So, I usually don't go HERE, but I have to say it...

Yesterday I informed an old friend I probably won't be able to make her wedding because I will likely be deployed to hurricane responses in October (history tells me with an active season like this one has been that it is very likely). In her defense she sent a "save the date" a year ago, but I am on a response team whose month is October, and there's not a lot I can do about it (this makes me very sad, and I will go if there's any way on earth I can). Her response was, "Maybe I should start by writing a letter to George W and tell him he screwed everything up for everyone." This statement kindof left me scratching my head. What I think that meant was that she believes the current economic crisis is Bush's fault since "so many other people can't come either". Or maybe she means the hurricane?

I hear a lot of name calling when my friends talk about George Bush. I hear a lot of name calling (ignorant, idiots, "Christian neandertals" (that was my favorite, btw), etc., etc.) when I hear people talk about supporters of George Bush, or Republicans, or Conservatives-whichever the case may be (remember the front of that British tabloid in 2004, "How could 49 million people be SO STUPID?"). I pretty much think a person can have quite high intellect and lean either direction, so I don't quite get all that. I would love to see people attack the issues, the decisions, and the actions with a little bit of informed political salvo. I don't love George Bush and I don't like a lot of his politics, but I don't think he is a red neck bible-thumping Yee-Haw hell bent on destroying the country. I think he loves the country, I think he is a spiritual man (good for him), and I think he lives by his convictions (for better or worse). And, you can pretty much guarantee morons don't make it to the White House. He's not an idiot, maybe an rigid idealist, but not stupid. It's very convenient to name call when you've got nothing else.

So, this brings me to my point. Laying the blame of this financial crisis at the feet of the Bush Administration is political myopia. This problem may have started a much longer time ago, thirty years or more, under Jimmy Carter with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (1977). This act essentially required lending institutions to "meet the needs of communities", and paved the way for relaxing income and credit requirements for the issuance of home loans. Under the Clinton Administration, more low and moderate income families owned homes than ever previously recorded and the trend toward risky lending became even more pronounced. Although the idea of allowing everyone to get loans, regardless of whether they qualify or can afford them, to own a home is altruistic to the highest degree, it is amazing (to me anyway) that anyone is surprised that when the practice extends into overinflated housing markets that the bubble will burst eventually.

In 2003, the Bush Administration, concerned about increasing financial risks, attempted to provide more federal oversite to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it didn't fly. At the time, the congressional majority felt future planning was unnecessary, given the robustness of the financial sector. Barney Frank claimed this was unneeded because "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Then who is at fault here? The overinflated housing market caused by the stratospheric ascent of housing prices in the past two decades? The folks who took out loans they really probably couldn't afford? The "predatory lenders" who deliberately targeted lending toward low and middle income people, bending the rules for who qualifies, and who, for years were seeing record profits and bonuses for their execs (MILLIONs each)? The federal government (under FIVE different administrations) that did nothing to stop or try to oversee this dangerously swelling monster (even a little) because times were so good for the economy, and no one wanted to see it end by pulling in the reins a little?

At any rate, I almost think we are remiss to bail anyone out. I'm not interested in the government buying up that much debt using taxpayer money, even though the financial greed of these companies is only rivaled by the federal government's own desire to overlook looming risk, instead focusing on whatever it takes to continue facilitating a booming economy. Let's make no mistake. This bail out isn't for homeowners. That bail out already happened with a $300 billion dollar program to aid homeowners that will begin October 1st. This is politics at it's finest, folks. It would be interesting to see how this would be handled if this wasn't an election year.