Why Spitzer was taken down

blackchip · May 20, 2008

Interesting...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0nsZbcwE6t0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0nsZbcwE6t0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

washingtonpost.com

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

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.
More...

Spitzer Announces Resignation

CQ Transcripts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008; 11:57 AM

GOV. ELIOT SPITZER, D-N.Y.: In the past few days I have begun to atone for my private failings with my wife Silda, my children and my entire family. The remorse I feel will also be with me. Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me.

From those to whom much is given, much is expected. I have been given much: the love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York, and the chance to lead this state. I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me.

To every New Yorker, and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize.

I look at my time as governor with a sense of what might have been. But I also know that as a public servant, I and the remarkable people with whom I work have accomplished a great deal.

There is much more to be done, and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people's work.

Over the course of my public life I have insisted -- I believe correctly -- that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself.

For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor. At Lieutenant Governor Paterson's request, the resignation will be effective Monday, March 17, a date that he believes will permit an orderly transition.

I go forward with the belief, as others have said, that as human beings our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time that we fall.

As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family. Then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and to move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children.

I hope all of New York will join my prayers for my friend David Paterson as he embarks on his new mission. And I thank the public once again for their privilege of service.

Thank you very much.
More...

jsmooth · May 20, 2008

Interesting article/editorial written by Spitzer.

HolyGrail · May 20, 2008

What a bunch of propaganda. The guy created many enemies in his quest from attorney general to the governorship. To blame the Bush administration for his demise is ludicrous. He is responsible for his own actions, no one else.

maxpi · May 20, 2008

Quote from HolyGrail:

What a bunch of propaganda. The guy created many enemies in his quest from attorney general to the governorship. To blame the Bush administration for his demise is ludicrous. He is responsible for his own actions, no one else.
More...

Jeez yes, what an oversimplification. Assuming cause and effect like that, Spitzer was running wild with the public's money and he got busted.

Log in or Sign up

Why Spitzer was taken down

blackchip

jsmooth

HolyGrail

maxpi