The administration’s response is bizarrely weak and almost not worth mentioning. Their essential beef is that the Times didn’t know about or mention Bush’s primetime address to the nation on the crisis. That address was on September 24—of this year. It was years after anything the Times was reporting about and was just utterly inconsequential, not only for this story, but of any impact, period. The cat had been out of the bag for two years—meaning the bubble had already popped—by the time of this speech.
And the Times shows how out of it the administration was:
Among the Republican Party’s top 10 donors in 2004 was Roland Arnall. He founded Ameriquest, then the nation’s largest lender in the subprime market, which focuses on less creditworthy borrowers. In July 2005, the company agreed to set aside $325 million to settle allegations in 30 states that it had preyed on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments. It was an early signal that deceptive lending practices, which would later set off a wave of foreclosures, were widespread.Andrew H. Card Jr., Mr. Bush’s former chief of staff, said White House aides discussed Ameriquest’s troubles, though not what they might portend for the economy. Mr. Bush had just nominated (CEO) Roland Arnall as his ambassador to the Netherlands, and the White House was primarily concerned with making sure he would be confirmed.
“Maybe I was asleep at the switch,” Mr. Card said in an interview.
Yes, that Ameriquest after they’d been nailed for screwing borrowers.
And Karl Rove bigfoots one of the administration’s Cassandras:
Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance… When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the “fool’s gold” of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers.In December 2005, Mr. Montgomery drafted a memo and brought it to the White House. “I don’t think this is what the president had in mind here,” he recalled telling Ryan Streeter, then the president’s chief housing policy analyst.
It was an opportunity to address the risky subprime lending practices head on. But that was never seriously discussed. More senior aides, like Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist, were wary of overly regulating an industry that, Mr. Rove said in an interview, provided “a valuable service to people who could not otherwise get credit.” While he had some concerns about the industry’s practices, he said, “it did provide an opportunity for people, a lot of whom are still in their houses today.”
The White House pursued a narrower plan offered by Mr. Montgomery that would have allowed the F.H.A. to loosen standards so it could lure back subprime borrowers by insuring similar, but safer, loans. It passed the House but died in the Senate, where Republican senators feared that the agency would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices — a view Mr. Rove said he shared.
Looking back at the episode, Mr. Montgomery broke down in tears. While he acknowledged that the bill did not get to the root of the problem, he said he would “go to my grave believing” that at least some homeowners might have been spared foreclosure.
It finds that Bush killed a compromise that would have resulted in greater oversight of Fannie and Freddie:
Mr. Falcon lacked explicit authority to limit the size of the companies’ mammoth investment portfolios, or tell them how much capital they needed to guard against losses. White House officials wanted that to change. They also wanted the power to put the companies into receivership, hoping that would end what Mr. Card, the former chief of staff, called “the myth of government backing,” which gave the companies a competitive edge because investors assumed the government would not let them fail.By the spring of 2005 a deal with Congress seemed within reach, Mr. Snow, the former Treasury secretary, said in an interview.

just two sentences in, but its laughable that bush has the gaul to call anyone's actions "gross negligence", that has been his philosophy from day 1.
Posted by ian on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 05:42 PM
This review would probably have been better received at the white house. At least it says directly Wall Street is the key culprit. And isn't that their complaint and what was missing in the NYT article? To point to one aluding blurp and say it was mentioned is a stretch. And you continue the extreme suggestion oft-repeated that no regulation/no oversight was the goal when "Bush flack" (your words)Dana Perino's stmt makes specific mention of the obvious need for regulation up to the point it discourages progress. This is not to suggest adaquate oversight took place but rather to point out another straw man created by so many.
Posted by jrr on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 06:26 PM
Here's what the NYT wrote in 2003:
From the NYTimes, 9/11/03:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. . .
Posted by Sigmond on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 06:45 PM
C'mon, Ryan, this is once again another tiresome hit piece from the hugely political left wing axe-grinding New York Times.
How sorry the NYT is now. From Jayson Blair, to Judy Miller, to Duff Wilson -- from the unethical to the incompetent -- headed by that inept Pinch and the tone deaf Bill Keller. It's the Titanic heading for the iceberg -- or purchase by Rupert Murdoch.
Pathetic.
Posted by Karl K on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 07:18 PM
jrr, this story, as I mentioned, is part of a 15-part (so far) series called "The Reckoning" that the Times is doing on the origins of the financial crisis.
This particular story is about Bush's role in creating and/or fostering the crisis. The others were about many other culprits, including the Democrats Chuck Schumer, Henry Cisneros, and Robert Rubin.
See the list of stories here. I recommend you and everyone read every last one of them, it is the best body of journalism on this so far from any publication:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/series/the_reckoning/index.html
As to Dana Perino's statement about the need for regulation: If you believe that what the PR person is saying now about regulation was the operative philosophy of the Bush administration throughout its terms, you need to revisit the historical record. Just because you say you are for regulation, doesn't mean that you regulate. Bush (and to a large extent, Clinton) didn't. He loosened oversight. That is not in dispute anywhere.
I didn't say that his goal was no oversight--though that was closer to his agenda that effective oversight was. Self-policing was Bush's answer time after time to regulation and it just hasn't worked.
Sigmond: The point is that didn't become law. Presidents don't rule by fiat even when their party controls Congress, as Bush's Republicans did in 2003. They have to compromise to get legislation through. The Times points out that Bush scuttled such a compromise, so nothing happened.
Karl, If you want to dispute something in the story, please point it out. I'd recommend that you follow the link I posted above in this comment and read the entire series.
This story fits neatly into that body of work, and even standing alone, it is more than fine.
Thanks for writing, all.
Posted by Ryan Chittum on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 09:51 PM
Back in July, Bush said "I think the system basically is sound, I truly do, and I understand there's a lot of nervousness. . . . But the economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like."
Case closed!
Posted by Larry Linn on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 10:33 PM
I love this blog.
Too bad Bush went after what he considered the over-regulation of Fannie and Freddy and didn't make any effort to simply shrink the GSEs. What an odd conservative. Not only did he enlarge government spending, but he trusted it would be money well-spent.
Posted by Chris Corliss on Tue 23 Dec 2008 at 01:59 AM
Ryan:
How disenguous.
To suggest that the Times spread the blame for the housing mess is flat-out wrong. They devoted roughly 40 words in a 5,000 word article to culpability of those outside the Bush admin, directing nearly all of their animus toward Bush.
Bush has made plenty of mistakes, no doubt, but this is a case of journalistic piling-on.
The facts are that Greenspan is largely responsbile for this housng mess, then Clinton, then Bush. Had the NY Times spread the blame appropriately - and taken fact-finding more seriously - perhaps their core business wouldn't be in such trouble.
Posted by Ed Mullins on Fri 26 Dec 2008 at 02:04 PM