Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - By Eliot Spitzer just before...

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 10:28 p.m. EST by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008

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.

9 Comments

9 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Predatory lending could be addressed under Dodd-Frank by the Financial Consumer Protection Bureau, IF they could get a director in place. The finely qualified Richard Cordray has just been blocked by filibuster.

Once a director is appointed, the FCPB can begin to address the non-bank predators like payday lenders, which have targeted military families especially.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Please read Spitzer's OP-ED.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Spitzer is an interesting character: TPTB keep a little black book on everybody with power. When they step out of line they get Nixoned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhfvE9bNls4

Eliot Spitzer: "The FED is a Ponzi Scheme. Run by Banks". Won't say where $13.9 TRIL went

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

He is right about the Fed, but can't really listen to him go on and on about blaming Bush, when he was the last person that had anything to do with it. That blame goes way back to the early 90s and our glorious DEM and GOP senators and congressmen.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

The blame goes back centuries. And there's plenty to go around. Have a look at the Russell Trust and the connection to the heroin trade. See also "Letter From Lin Tse-hsu, to Queen Victoria, 1839. On The Opium Trade". Funny(sic) how that points back to the Golden Crescent. Not to be confused with the Golden Triangle.

Where was Heinz?

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

Oh i agree with you that this has been going on a very long time. i was more referencing the current mortgage meltdown and the bank bailout. The very inception of the Fed was the worst thing ever. OUr government pledged all of the right title and production of all of America forever to the Fed. That includes all of us as collateral. I for one am not playing their game. Ive been disobedient to the government most of my life. I have two rules. Never do anything to hurt another person. And never let the government take advantage of me.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

But where was Heinz?

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

OH yeh Eliot Spitzer is a reliable upstanding moral guy. Hahahaha. And you people say that FOx News spews propaganda. LOL. This is propaganda. Try reading the Dodd-Frank law and tell me who really was behind the banking meltdown and coverup.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

I meant that in reply to your post. Something went wrong with the post.