Saturday, October 16, 2010

FoodForThought

American Thinker Article

Sociologists: Liberal Policy Didn't Cause the Mortgage Crisis, Racism Did

By Monte Kuligowski

"Predatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods led to mass foreclosures that fueled the U.S. housing crisis, according to a new study published in the American Sociological Review." That's how the Reuters
story of October 4, "Racial predatory loans fueled U.S. housing crisis: study," opens.

The "new study" is an academic article titled "Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis," which was written by a graduate student at Princeton and his professor.

Inasmuch as the "new study" further diverts attention from the real reasons for the foreclosure crisis and advances racism as a cause, the piece is becoming a smashing success within the "mainstream" media. Not only was the banking industry greedy, but new evidence shows that its "predatory lending" policies were in fact racist as well.

During the primaries and race leading to the 2008 presidential election, gas prices happened to skyrocket, and shortly thereafter, the giant housing bubble burst. It was like the breaking of a piƱata, scattering candies everywhere for Candidate Obama. With a little help from the news media, the bubble's burst couldn't have happened at a better time.

Acting with lightning speed, the Democrats and their media created the non sequitur narrative. It was Bush's fault! The free markets failed because the reckless cowboy refused to regulate the banking and financial industries.

Never mind that those were already highly regulated industries -- and no one has yet revealed the regulations that Bush opposed that would have prevented the bursting of the artificial bubble.

Also pay no attention to the fact that the Democrats had controlled Congress since 2006 and had resisted repeated requests for tighter accounting of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The likes of Barney Frank assured us that everything was hunky-dory with the government-backed lending system.

And, lastly, if we are to accept the narrative, we must forget about Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, the instrument from which the government created the artificial bubble. The Act is little more than liberal feel-good social engineering that levels the playing field for low-income minorities. According to liberal thought (see the words of former HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo), institutional racial discrimination was the reason banks were not approving enough loans for minorities.

The federal government, therefore, had to intervene. The Clinton administration revived and enforced the Act in the1990s with vengeance; and with a little help from groups like ACORN, minority loan approvals reached all-time highs.

Application of the Act was done in the name of the right to "affordable housing." Affordable housing really meant that everyone has a right to get a mortgage on a home. At the threat of ACORN members getting crazy in bank lobbies and with the coercion of federal law, traditional qualifications for getting loan approvals (verifiable income levels, sufficient down payments, standard credit histories, etc.) were thrown out the window.

What the federal government forced upon the mortgage industry was like the screeching of fingernails on a chalkboard to the principles of the free market system. No businessman in his right mind would approve loans, in the name of social justice, for those who couldn't afford them. So ridiculous was the practice that the government had to create an entire system to back the devalued mortgages generated by liberal economic-justice policy.

Prior to the bubble's burst, the bankers were the good guys so long as they were lending to people who really couldn't afford homes. The government's manipulation of the markets led to trading in worthless paper and derivative hedging by greedy Wall Street investors. But in the heyday of easy loans, easy money, and rampant corruption at Freddie and Fannie, the Democrats were happy and content.

So long as home prices were going up and equity was accruing, the artificial markets seemed almost real. The subprime loans seemed to work. It went on for many years. But after gas prices began hovering at $4.00 per gallon, waves of mortgage defaults crashed throughout the country. Once the system collapsed, a new set of facts was needed -- and reality was quickly turned upside-down.

Even though the mortgage industry was forced to make "risky loans" to meet government quotas, the bankers became the bad guys. Risky loans were blamed on the free market system. Capitalism had failed.

The mortgage people were suddenly guilty of selling "predatory loans" to innocent minorities. Liberal Democrats had authored, implemented, and maintained the irresponsible lending policies which led to the financial crisis. But after the burst, we saw the most culpable Democrats -- Obama, Dodd, Frank, et al. -- blaming the Republicans and capitalism.

