Saturday, April 30, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Colorado Springs Gazette's Ed Jones Denounces Racial Prefrences
Another excellent column;
ED JONES: Affirmative Action Test Scoring is Immoral, Insulting
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/percent-116344-action-affirmative.htmlIn it, Ed Jones notes; "Affirmative action was initiated with noble stated intentions: to right the wrongs of decades of oppression of black men and women. It has instead perpetuated a system of racism and discrimination that further ingrains the idea that blacks are inferior to whites and people should be defined by their race and skin color and not by their individual abilities. Affirmative action hiring programs are not only impractical, they are immoral.
"Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice lowered the exam requirements for police officers in Dayton, Ohio, because Justice felt that not enough black people were passing the exams. The previous standard required applicants to achieve a 66 percent on part one of the exam and a 72 percent on part two. The new standards are lowered to 58 percent and 63 percent respectively. These scores would get you a D- or F in most schools. This is not limited to Dayton; these lower standards have been imposed in many cities to boost black quotas. If it isn’t bad enough that Justice wants police officers who can’t pass the entrance exam, the New York and Dayton fire departments are also lowering their testing standards."
SEE:
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/percent-116344-action-affirmative.htmlEd Jones, of Colorado Springs, is a former El Paso County commissioner and former member of the Colorado Senate. You can hear him on The Ed Jones Show, Saturday mornings from 7-8 a.m. on 740am KVOR.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Does The New Government Mortgage Fix (QRM) Undermine Disparate Impact?
The recent “Mortgage Meltdown” was rooted in decades of “Fair Lending” lawsuits that forced banks via both litigation and legislation to make more loans available to “low-income Americans,” or “subprime borrowers.” Virtually ALL of those lawsuits were predicated upon the legal concept of “disparate impact,” given that traditional lending criteria (requiring expensive PMI or private mortgage insurance on purchases with less than 20% down, higher credit scores to procure the lowest interest rates, three years of tax returns, a lending cap of no more than 2½X your annual income, etc.) had and HAVE a “negative and disparate impact on low-income Americans/subprime borrowers."
But NOW, all that has changed! Those old lending criteria, along with their “negative and disparate impacts” on low income Americans” appear to be back...and back with a vengeance!
Beyond the 20% down-payment requirement there are additional parameters in what’s being called the QRM or “Qualified Residential Mortgage.” These include;
• Strict mandatory debt-to-income limits. Under the proposal, to get the best mortgage rates, you’d need to spend no more than 28 percent of your gross monthly income on housing-related expenses, and you couldn’t have total monthly household debt that exceeds 36 percent of your income.
• To refinance your existing mortgage and replace it with one carrying the best available interest rate, you’d need no less than a 25 percent equity stake in your house to qualify. If you sought to take any additional cash out through a refi, you’d need 30 percent equity. Today’s typical requirements for a conventional refi are nowhere near as strict.
• Pristine credit standards. For example, if you were 60 days late on any credit account during the previous 24 months, you’d be ineligible for a mortgage at the best available terms.
According to Kenneth Harney, the executive director of the National Real Estate Development Center, "These are all core features of what may be the most sweeping and controversial set of changes in decades for the housing and mortgage markets. These “qualified residential mortgage” (QRM) proposals were released at the end of March by banking, securities and housing regulators, along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
If banks were to blame and government’s intervention in the mortgage market via “fair-lending” lawsuits was positive, wouldn’t the proper solution be even MORE government involvement, even further micromanaging of the mortgage market?
You’d certainly think that it would be.
BUT, as one Treasury Department spokesman said on Friday, the U.S. government has had “too big a footprint” in the mortgage market and the Obama administration intends to make it smaller.
That puts the Obama administration right in line with the likes of Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), who recently took over a House committee overseeing housing finance, who recently endorsed the idea of lowering loan limits in a keynote address to the conference back in February (2011). It would seem that politics certainly DOES make for some strange bedfellows.
Garrett said he wants the government to exit the mortgage market entirely, though he acknowledged it was a long-term proposition. “I realize that this will not be an easy or immediate goal, but it is one I feel strongly about,” he said.
Even Federal Deposit Insurance Corp Chairman Sheila Bair wants to require 20 percent down payments to thwart the excesses that fueled the financial crisis. If the banks had supported “loose money” or “more loans to more low-income Americans,” you’d expect them to oppose such a stance, but industry heavyweight, Wells Fargo, has proposed an even tougher standard – a 30 percent down-payment requirement.
Moreover, none of this looks like a temporary stop-gap measure, with an eye toward eventually loosening such criteria to allow more low-income Americans back into the mortgage market.
