[Guest post by DRJ]
Doug Ross has a wealth of charts demonstrating the tragic results of the Community Reinvestment Act. It’s interesting and easy to follow, and he concludes with this paragraph:
“All that said, these factors pale in comparison to the underlying instigator: a changed policy within the Clinton administration. Andrew Cuomo’s HUD and Janet Reno’s Justice Department threatened banks with a variety of sanctions unless they loosened underwriting standards. Their aim: to hit certain thresholds for loans to the urban poor. Securitization, leverage and poor ratings were all built upon the underlying subprime rot caused by the Clinton administration’s egregious experiments.”
I understand the urge to give money and benefits away but, at some point, politicians in every Party must accept this simple fact: People and societies succeed when they earn what they have, not when it’s given to them.
[Guest post by DRJ]
Caroline Kennedy wants to replace Hillary Clinton as the junior Senator from New York. Her primary qualification seems to be that she’s a Kennedy and the daughter of JFK. Apparently even she realizes her limitations since she admits she will have to work twice as hard as anyone else:
“Caroline Kennedy told The Associated Press in an interview Friday that she knows she will have to work twice as hard as others if she is picked for the U.S. Senate. The 51-year-old daughter of President John F. Kennedy said she realized she will have to prove herself because of her famous background and her lack of political experience.
“I came into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else,” she said. “I am an unconventional choice.”
But Kennedy said there are “many ways to public service” and her accomplishments as a writer, mother and fundraiser for New York City public schools prepared her well for the post. “
I’m also a writer, mother and school fundraiser so keep me in mind, Gov. Paterson. You, too, Gov. Blagojevich.
But back to the point: I don’t see any way Caroline Kennedy is qualified for this appointment. Surely Democrats realize this, don’t they? I know there are liberals and/or Democrats who read and comment here. Even if I don’t always agree with you, I generally see both sides of the issues but I can’t here. Congressional ratings are low enough but to consider naming someone who is, at best, a genetic political celebrity makes a mockery of Congress. Tell me why I’m wrong.
I’m set to interview him after the holidays. I figure, everyone else is quoting him. Why not me?
I’m hoping to convince him to be a part of a semi-regular feature on the site. The idea is: when something big happens, I get Greg Packer’s take on it. It would be the ultimate example of blogs beating the media!
Anyway, leave your proposed questions for Greg Packer in the comments. I will ask him the best ones.
And be nice!