“We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who
couldn’t afford or understand
them.”
— President Obama in
last night’s State of the Union Address
Stop right here.
Forget the rest of the speech. Focus just on this single
sentence and understand what is really afoot here.
Back in February of 2009, my former Reagan colleague Peter
Wallison, now at the American Enterprise Institute, took the time
to make a typically Wallisonian in-depth look at the financial
crisis and it’s causes. He
published his findings right here in The American
Spectator
What we learned was that in 1993 — the beginning of the
Clinton era — there was what Wallison termed a “major effort” by
Clinton’s bank regulators to “reform” banking rules.
Banking rules? What banking rules?
Banking rules put in place by Jimmy Carter in the 1977
Community Reinvestment Act. These Carter banking rules, which
replaced earlier banking rules that had replaced earlier banking
rules that had replaced still earlier banking rules, were
constructed by the government after much study beginning in 1993.
Constructed in such a fashion as to do precisely what President
Obama described last night.
Wrote Wallison
here in The American Spectator back in February
2009:
In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to
establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was
meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they
once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for
qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had
actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and
moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required
the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address
credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that
was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound
practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and
“flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending
standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to
enforce these relaxed standards.
Stop right here.
There is a reason our friend Mark Levin’s book
Ameritopia is meeting with such bestselling success in
this 2012 campaign season. We discussed it
here and have every intention of using it as a guide to current
events throughout the year.
Last night’s Obama State of the Union is exhibit A of
Ameritopia at work.
After outlining in detail the eternal and historical
left-wing quest for utopia as “the ideological and doctrinal
foundation for statism,” Levin underlines that:
[U]topianism has long promoted the idea of a paradisiacal
existence and advanced concepts of pseudo ‘ideal’ societies in
which a heroic despot, a benevolent sovereign, or an enlightened
oligarchy claims the ability and authority to provide for all the
needs and fulfill all the wants of the individual — in exchange
for his abject servitude.
With this as the ideological/doctrinal utopian foundation
of the left, Levin writes at length about the reality of this in
modern America. The “massive administrative state…an army of
bureaucrats…highly compensated….” Etc. And the task at hand for
this American utopian army? “It monitors daily life and attempts to
mechanically extinguish risk, dissimilarity, and choice, as well as
that which has become routine and acceptable, in pursuit of
societal perfection.”
What has Mark Levin just described there?
That’s right. He has nailed exactly the driving force
behind that one single sentence from the Obama State of the Union
speech.
In the quest to create a utopian society of homeowners —
home owning as a stand-alone a fine thing — the Ameritopians of
the Carter era changed the banking rules in 1977. Banking rules
that were in fact utopian rules from earlier times in American
history. Come 1993 and the dawn of the Clinton era, and — shocker
— there was no utopian society of homeowners as a result of
Carter’s utopian banking rules. So, but of course, in another yet
another quest for utopia, the Clinton utopians changed the Carter
utopian banking rules. Launching Levin’s “army of bureaucrats” in
the “massive administrative state” that was the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the
Clintonites set out anew on the latest utopian quest.
They failed. The financial crisis exploded in 2008 as a
result. And so… what?
So now President Obama stands in front of the Congress
last night sorrowfully announcing (without mentioning any names, of
course) that the promised land of utopia in housing has not been
found. He says, without a hint of irony: “We learned
that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or
understand them.”
Well, duh. Another attempt at utopia hasn’t worked as
promised. And what does Obama propose to do?
Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and
lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last…
Meaning? Meaning…now we are supposed to all build
Obama’s idea of utopia!
That’s what last night was about, in short. The latest of
an endless line of utopian prophecies from yet another leftist
insisting he’s the guy who can at long last create the perfect
utopian society — and oh by the way, who cares that this has zero
to do with the Constitution of the United States or the Declaration
of Independence?
This is the real problem in 2012 —
and in reality, always.
Somebody somewhere is always trying to sell a utopian bill
of goods — a bill of goods guaranteed for failure precisely
because there is no such thing as utopia.
That wasn’t the President of the United States on your
television screens last night.
That was the President of Ameritopia.
Whatever unfolds this primary season — Newt, Romney,
Santorum, other — all understand somewhere in their bones that
they are running for President of the United States of…
America.
Not… Ameritopia.
Pete| 1.25.12 @ 11:56AM
Well stated. And in the vetting process the candidates need to prove that they understand that we are now fighting a war. Obama will throw his allies into the streets (OWL - Mexican drug carterls - ACORN - Unions). The GOP candidate better be ready to discern exactly what is happening and counter the attacks. Our country depends on it.
sirbourbon| 1.25.12 @ 12:20PM
Ok, Mr. Obama is wrong on domestic policy because it is _________?
A; socialistic, perhaps. B: Socialistic a lot C: falls into Levin's category of "statist as described in his book Ameritopia.
BUT... Obama's foreign policy is correct?
Why would a socialist push socialism at home and free enterprise overseas with drones and cruise missiles?
The truth is that he is consistent in both areas.
Lord knows that Levin can't make Lord rise to see the truth that war ( aggressive and non defense related) is unconstitutional, immoral and uneconomic which threatens to further put our nation into debt and diminish our defensive capabilities by trying to police the planet and wearing out our troops by deployment after deployment combat tours of duty
Suicide rates and grieving fathers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNmerP32xk&feature=youtu.be
http://rt.com/news/us-soldiers-suicide-combat-487/
Tommy Frisco| 1.25.12 @ 12:47PM
Mr. Lord, I understand that the housing issue was a bubble waiting to burst, but I still have questions about the draw down that occurred in the money markets on 9-18-08. There was 550b drawn out in less than two hours. This event turned out to be the ultimate October surprise for a Presidential campaign. McCain was ahead in the polls at the time. Considering the timing, I can't help but believe that this draw down was a planned event. Is it possible to find out who was involved in that draw down? Where was George Soros that morning?
DRed| 1.25.12 @ 2:44PM
Too bad most of those mortgages weren't originated by banks. Wallinson is, as politely as I can put it, completely full of shit.
Dai Alanye | 1.25.12 @ 3:19PM
This comment needs to be explained. If banks weren't accepting the mortgages, who or what was? The immediate problem, certainly, was the bundling and securitizing of bad mortgages, but the mortgages had to exist first.
DRed| 1.25.12 @ 4:29PM
Most of the sub-prime mortgages were made by non-bank lenders. A company like Ameriquest wasn't a bank. The CRA did not apply to Ameriquest.
Dai Alanye | 1.25.12 @ 7:57PM
And to think that if Bob Dole hadn't done "tax reform" in '96 we'd still have savings and loans to handle the majority of mortgages. But CRA was still a bad idea, something all of us can agree on.
Hobbes| 1.25.12 @ 5:40PM
The notion of using the power of the U.S. government to do “regime change” and “nation building” around the world runs contrary to conservative values that highlight skepticism about the ability of government to promote political and social change — whether it is in Dubuque, Iowa, or in Baghdad, Iraq. Leon Hadar
Reflector| 1.26.12 @ 10:56AM
Amen, Mr. Hobbes. Will somebody please explain historically how we arrived at hiring 'mercenaries'?
http://www.alternet.org/world/134594/obama's_blackwater_chicago_mercenary_firm_gets_millions_for_private_"security"_in_israel_and_iraq_/ and this one:http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/war-on-drugs-transferred-to-private.html