As Reuters recently reported, “We may be entering a permanent age of 20 percent down payments. High down payments may not just be a temporary post-crisis response limited to the high-end of the market. One of the long-term reform proposals being bandied about Washington would require that any loan a lender wants to sell outright into the secondary market be secured by at least a 20 percent down payment. Anything below that amount and the lender would be required to hold onto at least 5 percent of the loan value in its own investment portfolio. That’s how you keep lenders from doling out high-risk loans. A good move for the financial system, to be sure. But one that could ultimately make home buying a more expensive proposition in the future, raising the allure of renting rather than buying for many, no doubt.”
SEE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-usa-housing-mortgages-idUSTRE7136K120110204
All of this begs the questions; IF “disparate impact” has been abandoned in one area where it’s been proven a disaster (home mortgage lending), than how can its use be justified in any other context?
There’s no doubt that the deeply flawed legal concept of “disparate impact” created the “subprime mortgage crisis,” where subprime borrowers received what then HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo called “Affirmative Action in lending.” (SEE Andrew Cuomo's April, 1996 Pres Conference lauding "affirmative action in lending"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=PlayList&p=529CA6593D352484&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=97)
Can anyone actually conceive that its use would be any less disastrous in any other venue, and if so, WHY...and HOW?!
But it’s not like “disparate impact” and loose lending parameters/lowered standards don’t have their supporters. Recently, Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, argues that if adopted in its current form, these QRM proposals will make it much tougher for lower-income consumers to afford a first home, while Jerry Howard, CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, claims that government agencies and the administration have strayed far beyond Congress’ intent, and their proposals threaten to undermine any recovery in housing and force millions of Americans to rent rather than to own.
Still, facts are stubborn things. It was government’s meddling in the mortgage market to undermine those traditional lending criteria, in the name of resolving that “disparate impact” on lower-income Americans that caused the mortgage meltdown of 2008 and the subsequent and ongoing housing collapse.
Those standards obviously served a very useful purpose and undermining them had catastrophic results!
There’s little question that the lowering of ANY standards has the potential to be equally disastrous, if not worse.
Standards are more than mere barriers to those who can’t meet them. They are, all too often, the minimum criteria needed to be able to bear the burdens they’re used to measure.
Disparate impact may have been well-intentioned, but as they say, “The road to hell is paved with such good intentions.”
JMK
Sunday, April 10, 2011
New York City’s 6 Most “Racially Unbalanced” Agencies
By now, almost everyone’s heard about the ongoing lawsuit over the FDNY’s Written Entrance Exam. What may be less well known is that there are scores like it being played out in various Fire and Police Departments across the country.
The main reason given for such law suits and the remedies they result in is that, “Our institutions should look more like the communities that they serve.” Certainly the primary reason behind this current lawsuit against the FDNY, as in all the previous ones has been over the vaunted “racial and gender disparities in its makeup.” The charge has long been that, “the FDNY should look a lot more like New York City.”
What's really odd about that argument is that the FDNY is far from the most "racially out of balance" Department in the City of New York!
How one set of such "ethnic disparities" is wrong and legally “actionable,” while others are never even mentioned, thus remaining immune from such “remedies” is an interesting dilemma, in and of itself.
According to current demographics (SEE: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/New_York_City), whites make up appx. 45% of the city’s population and account for 77% of the FDNY’s make-up - that’s a 1.67/1 ratio, or less than a 1 2/3X their numbers within New York City's general population. Even if one takes that 77% figure and throws out the “far more diverse” office staff and the EMS Units, and takes into account only the in-field uniformed workforce, said to be appx. 90% white that’s still a 2 to 1 ratio of whites relative to their numbers in NYC’s population!
By comparison, while blacks comprise appx. 27% of NYC’s population, they comprise 65% of the Dept of Corrections personnel, a 2.4/1 ratio, or nearly 2½X the black personnel relative to their numbers within the city's general population...and blacks account for a staggering 78% of the Department of Juvenile Justice, which amounts to a 2.92/1 ratio, or a nearly 3 to 1 representation of blacks relative to their numbers within the city!
In fact, there are at least 7 New York City agencies in which blacks represent more than twice their numbers within NYC’s general population!
So, why aren’t those, even greater racial/ethnic anomalies at least as large a concern as the FDNY’s even smaller racial disparity?
Perhaps Judge Nicholas Garaufis and many of New York City’s "white shoe" law firms just aren’t aware of the most racially out-of-balanced agencies within New York City?
If that’s the case, we offer this public service message;
The 6 MOST Racially Unbalanced Agencies in New York City are:
1) The Department of Juvenile Justice is #1, at a whopping 78% black (nearly 3X their numbers in NYC's population)!
