by Sanjay Bherwani
Liberal Democrats’ are notorious for accusing President Bush and the Republicans for the nation’s economic meltdown. In light of their attacks I have decided to provide some valuable facts regarding how and why we are in this crisis. I also challenge any Democrat to prove me wrong on either of the issues of which I will highlight. These issues will range from 9/11, to the Iraq war, and ,most importantly, to the economic meltdown.
Myth 1 : Bill Clinton vs Bush's Legacy
Despite the reciprocal courtesy from the Obama administration, George W. Bush "covered up" many of Bill Clinton's screw-ups; often times without a peek of a complaint. Bill Clinton's success with the economy was not his own doing. What many fail to note is that he greatly benefited from the rise of online entrepreneurs. This “DOT. COM” boom created millions of jobs over night. The tax revenues collected from these new ventures put large amounts of money into government coffers. In fact, the government's Treasury increased by 85%. Bill Clinton also had massive cuts in programs and in Defense Spending. His cuts in Defense Spending depleted our military and led to 9/11. In '96, the Government of Sudan gave to Bill Clinton Osama's exact location, and Clinton refused to use the information to capture or to kill Osama.The only thing Bush inherited from Clinton was a covered up mess.
Oh and BTW, Bush was not the second president to be IMPEACHED.... Clinton was. We will never, however, get to hear from the far left media, and until this day, never has any liberal media thanked our President Bush for keeping us safe in the last 7 years.
Myth 2 : 9/11 occurred under George Bush's watch, not Clinton.
While it is true that the actual attack occurred on 9/11, when Bush got into office, the actual plot took years to plan- not 8 months. Bill Clinton had almost a decade to capture or to kill Osama Bin Laden after his EXACT location was given to him. I find it ironic that the media keeps telling us not to blame Obama for what occurred at least a year ago. The media tells us he is not to be blamed for anything; "He needs to be given a chance to settle in", is what they say. When did they offer up such courtesy,however, to Bush. Why do we blame George Bush for an attack that occurred with in the first 8 months of his presidency? Bill Clinton left office with one of the lowest approval rating within the military. Bush left with one of the highest, and hence, we have been safe for the last 7 years. People forget that there were “eight terrorist attacks” during Clinton's watch. There was only “ONE” during President Bush’s.
The 9/11 commission reports note that the information that National Security Advisor Condi Rice received was to say, the least ,vague. One report said "attacks in the near future" but never said ...when, whom, how...... Clinton had the' when,whom and how' information from the Sudanese Government.
Upon that info...Bush:
Asked the FAA, INS, Customs, and Coast guard to increase security.
2. Issued at least five warnings to the US military.
3. Met regularly with the Counter Terrorism Security Group.
4. Issued many warnings to State Department, Federal, State, and Local authorities.
5. Ordered the FBI and CIA to increase Surveillance of known or suspected terrorists.
None of that would have been necessary, however, if Clinton had done his job.
Myth 3 : The Economic meltdown was caused by George Bush
I am sick and tried of hearing Barack Obama’s Administration say that they “inherited” this economic crisis because of eight years of Bush' polices. The accusation is dishonest and is a partisan political attack. Sadly, even some Republicans like to get on the bandwagon in attacking Bush for the crisis.
Obama and the Republicans who attack President Bush, nevertheless, are wrong. What caused the economic crisis was, primarily, the Nation's Housing Bubble that burst and which sparked the flames that caused our current economic situation. Some of the contributing factors to The Nation's Housing Crises were risky mortgages to low income Americans; and bad credit borrowers through the Community Reinvestment act (CRA) Which was intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate: including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Was this trend consistent with safe operations?
The question that arises in our minds is who passed the Community Reinvestment Act? The Community reinvestment act in 1977 compelled banks to make loans to low income earners and especially in "Communities of color" which might not ,otherwise,be made based on purely economic criteria.
Jimmy Carter and the Democrats passed CRA to give incentives to low income borrowers to get a home. Seemed to have work? Only a little until 1995 when the Clinton Administration implemented changes in CRA. Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.
The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: Strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; Using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; Encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income groups, and race; and allowing community groups that marketed loans to target groups to collect a fee from the banks (as of the year 2000, $9.5 billion had been paid to such nonprofit groups).
( From wikipedia.com, Community Reinvestment Act, 1995 Clinton Administration Changes)
Due to these unnecessary changes made by Clinton in 1995, banks were forced to give over $1 trillion in new subprime loans to low income earners. If you want to blame someone, blame Clinton and your Democratic Congress in the late 1990's for forcing banks to give out risky loans to people who couldn't afford them because they believed everyone "had a right to own a house".
Bear Stearns was the first to make loans to low income earners when his offering was backed by affordable mortgages. Later Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac added fuel to the fire by purchasing over billions of dollars from "My Country Mortgage" loans, to accommodate low income earners (Who couldn't afford). This started our Subprime mortgages. Banks, consequently,had to issue these subprime loans or were forced to pay big penalties.
This pathetic blunder created the housing bubble, and economists on both sides agree that the loans given to people who couldn't afford them on sub prime mortgages is what made the banks go under, freeze credit, and created this chaos.
The policy encouraged by Democrats was simple: “No money? No problem!” If you want a house, we can offer you one with no money down. Got bad credit? No problem! We will approve you. Got a job? No problem! Income verification not needed. All you have to do is sign here, and you get a house.
These Banks and lenders guaranteed the most reckless of loans . Who,however, is responsible for such policies? Was it Bush? No! These laws were passed under President Clinton.
Unfortunately, the calamity of a previous administration, like 9/11, happened under George Bush's watch. Unlike Obama, Bush never accused the previous administration of any wrong doings. In 2003, George Bush tried to create a new agency within the Treasury Department for strict supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Democrats, nevertheless, stopped it stating, “Efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower income families."
Sanjay Bherwani - a NYC resident and contributor to HHR he is a new citizen born f India and raised in Dubai. He is a graduate of Queens College in Manhattan where he had double majored in economics and International business with a minor in Political Science..
You can email Sanjay at his email address firstname.lastname@example.org.