Time for the GOP to Grow a Pair on Healthcare
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 299: The Meaning of Christmas for Those Who...
The Baby in the Manger Was Divine
Will We Have a Christmas Day Massacre in Nigeria?
A Culture in Crisis Needs a Different Kind of Courage
Ban the Hangman's Regime From the World Cup
Suitcases of Cash: L.A. Gold Dealers Busted in $127M IRS Scheme
Democratic Candidate: 'Send Me to Congress to Smoke These Fools!'
6 Charged in $41M Years-Long Insider Trading and Market Manipulation Scheme
Minnesota Newspaper Led by Former Walz Appointee Dismisses Claims of $9 Billion Fraud
ICE Gives 'Christmas Gift' to Americans
Feds Seize More Than 74,000 Stolen Items in Amazon, eBay Trafficking Scheme
U.S. Seizes Ship Off Coast of Venezuela
New Jersey Business Owner Sentenced to 87 Months for $172M Medicare Fraud
GOP Senator Won't Seek Reelection
OPINION

How Chuck Schumer Set Off a Bank Panic

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

The founding fathers gave us a legislative branch divided into two ‘houses’. The lower house is the House of Representatives, modeled to some degree on the British House of Commons. That’s where the firebrands were supposed to go. Some would be responsible populists, and some would be reckless demagogues, but spread out over a large number of reckless demagogues of opposing views, their damage would be mitigated.

Advertisement

The upper house, the Senate, on the other hand was supposed to be deliberative. If the House of Representatives was the hot cup of coffee, the Senate was the saucer in which the coffee cooled. Our founders intended that the Senate would be the chamber which would house the statesman of our legislative body. But, then again, our founding fathers never met Chuck Schumer.

Bob Dole once said the most dangerous spot in Washington was between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera. That may be true. But it might be even more dangerous to be a shareholder in, depositor in, or employee of a bank which Schumer decides to attack. Indymac Bank was having trouble, of course, before, but nothing as serious as a bank run. Bank runs, after all, are very rare in modern history. Common enough during the great depression, they largely disappeared in response to FDR’s creation of a system of safety nets such as FDIC.

So why a 30s style bank panic now? Why Indymac?

Because the left hated them. Indymac has been in the crosshairs for some time. The trial lawyers started going after them about a month ago. Not long after that, Schumer started sending letters to regulators attacking Indymac, questioning the financial viability of a bank which he had never examined. Neither Schumer, nor any of his staff even bothered to contact Indymac with any questions. Unsatisfied with the response, Schumer leaked his letters to the press. The local paper in Pasadena (where the bank is located) played along, and ran the story with a headline strongly suggesting insolvency. Of course, the next day depositors lined up at the door and started withdrawing money. Over the next 11 days, $1.3 billion came out. Indymac, just a regional bank, could not stand that kind of tsunami and it was forced to close its doors. So far about half their workforce has been laid off; and roughly 10,000 depositors are without full insurance coverage for their lost deposits. The shareholders have lost nearly everything.

Advertisement

While Schumer was writing his letters, a left of center ‘community’ group named the Committee for Responsible Lending was preparing its own attack on the bank. The same week as Schumer’s leak, they released material to the press accusing Indy of mistreatment of minority applicants. There are literally hundreds of small activist ‘public interest’ law firms, ‘community’ activists, think tanks and advocacy groups around the country that make their living attacking mortgage lenders. These groups label bankers racist if they hesitate to lend in neighborhoods in decline or to minority applicants with spotty credit histories. If the banks then decided to approve the loans, but charge a higher level of interest to compensate for the higher level of risk, then these groups accuse them of ‘predatory lending’. If the banks are proven right, and the borrowers refuses to repay the borrowed money, then the banks are smeared for their ‘greed’ in making the loans in the first place. The Committee for Responsible Lending is a sort of umbrella organization for these groups. Large donors can donate to the cause by donating to CRL and letting them spread the money around.

Well, they went after Indymac, and the result is the second largest bank failure in US history. Of course, we’ll hear a lot about ‘greed’ this week, and we should. But whose greed? Schumer’s greed for power? Community activists' greed for shakedown money? Trial lawyers greedy for huge class action settlements? Hedge fund managers who write big checks to these groups and the Democratic Party (including Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and then turn around and make mountains of money shorting mortgage paper? No, we’ll hear about none of the above from most in the media. The real culprits will have gotten away with it, and the victims will bear the blame.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement