Spitzer Is Contrite, Yes, but Sometimes Still Angry

[iandhr]

ALBANY — Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer was reading his newspaper on a recent Thursday morning when he was jolted by a comment made by his successor, David A. Paterson.

In the 22nd paragraph of a New York Times article on Aug. 21, Mr. Paterson said that aides to Mr. Spitzer had lacked experience in Albany, and added that the Spitzer administration’s management approach sometimes “just didn’t work.”

Mr. Spitzer grew upset, according to a senior aide to Mr. Paterson and another official. He picked up the phone, reached a Paterson aide, demanded a public apology from the governor and “issued threats, veiled and unveiled” against Mr. Paterson, said the aide, who insisted on anonymity because he did not want to anger either man.

(Snip)

What is Elliot "Ness" Spitzer going to do. Publicly state that Paterson was client number 10.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/nyregion/28spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[napi21]

1. I don't know what the problems are between these two men, but

I think Spitzer did a GREAT JOB! He was plain stupid in his personal life, but as a professional, I support him over his successor anytime!

[iandhr]

3. when he left office.

He had a job approval rating in the 30s. He is just the long line of politicians who think that the rules apply to everyone but them. As a New Yorker I would say that he was a good AG but a horrible executive.

Put then there is the minor draw back of him taking the services of hookers while he was busting them. I can not defend those actions.


In the mist of a budget crisis Paterson is doing a good job.

[napi21]

5. I understand. My opinion of him is completely based on when he was AG. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

6. Spitzer's "my way or the highway" approach got him nada, zip, zilch

He forgot that as a governor, he needed to be a consensus builder.

[midnight]

2. I love what Mrs. Kennedy wrote to him......

“Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall,” Mrs. Kennedy wrote, adding: “See you back on top.”

[Bozita]

4. Why can't Spitzer tell everybody he's been "saved" and serve as the next head of the SEC?

David "Diaperman" Vitter still sits in the Senate, doesn't he?

[stillcool]

7. Elliot Spitzer is a bad, bad, man...

he had sex. Nothing else matters. It's the American way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

[Bozita]

8. The devil made me do this ...

The following is another slice of the same WaPo op-ed:

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

[stillcool]

9. It's a great article...I like to pair it with this..

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2002
President Reiterates Goal on Homeownership

Remarks by the President on Homeownership
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C.
******
The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.)

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.)

The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can't find a house that's affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.)

The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words. (Laughter.) There's too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he's going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership.

It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder. And in order to do so, we've got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people -- obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We've got people who have newly arrived to our country, don't know the customs. We've got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren't really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan.

There's some people out there that can fall prey to unscrupulous lenders, and we have an obligation to educate and to use our resource base to help people understand how to purchase a home and what -- where the good opportunities might exist for home purchasing.

Finally, we want to make sure the Section 8 homeownership program is fully implemented. This is a program that provides vouchers for first-time home buyers which they can use for down payments and/or mortgage payments. (Applause.)

So this is an ambitious start here at the federal level. And, again, I repeat, you all need to help us every way you can. But the private sector needs to help, too. They need to help, too. Of course, it's in their interest. If you're a realtor, it's in your interest that somebody be interested in buying a home. If you're a homebuilder, it's in your interest that somebody be interested in buying a home.

And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
Thank you all for coming by.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html

[whistler162]

11. No the prostitute revelation was the last straw in a poorly

handled term as Governor.

If it had only been the prostitute scandal he might have survived but it was also the mess with using the State Police to spy on the arse of the Senate Bruno and the way he mishandled dealing with the Legislator.

But, that said it would be great if it was possible to use him in someway in the bailout. Sadly it is probably to soon.

[stillcool]

12. I believe that the only thing..

that took him down was a federal investigation. Funny how that never went anywhere isn't it?

[BlooInBloo]

10. That's about the right combo of feelings he should have, I suppose.