Everyone with a soapbox has spent the better part of this week pointing fingers at who is to blame for the emerging economic crisis stemming from the default of millions of subprime mortgages. One direction that conservatives, Republicans and bankers are pointing their fingers is at the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) — a law created to counter the discriminatory practice mortgage banks used for decades to single out minority neighborhoods for subprime mortgages or otherwise deny credit-worthy individuals access to capital simply because of the color of their skin and their neighbors.
Rep. Michele Bachmann slammed CRA in an appearance on Larry King Live on Monday night. “Look at the housing crisis. Government has to take its share of the blame,” she said. “After all, the government was goading these mortgage lenders, saying, ‘You’re redlining. You’re being discriminatory. If you don’t give loans out to marginally credit-worthy people we’re going to come after you.’ In fact, Chairman Barney Frank has made comments like that as well.”
She continued, “The Democrat [sic] controlled Congress wants to have these mortgage lenders make loans to people with marginal credit. Well, guess what? If you aren’t making lending… it is not a shock when you have loans that aren’t paid back.”
Bachmann sits on the House Financial Services Committee with fellow Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison. And Ellison is not amused by that type of rhetoric.
“This is the height of chutzpah,” said Rep. Keith Ellison in a scathing statement on Tuesday. “To suggest that the greatest financial crisis we face since the Great Depression was caused by legislation that was created to help PREVENT low-income individuals from assuming high-cost, subprime loans that have caused the crisis today is absurd.”
“To suggest that struggling families trying to keep their homes brought down the ‘Titans of Commerce,’ ‘The Masters of the Universe’ on Wall Street, is ludicrous. To suggest someone who is raising three children while holding down two minimum-wage jobs on a high school education was able to stall one of the greatest economic engines on earth needs their head examined,” Ellison said.
And empirical data back Ellison’s assertion. A number of studies show that CRA has in fact decreased predatory lending in minority neighborhoods and that banks subject to CRA regulations were less likely to offer subprime loans.
The New York law firm of Traiger and Hinckley analyzed subprime loan data in the 15 largest metropolitan areas (PDF). Only 25 percent of lenders in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods were under the purview of CRA, because many of the newer lenders fell outside of the scope of regulation. The CRA banks, however, were significantly less likely to offer subprime loans, offered lower rates and had fewer foreclosures on their books.
“Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods,” the report said.
And while critics contend that CRA costs banks, other contend that once lenders move into underserved neighborhoods, profit can be made. Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation’s Financial Services and Education Project told Comgress, “Once these initiatives were started, many have proven to be sustainable in purely financial terms.”
Janet L. Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, told Congress in April:
“There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term.”
Interestingly, in 2005, just as the the explosion in subprime loans hit underserved neighborhoods, the Bush administration under pressure from banks changed the rules so that only banks with $1 billion in assets would be subject to CRA. The law was essentially gutted.
Robert Gordon of the American Prospect has traced the roots of the “blame CRA” meme back to Ron Paul supporters and crackpot conservative message boards, then to the conservative Washington Times and finally to Bachmann and other prominent conservatives. Talking Points Memo put together this video of conservatives blaming minorities for the housing collapse.
“Irresponsible and unregulated free-market lending run amok got us into this fix today,” Ellison said Tuesday. “Executive salaries the size of Third World economies, coupled with enormous compensation packages, epitomizes the laissez faire policies of the past eight years under George W. Bush. We are living a textbook example of a free and unfettered market failure. It is a crisis that can only be addressed by government oversight and regulation.”














10 Comments »
Comment posted September 24, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Let’s face it. Reason isn’t Michelle’s strong suit.
Comment posted September 24, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
These people are the embodiment of ugliness, starting with Michele Bachmann.
Comment posted September 24, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
That 1977 law IS what got this mess started. The CRA pushed banks to make loans to people who normally wouldn’t qualify for a standard loan. And this current mess started from subprime fallout.
That said, I blame Democrats, Republicans, Wall Street, and banks for this mess.
Comment posted September 25, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Mark,
You are wrong. CRA allowed banks to use alternative credit like utility and rental payments if needed to qualify borrowers. Homeownership classes are also required. CRA loans have a fractionally higher default rate than prime loans. The fallout from subprime loans is almost exclusively from refinancing and liar (no documentation) loans. To qualify for a CRA loan you need a job and a reasonable debt ratio just like a conventional loan. The push to blame CRA (and by extension) minorities is patently false.
Comment posted September 25, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Mark, did you actually read the article? It wasn’t CRA, but deregulation that gutted CRA, that allowed this to happen. It was allowing predatory loans that allowed this start. Note I said “start”, not “happen”, because there are lots of houses in middle class suburbs bought at bubble prices by people either ignorant or speculating.
Comment posted September 25, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Here’s an interesting paragraph from the NY Times story frmo 2004:
The debate on the changes has become so intense that it has reached the presidential race. Vice President Dick Cheney demurred when asked about the proposed changes in August at a campaign rally in Iowa. But last month, Senator John Kerry said that he strongly supported keeping the law in its current form, and accused the Bush administration of choosing “favors for special interests over opportunity for millions of average Americans.”
Sound familiar? Bush did favors for the big guys to make predatory lending easier, and now he wants to help them again to avoid the consequences of making bad loans with no thoughts beyond the fees they collected.
Comment posted September 26, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Sen. John McCain foresaw the mortgage crisis more than two years before it happened, and co-sponsored legislation that would have required greater oversight of the mortgage lending entities. However the Democrats would not let it out of committee. Obama did not sign on as a co-sponsor. Read here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Comment posted September 26, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
I concur wholly with Chris (9/25/08 @ 12:24 pm). This crisis was in no way created by the CRA. The only people braying on about “CRA, CRA” have no personal experience in the lending industry and have formed their opinions based entirely on what they have read on the internet. The disingenuousness of those trying to pin our woes on the CRA is almost enough to make me convert from being a republican to a democrat. If it were all about economic issues, I’d be there already.
Comment posted September 27, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717
Guess again who’s to blame for U.S. mortgage meltdown
Analysts point not to greed, but to social activist politics
Posted: September 19, 2008
By Drew Zahn
While many pundits are pointing to corporate greed and a lack of government regulation as the cause for the American mortgage and financial crisis, some analysts are saying it wasn’t too little government intervention that cased the mortgage meltdown, but too much, in the form of activists compelling the government to pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into unsound – though politically correct – lending practices.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
“Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.”
Comment posted October 1, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Blame, blame, blame there is enough blame to go around several times. The bottom line is “it always about the money” Clinton had an agenda and so did Bush. Increasing minority home ownership cannot be overly simplified as just not wanting to pay rent for the rest of your life. There was overt discrimination in the banking industry in regards to lending practices towards minorities, both presidents resolved to eliminate this somewhat subtle form of racism. Are Sub-Prime Mortgages or Predatory Lending the real culprit? I don’t know if it was Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that invented either. So, by the same reasoning is it fair to blame them for the current crisis? Both agencies have dual alliances and receive their marching orders partly from the current administration and from their Board of Directors. Fannie and Freddie vice-versa any corporation is accountable ultimately to the shareholders (which unfortunately in this case are not the taxpayers). Corporations are in business to increase shareholder wealth, and if Fannie and Freddie did that, then they were successful. Again, a lot of focus lately has been on the Mortgage industry, watch out, next will be the credit card industry, who Bachmann will blame when the government has to bail out “Master Card” or “Visa” is anybody’s guess.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/18/business/fi-homes18
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment