New York Times Blames President Bush for President Clinton's Mess

There is a rush on in some quarters of the liberal mainstream press to blame President Bush for anything and everything that could cause grief to the incoming Obama Administration. The New York Times, one of the usual suspects, takes its turn today with an article that attempts to lay blame at the feet of Bush for a chain of events that has it's root in the decisions of President Bill Clinton.

At issue is the origin of the mortgage crisis and the reason for the rapid increase in sub-prime lending. The above average failure rate of these loans is likely the singular cause of the crisis of confidence that has infected the greater economy since the summer. The Times points to a speech given by President Bush in 2002 as the trigger that led banks to begin utilizing non-traditional lending practices in more and more cases. In the speech, the president announced a goal of increasing minority home ownership by 5.5 million families. That is certainly a laudable objective, and one which no doubt the editors of the liberal New York Times would have supported. But now that President-elect Barack Obama is about to inherit the results of the banks' irresponsible lending and consumers' irresponsible borrowing, the goal of increased minority home ownership is derided as the reason for the general economic malaise.

The White House is not taking the criticism lying down. It circulated an editorial printed in Investor's Business Daily titled, "Revision Run Amok," in which the editors excoriate the Times article for its lack of perspective and general lazy reporting.

"The paper of record blames the 'mortgage bonfire' on President Bush and his 'laissez-faire' housing policies. But to get there, the Times completely ignored history prior to 2002.

That's when Bush gave a speech in Atlanta and announced a goal to increase minority homeowners by 5.5 million. According to the Times, this was the event that started the mortgage meltdown.

'He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities,' its lengthy front-page piece asserts. 'But his housing policies encouraged lax lending standards.'

If the Times had said the same thing about Bush's predecessor, its story might have a kernel of truth to it."

The IBD editors continue, pointing out that President Bill Clinton had a much more ambitious goal of minority homeownership, and he backed it up with enforcement.

"Seeking to lock in minority voters for Democrats, Bill Clinton in 1993 set a national homeownership goal of 55% for blacks, a major increase from existing levels.

To achieve it, he tasked his regulators to lead an anti-redlining crusade against the banking industry that included revising Community Reinvestment Act regulations to pressure banks to adopt "flexible" lending standards for low-income borrowers.

Clinton also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy not just sub-prime loans, but also sub-prime securities, to meet "affirmative action" lending quotas.

These actions - which were far more concrete than anything Bush did to encourage minority homeownership - were never cited in the Times' nearly 5,000-word piece.

Why would the New York Times so obviously attempt to rewrite history on the mortgage crisis? To benefit incoming president Barack Obama. The goal is to give Obama and Congressional Democrats more time and wider latitude to attempt a fix of the situation on the theory that the public will be more patient with the new administration if it is viewed as cleaning up Bush's mess, as opposed to its own.

The Investor's Business Daily editorial is right on the history and the facts of the current mortgage problems. But the Times is not interested in facts. It is primarily interested in politics, as is usually the case when it comes to its news analysis. With the mainstream press largely cheering it on, it is likely to be an easy four years for the Obama administration.