2) The Administration for Children's Services is 67% black (over 2.5X their numbers in NYC's population)
There is a 2-WAY tie for third place:
3) The Department of Probation is 65% black (almost 2.5X their numbers in NYC's population)
3) The Department of Corrections is 65% black (also nearly 2.5X their numbers in NYC's population)
5) The Department of Homeless Services is 64% black (2.3X their numbers in NYC's population)
6) The Equal Employment Practices Commission is 63% black (2.3X their numbers in NYC's population - Now there's an irony for you)
EVERY ONE of the above agencies is significantly MORE racially unbalanced than is the FDNY, so why isn’t THAT a problem?!
SEE: http://www.citylimits.org/multimedia/257/new-york-city-s-agencies-by-race-ethnic-breakdown
Will someone please take a look at these disparities and get back to us, please? We’re NOT going to let this go.
(Our email is clearly visible on the side panel of this page)
JMK
A Call to Pre-Emptive Cowardice....
Awhile back I wrote a post entitled “Pre-Emptive Cowardice” about people inclined to surrender their principles at the very first whiff of “trouble,” no matter how unjust, no matter how ill-conceived that alleged “trouble” might be.
A recent missive being spread anonymously around the FDNY highlights what I was talking about.
It’s a flyer titled;
A WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS
"In the EEO class, the EEO lawyer Michael Valente went apeshit and berated me in front of my men. All I did was ask a question about one of the protected rights and Valente lost it. He threatened to send me to Cassano and have me fired.
"Valente blew a gasket and lost control of himself in the class. I felt extremely uncomfortable and as a senior man, I’ve never been talked to like that in my 20 years in the Department.
"Word of advice in the EEO class, say nothing. Don’t participate. Don’t ask questions to set Valente off. EEO will bring you up on charges and you will get lifted. You will lose.
"Let’s get the word out."
(Anonymous)
.
.
THAT is a PERFECT example of “Pre-Emptive Cowardice.”
First off, you can ask ANY question in any venue...yes, even an EEO class. You CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ask any question in a derisive and/or defamatory manner, but that should be common sense.
If you feel you’ve been unfairly treated by anyone, you have every right to file an EEO complaint against them. And YES, you can even file an EEO complaint against an EEO representative.
There are no “UNPROTECTED” groups. Moreover, a man with over 20 years on this job falls into at least one of the myriad designated EEO groups, based on his age!
If you ask a legitimate question, in a legitimate, non-defamatory manner, you have every right and expectation to a legitimate and reasonable answer.
ANYTHING less, ANY disrespect and especially ANY threat/harassment on the part of the respondent is actionable, both via EEO itself and by BITS! An offensive response or reprimand to a legitimate question IS a civilly actionable offense.
When I first read the above flyer I wondered whether it might have been written by someone motivated to silence those who might legitimately question some of EEO’s policies, but the wording and the utter cluelessness about the way the entire process works led me back to accepting that it was probably written by an actual firefighter.
IF you ask a question in a derisive and defamatory manner you deserve to be ridiculed and in some instances admonished (very possibly severely) for that kind of behavior.
Since the alleged “question” that allegedly annoyed Mr. Valente was NOT repeated, I get the distinct impression that the questioner knew that it was inappropriately worded or perhaps worse.
You DO NOT have a protected “right to be an idiot.” You can certainly and, by all means, BE an idiot, but at your own risk. A defamatory statement disguised as a query is NOT a legitimate question and it CAN rise to the level of illegality, depending on how derisive or derogatory the statement is.
But IF you are threatened for merely asking a legitimate question in a decent (respectful) manner, that’s harassment and that’s a criminal action that can result in severe criminal and civil liabilities for the respondent who either over-reacts or reacts improperly. In short, if a given behavior is wrong for you to do...it's wrong for anyone.
If the above member did indeed ask a genuine and legitimate question in a decent, non-derogatory manner, he missed the opportunity for a potentially huge payout.
That’s why I suspect the query in question was neither legitimate, nor unoffensive...and it’s also almost certainly why this has been posted anonymously.
It’s also why, in my view, the above flyer is dangerous, defeatist and subversive to justice. It promotes fear and avoiding taking a stand, even when justified and that appeal to fear is amplified by this guy sending this out anonymously, as though he were too frightened to even sign onto his own thoughts!
In short, this is so antithetical to our views at Merit Matters, that we feel it could easily have been written by one of our detractors.
As I stated in my previous post about “Pre-Emptive Cowardice,” “Those worried about signing a petition or even joining Merit Matters for fear of “being put on some list” are both asking for trouble and docilely accepting a 2nd class citizenship.
“Accepting a 2nd class citizenship for one’s self is bad enough, but accepting it for future generations - for your kids and grand-kids is much worse. We owe future generations a far better fate than that.”
This kind of baseless fear-mongering does a disservice to everyone.
Furthermore, if you can’t bring yourself to sign onto your own thoughts, then you probably shouldn’t disseminate them...enough said.
JMK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
