Spitzer Talks About Bailout and Wall Street

Hello Bloggers - I've written in favor of Eliot Spitzer before on this blog. I want him to become a bigger player in the Democratic Party again.

Now he's come out and written a VERY good article for Slate. "A more sensible approach would focus not just on rescuing pre-existing financial institutions but, instead, on creating a structure for more contained and competitive ones."

I recommend reading it. It's full of good points about the crisis related to financial institutions, corruption, and Wall Street failures. Enjoy! Michael

Political Rave: Congress May Expose Possible Spitzer Witch Hunt

Hello Bloggers - After living in NYC for a while I admit that I'm a huge fan of Eliot Spitzer, but I also admit that a Governor should not be caught paying prostitutes - big time conflict of interest on many levels.

I also agree with many of the conspiracy theorists that he was a possible victim of a Bush Administration hit job.

I think they were trying to knock him out of power. I haven't been bothering to talk about it, but I am THRILLED to see the New York Times do a piece on it. It deserves to be investigated. The Times is reporting that a congressional panel will ask why an eight month federal investigation into a prostitution service led to the exposure of Spitzer, and then pretty much disintegrated. It looked like they were out to get Spitzer? Doesn't it?

The prosecutor has said that politics played no role in the pursuit of Spitzer, but that has not satisfied many of us. Spitzer spent his career pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, and many of us believe that he created a few grudges. Many wanted him to fall.

Even though I believe there are many pressing issues related to Bush that should be investigated, I'm still happy to hear the House Financial Services Committee will be looking into it. They plan to hold hearings that could include testimony from the United States Treasury’s law enforcement unit, along with Spitzer’s bank, North Fork, and HSBC, a bank used by a company connected to the prostitution service. I've read a lot about the issues involve, and it sounds pretty good to me.

Of course, Republicans are screaming about how the Democrats are interested in political "retribution." What the hell are they talking about? What is wrong with exposing Bush Administration witch hunts? No government should be allowed to destroy good people over small issues (like Gingrich did to Clinton, which I still think was wrong) to wipe out their power.

What if Democrats, while in power, tried to expose Republicans who sleep around or hire prostitutes, just to destroy their power base? I think that would be wrong too. Law enforcement needs to expose those situations quietly. They don't need to destroy lives, careers, and families over something that amounts to rogue behavior, or a weak constitution. People make mistakes of the "heart." Do you feel comfortable casting the first stone?

The bigger question is whether the Bushies were trying to keep him from exposing larger crimes they were committing - in New York, on Wall Street? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one. I think it will come out that the Bush Administration destroyed Spitzer to keep him from exposing their own wrongdoings in the financial sector. I wonder how many lives the Bushies destroyed over the past eight years to cover their tracks? I'm sure the number's very high. Hopefully it will eventually be revealed, and justice will prevail. Well, I can hope.

We pride ourselves on giving people second chances. He did so many good things to help New York and the nation. He deserves our respect, not our derision. Think about forgiving him this Thanksgiving, and let's try to bring him back.

Wednesday's Political Rave #1 - Michael

Political News: More Evidence on How the Bush Administration Helped Create the Lending Crisis

Good Morning Bloggers - The Tom Hartman show this morning reminded us of a Washington Post article in February of this year that slammed the Bush Administration for not allowing states to stop predatory lenders. I think it's important so I'm just reprinting it here for our debate.

Excerpt from the Washington Post:

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot SpitzerThursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.

Well, more food for thought. The evidence is building. Any comments Republicans?

Thursday's Political News #1 - Michael