The best fiction novelist in the world couldn't make this stuff up. How the establishment left was able to turn the entire situation on its head is beyond belief (in the aftermath, we even witnessed a surreal Dodd-Frank reform bill). And now we have a "new study" to show that the practice of "predatory loans" was likely based on racial discrimination!

In the piece (the new study), the authors first note that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 didn't work out so well and that minorities continue to "live under conditions of hyper segregation" in the big inner cities. Declines in the black population in communities in "New York, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, and Washington," have been "minimal or nonexistent."

I guess we're supposed to attribute the "segregation" problem to racial discrimination and not the government welfare policies that have crippled an entire segment of the black population.

From there, the authors tell us that "a careful reading of recent scholarship on segregation and mortgage lending shows that racial discrimination occurred at each step in the complex chain of events leading from loan origination to foreclosure."

You see, "high levels of segregation create a natural market for subprime lending and cause riskier mortgages, and thus foreclosures, to accumulate disproportionately in racially segregated cities' minority neighborhoods."

Hmm. Why do you suppose "segregation" creates "a natural market for subprime lending?" A subprime mortgage happens to be a type of loan for people with poor credit histories. Think there's any connection between poor credit ratings and government dependency? Perish the thought.

Prior to the politicizing of the mortgage industry, people with poor credit histories were turned down for home loans. "Pay your bills, stay at your job, save your money, and come back and see me in a few years," was the advice of the banker before ACORN and social justice came along. Subprime loans were an accommodation for people who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the "new study" is the section in which the authors essentially call blacks in the inner cities stupid. We're supposed to believe that because "pawn shops, payday lenders, and check cashing services that charge high fees and usurious rates of interest," exist in "minority areas ... minority group members are accustomed to exploitation and [are] frequently unaware that better services are available elsewhere."

So the mortgage crisis was caused not by the government forcing lenders to grant loans to those who really didn't qualify, but by "predatory lenders" who targeted inner-city minorities who were just too dumb to know that better services were available elsewhere.

The level of dishonesty associated with the liberal media (and academic) narrative of the mortgage crisis is astounding and if the general public ever gets the facts the Democrat Party will be in peril for decades to come.

Monday, October 04, 2010

Euthanasia

An article in the Australian by Paul Kelly
29thSeptember2010

THE Labor leader should not let this law be put back on the books.

NEW Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be called on to reveal more of her core beliefs, with the immediate test being the euthanasia bill that highlights a cultural divide in Western society.

Greens leader Bob Brown's decision to introduce a private member's bill to restore the power of parliaments in the Northern Territory and the ACT to legislate for euthanasia poses a political challenge for the minority Labor government and for Gillard.

Brown's bill in its mechanics deals with territory powers but its essence is to open the door to euthanasia in Australia.

The bill is facilitated under new parliamentary procedures and the Labor-Greens alliance.

Gillard has announced that Labor will allow a conscience vote but that cannot gainsay the political question: Will the Gillard government become the means to authorise legalised killing in Australia by abandoning the 1997 law of the national parliament?

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

This would be a threshold and false step for Australia. It is difficult to imagine that Gillard wants this stamp on her prime ministership.

During the past dozen years euthanasia has won little acceptance in most Western nations beyond The Netherlands and Belgium in Europe and the states of Oregon and Washington in the US. Two years ago human rights champion Frank Brennan told a Senate committee: "Since the commonwealth exercise the US Supreme Court has said there is no right to euthanasia. It would seem to me that on balance nothing has changed or, if anything, the anti-euthanasia case is probably slightly strengthened if we look at developments in equivalent jurisdictions."

The clinching case against euthanasia has been put by Australian-Canadian lawyer and ethicist Margaret Somerville in evidence to the Australian parliament: "If you look at the most fundamental norm or value on which our type of societies are based, it is that we do not kill each other. No matter how compassionate and merciful your reasons for carrying out euthanasia, it still alters that norm that we do not kill each other to one where we do not usually, but in some cases we do."

