Editor, Manteca Bulletin
There have been a couple of letters that blame both the Republicans and Democrats for our problems.  For most of the issues facing America, this is true.  But for a couple of issues, there is true party accountability.  

This is because of some basic philosophy differences.  How each party approaches health care, the economy, taxes, energy, and affordable housing is different.  The other issues such as police, fire and education are the responsibility and failure of both parties.  The Republicans have a free market/capitalist philosophy, while the Democrats have a socialist/environmentalist philosophy.  I don’t think there is anyone who will disagree with me when I state that the one of the main causes of our failed economy is the high cost of energy.  Over the past decade, the Democrats have opposed drilling for oil, inhibited the expansion of refineries, and pushed for stronger environmental laws.  Since 1970, the environmentalists have systematically and methodically built an infrastructure of laws that have increased the cost of doing business in America while other countries have weak environmental laws.  Don’t get me wrong, I am for the environment.  I think we need to protect it, but I also think we have gone overboard.

The news is abuzz about how the rising price of oil is going to slow the recovery.  During Mr. Bush’s term, the Democrats blamed the Republicans for the high price of oil.  What are the Democrats doing about the high price of oil?  Nothing.  If you are having a hard time getting a job during the recovery, thank a Democrat for their philosophies on oil and gas production.  

Several people have written in about the heated debate between the many opposing writers and who is to blame for this financial mess we are in.  It is clear that if anyone of those writers has objective evidence to slam the other, they would present it.  I have presented such evidence and asked for the Democrats to present theirs.  Mr. Baca and Mr. Sadlowski have not presented any objective evidence to show the causes of this crisis.  Their only response is that of a whiney child who can’t explain their guilty actions when caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  Where is your evidence?  There is one person on the blogs that has provided some evidence, but that evidence does not provide information to clear the Democrats.  His evidence has focused on the idea that CRA actions did not caused the problems as the critics have stated.  One of his main pieces of information was impressive report from a law firm showing that CRA’s are not the cause, but that irresponsible lending is the cause.  If this was true, we would be seeing a flood of law suits against banks.  Yet there has been few to date.  Why?  It is also in the vested interest of law firms to prove it is irresponsible lending, not CRA’s.  This report did an excellent job showing data and statistics to prove that CRA’s are not at fault.  Then I read the fine print.  They used the Treasury rate + 3% as the demarcation point between prime and sub-prime.  My credit score is about 800.  By their definition, I got a sub-prime loan.  While this is “technically” true, it is totally wrong.  The rate that most prime borrowers get is about FFR+ 300 basis points.  The difference is the markup so that banks make a profit.  A typical sub-prime borrower will get about FFR +3% + 2% + higher fees.   The greater fees and interest rate is to compensate for the greater risk of default.  By moving the interest rate above the prime rate by 2%, we get a more accurate picture of the causes.  That report is invalidated because of its manipulation of the data.  

For the past 25 years, lending has moved from credit rationing to risk based pricing.  This is allowed more people access to credit.  The actions of the Democrats caused this shift.  This information along with all the other information continually shows that the philosophy of the Democrats caused the crisis.  There are conditions that can be blamed on one party or the other.  Let’s thank the Democrats for their philosophies.