Conservative's Conscience

Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset

Since the election of 2000, and especially since the beginning of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, President Bush was -- and is -- blamed by some for all the problems the nation has faced.  This attitude, obviously incorrect on its face, poisons political debate.  It continues today, as unproductive as ever, and will be examined below under two headings.   

Iraq

Bush is a liar.  This charge dates back to the beginning of the war in Iraq.  No weapons of mass destruction were found; Bush and prominent members of the Democratic Party said, before the war, that Iraq had them.   

This gulf between apparent reality and claim was pounced upon by Bush's political opponents as a chance to make meaningful points -- they called him a liar.  The insult gained acceptance among the most outspoken liberals.  He was branded. 

The case that this charge is entirely political in nature is easy to make:

• Bill Clinton and his administration believed that Saddam Hussein had to be taken down for national security reasons.  In 1997, U.S. military forces were inoculated against anthrax as a preparatory move to possible war with Iraq -- chemical and biological weapons in Iraq was taken as a given. 
• In 1998, Secretary Albright said: "Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, is a threat to the international community." 
• Clinton confirmed Albright's concerns: "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapons and has the missiles to deliver them. ... And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use his arsenal." 
• By this time, nuclear bombs made by Hussein were also considered to be a near term danger. 
• In August 1998, Clinton signed a law (passed unanimously in the Senate and by 407-6 in the House) that authorized the president to "take appropriate action ... to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."  By the time Bush took office, the situation was worse, not better. 
• This was the attitude in place when Bush became president; his own security people confirmed it; he believed in it; the United Nations and the intelligence systems of all prominent nations agreed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons -- he was close to acquiring the ability to produce nuclear weapons -- he had the will and capacity to smuggle weapons to all parts of the world, including the United States. 
• Bush acted based upon the best information available.
• The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proves nothing.  Six months prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam knew the U.S. was preparing for war.  He had ample time to ship material to safe locations in, say, Syria.  Israel claims he did so.  Maybe he had them; maybe he didn't.  But everybody thought he did. 
• Lying is the willful misrepresentation of facts.  Bush's reports to the Congress and to the people were accurate representations of the truth as he (and many others) knew it.  To call him a liar is blatantly incorrect, unfair and political.
• The final truth of this is the way Clinton, the Congress and Secretary Colin Powell have been handled by the same people who damn Bush.  Clinton's correct analysis of the situation and the approval of it by Democrats in Congress are forgotten, because they embarrassingly contradict the charge made against Bush.  Secretary Powell announced to the world, in a United Nations appearance, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but he is never called a liar. 
• These people who shared the same "truth" as Bush and who said the same words, are not called liars.  That insult is reserved for the Republicans some seek to demonize -- Bush and Cheney.  

Should Iraq have been invaded? If so, at that time, or a later time?  These are legitimate questions worthy of debate.  But sensible discussion is stopped in its tracks by the smug, know-it-all and simplistic statement, "Bush is a liar." To which there is only one sensible response: "Grow up!"  

The recession

Bush did it! 

This is the message from the Obama administration; it is making the same claims today. 

Change? 

Certainly, this approach to the economic problem is a marked change from how Bush handled the economic crisis of 2001. 

He walked into a recession, and didn't blame Clinton -- he went to work; a few months later, Enron and other corporate scandals broke out and added to the economic problem.  He didn't blame Clinton -- he went to work.  Then came 9-11, an attack from a network of terrorists that grew to maturity under Clinton.  Bush didn't blame his predecessor -- he went to work.

Truth is that presidents seldom cause recessions during their own administrations, but their policies can stimulate them in years ahead.  The United States has been heading for economic problems since the 1960s at which time Washington's politicians decided that spending could exceed revenue, as they wished.  We are paying for that attitude today. 

The establishment of Fannie Mae in 1968 and Freddie Mac in 1970 as government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), and the passage in 1977 of the Community Reinvestment Act are useful places to begin when looking for causes of the 2009 recession, which was led by a crash in the housing market and the subsequent financial pressures on banks, which was followed by a slowdown in the general economy. 

The civil rights movement resulted in a lot that was good and some that was bad.  One of the bad things was the tendency to convert dreams into rights.  In this case, homes are the issue.  The dream of owning one's own home was converted by the Utopians into a right to own one's own house.

Rights never stand alone.  They are followed by obligations.  If Susie has a right to a house, anything that erases or weakens it must be removed. 

What was the most prominent thing in Susie's way? -- bank lending practices.  They had to be evil, because they interfered with Susie's rights.    

In those days banks seldom opened branches in neighborhoods that had a high crime rate; they didn't lend money to people who couldn't demonstrate the ability and character to repay.  The two "Cs" were the foundation of lending policy: Capacity and Character. 

Unfair, said the government; discrimination, said the government.

And they had statistics to prove that the poor had a harder time getting loans than the non-poor.  Wow!  This had to change.  And the federal government, of course, had to do the changing.  

You own a bank and won't put a branch bank on Murder Avenue?  You're a racist and government will find a way to brand you and punish you.  You insist on a down payment with the mortgage?  You're a racist.  You require detailed information about a potential borrower's income and assets.  You're a racist.  You worry about ability to repay?  No excuse -- sell the mortgage to one of the GSE and let them worry.

A note about GSE: They are supposed to be private operations but the wink-wink attitude in the investment business is that the government won't let them fail -- they are federal operations in a sheep's clothing.  For that reason investment instruments made up of sub-par mortgages became popular with experienced investment people.     

In such a climate is it any wonder that the sale of houses boomed, and the supply of sub-par mortgages crept into the portfolios of banks and others. 

Perhaps to draw attention away from the real causes of the recession much is made of predatory bankers, and borrowers so thick-headed that they were hoodwinked into buying champagne houses with beer pocketbooks.  Some of this happened.  But its impact was miniscule compared to the power of the federal steamroller that forced unwise lending practices into a naturally conservative industry.[a]    

Until? 

The bubble burst.  The price of housing fell, in many cases below the size of the mortgage.  Borrowers walked away from the property; foreclosures multiplied with rabbit-like speed.     

Bush did it?  Balderdash!  So did your Aunt Minnie.

Bush had his problems, with conservatives as well as liberals.  But it's time to put him to bed and face the problems at hand -- look for solutions instead of villains. 

One thing Obama can learn from Bush -- stop talking, grow up and go to work.

[a] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still in business doing the same old thing; there is no movement to outlaw or modify the CRA.  Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, major protectors of the current system, are still in high positions of power.  The Obama administration is trying to refuel the housing market with the tools that destroyed it.