subsidy” of Fannie and Freddie, combined with loans to unqualifiedborrowers, was creating a huge risk. Rep. Barney Frank denounced himpublically. The Bushies have tried 12 times since to remedy the Fannie/Freddiemess, but have been vigorously rebuffed largely by Dems Chris Dodd and BarneyFrank, all under the rubric of “affordable housing.”
            These factscome in part from a recent Anne Coulter essay, but they’re all in the record.Lotsa luck spinning them.
            What’swrong with all this? Nothing, until that immense liberal pressure drives banksfor years to make untold thousands of risky sub-prime loans to known bad creditrisks in order to meet mandated social engineering quotas. Even black Democraticcongresswoman Maxine Waters said this week that banks shouldn’t have made somany balloon loans to low-income blacks. Couple that with mega-profits to behad in sub-prime loans, and you have banking malpractice.
            But,clearly, smoke-blowing it as a “Republican monster” is sheer politicalpooh-bah.
            Chris caresabout America. So do I. So I’d suggest that, during all the jingo-drivenballyhoo from both sides in a campaign, we remember that not all “change!” is agood thing. Witness: Communism/socialism, a comparative disaster everywhereit’s been tried, was a “change!” that many Democrats once advocated forAmerica.
Some still do.
William Slusher
Okanogan
