Contradictions don't exist by definition. If a contradiction
is reached in any given analysis, one must check the premises that led to that
conclusion for in it lay an error.
On Tuesday, the Center for Responsible Lending released
a report that "paints a picture of the foreclosure crisis in California, examines the who, the where, and the why of
foreclosures in the Golden
State and discusses what
we should do to prevent as many avoidable foreclosures as possible."
The study was the subject of a subsequent Ventura County
Star article entitled "Foreclosure crisis not driven by luxury home purchases." It states:
because they were more likely to receive high-rate loans, the study found that
Latino and African-American homeowners were much more likely to incur
foreclosures than non-Hispanic whites.
experienced foreclosure rates 2.3 times that of non-Hispanic whites, the study
found, and almost half (48 percent) of all Californians who have lost their
homes to foreclosure have been Latinos.
Apologies--that's just a tic I've picked up from my
progressive friends whenever someone mentions anything that has to do with
race. I have to keep telling myself that it's not racist to report facts.
Half the state's foreclosures were from Latinos. That fits
in with the stated government policy to encourage home ownership among
minorities, a decision "that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending
that is roiling the U.S.
economy," according to the Washington
2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with
mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.
to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency
required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more
"affordable" loans made to these borrowers.
The Center for Responsible Lending--notice that it's NOT
called the Center for Responsible Borrowing,
but more on this later--came to this conclusion
in its report:
As the nation begins to address a
potential restructuring of the entire housing finance system, it is crucial to
focus on the need for access to credit for communities of color and lower-income
The Star article ends by noting that the report lauds the new financial reform act signed by President Obama earlier this summer.
And herein lays our contradiction. The Center for
Responsible Lending set out to discuss "what we should do prevent as many
avoidable foreclosures as possible." Its policy recommendation is to "focus on
the need for access to credit for communities of color and lower-income
To quote the Washington Post again, "Eager to put more
low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that
two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more 'affordable'
loans made to these borrowers."
In short, the Center for Responsible Lending recommended as
the solution to the problem the very thing that led to the problem in the first
place! How could an objective organization propose such a self-defeating
Don't forget to check your premises.
Who is the Center for Responsible Lending, exactly? The Star
article merely identifies it as a nonprofit organization. A reader might assume
it's merely a group of concerned people advocating responsible
lending--certainly a laudable goal in and of itself.
However, a quick visit to its website
reveals that it's funded in part by the Open Society Institute. And who is that
you might ask? I'll give you a hint--its website is www.soros.org.
Two clicks! That's all it took to get from this report to
George Soros, the Uncle Moneybags of the progressive movement.
This is by no means an isolated incident. It's how
progressive opinions are laundered to become fact. A Soros groups funds money to
agenda-driven think-tanks. The tanks churn out official-sounding studies. They
issue press releases that the mainstream media blindly picks up and reports as
hard, scientific fact.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Meanwhile, readers have no idea they're being taken to the
cleaners unless journalists make a more concerted effort to put organizations, people, and stories into proper context.