Once this threshold is crossed and killing is sanctioned, what are the terms, conditions and safeguards? Given the frailty of human history, does anybody doubt the scope and scale for abuses?

In a speech to the NSW parliament on October 16, 1996, premier Bob Carr said this question was "the bottom line that we must face as legislators": Was it possible to legislate euthanasia with the safeguards necessary to assure the sick, vulnerable, indigenous and invalid? "I do not think it is possible," Carr answered as the parliament found against euthanasia.

In 1995 the Northern Territory passed its euthanasia law, an event of moment for the Territory and Australia. The law was a shocker and the safeguards deficient. It was negated by the 1996 bill moved by Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, as a private member, carried in the House of Representatives on an 88-35 conscience vote on December 9, 1996. In the Senate the Andrews bill was passed 38-33 in March 1997.

The national parliament's overriding of the Territory was a proper exercise of its constitutional powers and political authority. There was no issue of territory rights, then or now. The national parliament had the constitutional power and, as Andrews said, if the national parliament could not legislate on an issue that went, literally, to the life and death of its citizens, then what on earth was its purpose?

The entire key to the euthanasia debate lies in its great paradox: consistent polls showing a majority in favour. But what, exactly, are people supporting? The 1996-97 debate provides the answer: most people think that turning off life-support machines and discontinuing life-preserving treatment is euthanasia. In fact, this is nothing to do with euthanasia. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of euthanasia. If a family turns off a life-support machine, the patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor. But if the doctor gives a lethal injection, then the patient is killed. This is a fine yet critical distinction.

Because euthanasia involves one person being sanctioned to kill another, it cannot be seen just within a human rights framework. It is an ethical and intellectual failure to pretend that euthanasia is merely a human right awaiting recognition. It is about society and its norms and values. There is no escaping the chasm that euthanasia crosses. Creation of a legal framework to permit killing must affect the way all people perceive their lives and the expectations that friends, family and doctors have of patients.

This issue was best put by former NSW politician Tony Burke, now Minister for Sustainability and Environment in the Gillard government, when he led the 1996 campaign from Labor's side: "There is a maxim often used in the capital punishment debate which applies perfectly to legalised euthanasia: whether you support it or oppose it in principle, if one innocent person is going to be killed, that is too high a price." Exactly.

Former Labor MP Lindsay Tanner, on October 28, 1996, tore to shreds the logic of the Northern Territory law. Asking where the line should be drawn, Tanner asked rhetorically: "Why is it that it is only the terminally ill? Why shouldn't it also be the severely disabled? Why not somebody with an incurable mental illness? Why not children who are terminally ill?"

Tanner's point is that lines cannot be firm or fixed. Reinforcing his argument is that many euthanasia advocates, such as Peter Singer, actively promote its extension more widely.

Tanner also dismissed the furphy about territory rights, saying it was absurd to let the Northern Territory, representing 1 per cent of the people, make such a decision affecting all Australians. Finally, he asked: What about the terminally ill who do not want to die? Good question. It was the question hammered by Burke and Andrews. Once the killing culture is established, the aged, sick and disabled will have to consider whether to put up their hands. They will feel obligated. Financial pressures, healthcare costs and expectations of family will assume new dimensions.

The old joke for the sick is that euthanasia is "putting us out of your misery".

Yes, some people in pain want to die and it is hard to deny their claim. Yet there are many others glad to be alive today who would have volunteered for euthanasia if it had been legal five years ago. As Andrews said in 1996, a well person who is suicidal is offered counselling, but under euthanasia an ill person who is suicidal becomes an option for death.

Brown's bill will enable the territories, if they wish, to pass new euthanasia laws.

Gillard gave a tentative sign last weekend of her doubts.

She will guarantee harsh judgments by branding herself as a pro-euthanasia PM or, even worse, by letting such laws back on the books.