How many times have you heard Barack Obama refer to his having to deal with the mess from the last 8 years? More than likely, it’s more times than you can bear, and you probably don’t want to hear it again. Even sadder, is that the media gives him a pass on it. Well, here is an example of where he actually contradicts himself.

President Barack Obama argued on the campaign trail, during the 2008 election cycle, that one bill — the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – aka the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 led to deregulation that helped cause the crisis. Among other things, that law allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression. Its passage, critics say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.

The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was enacted into law by the 106th United States Congress and President William Jefferson Clinton.

At the time the republicans in the United States Senate held 55 seats and the democrats held 45 seats. The republicans in the United States House of Representatives held 222 seats and the democrats held 210 seats. There was no supermajority going on, and the legislation could have easily been voted down.

Regardless, the Democrats had no qualms supporting the legislation; and though he would have been able to, the democrats voted in such high numbers that Bill Clinton could not veto the legislation if he wanted to. 91% of the Senate and 86% of the House of Representatives voted for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Of course the democrats did get a door prize out of the deal.

The door prize strengthened the provisions of the anti-redlining, Community Reinvestment Act. Essentially, they relaxed the requirements necessary to obtain home loans which spurred on the housing crisis. The Clinton Administration stressed that it “would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.”

Keep in mind Bush ’43 actually had an MBA from Yale & Harvard; he also had real life business experience. Something the Obama Administration still lacks. Scaling back lending requirements so the prerequisites were more stringent was exactly what George Bush tried to do on a variety of occasions. In 2008 alone, he spoke out on the issue 17 times.

Yet, “the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to “adopt any reform until this summer,” when it was too late“Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade.”

“Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush’s call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.”

Bush and the Republican Party are not faultless, but laying the entire responsibility at their feet is a rumor propagated by the Democratic Party and the Lame Stream Media. Let’s not discount the fact that the Democrats controlled congress for the last two years of the Bush Administration. The dot.com bubble and 9/11 wiped out much of the Clinton surplus you always hear about. So it’s not fair to heap the entire economic meltdown on Bush and the Republicans..

The bottom line is that if Obama acknowledged that the fault was nonpartisan in 2008, why is he still blaming the economic crisis on George W. Bush & his Administration?

Advertisements