“If the CRA sets up a mechanism for the monitoring and penalizing of banks for failing to issue loans in high risk (formerly “red-lined”) areas, would we expect this law to result in more, or fewer, high-risk loans?”

While the correct answer to this question evades Dino and apparently Ben Bernanke, it’s really not that difficult.  You threaten expensive legal actions against banks unless they issue risky loans, you will get more of those risky loans than otherwise. 

The debate here is over whether the CRA is the dominant factor here, not whether it’s a factor.  Of course, you won’t find Mr. Bernanke admitting that years of loose monetary policy created first a stock bubble in the 1990s, and then a real estate bubble this decade.  And you probably won’t find him admitting that the CRA has been a disaster, either; the Fed is one of the chief proponents of the law and its expansion.

But is this true?  As an engineer by trade, I’m very familiar with a “Pareto” diagrams named after the Pareto Principle.  More or less, 80% of the problem is related to 20% of the factors.

While that would seem to indicate that if we fix 1-2 problems, we’d be almost there, reality is that often the factors we see are not the full spectrum of problems, but rather only the top 20%.

Upshot?  There’s plenty of room for solutions.  If we use the crisis of the Detroit 3 as an example, there is plenty of blame to spread on the Detroit 3, the unions, CAFE standards, and more.  We don’t need to insist that it’s just one party’s fault here.

It’s also probably one of the more MINOR things Blagojevich can be accused of.  Wait for more to come.  Illinois has been ravaged by corrupt Chicago Democrats for decades.  Hopefully we can get rid of a few of them, and sadly, we probably just elected one to the Presidency.

One troubling thing, however, is the reality that shall issue carry doesn’t seem to have greatly reduced crime in cities where it was allowed.  Why is that?

Well, let’s add things up.  You have $400 or more for a decent weapon, up to $200 for the holster, $100 for carry permit class, $100 for the permit, $100 for ammunition and range fees each year to keep proficient….

...and quite frankly, you’re going to find that many/most inner city residents—especially those who are in the worst neighborhoods—aren’t going to be able to afford such a move.  Those who can, by and large, are not going into their neighborhoods.  Hence, they’ll stay as dangerous as ever.

So I’d argue that shall issue carry is a great way of depressing crime in most areas, and it may keep crime to the worst areas—people will be afraid to victimize neighborhoods outside their own.  But it may not be terribly effective in deterring crime in the neighborhoods hardest hit.

If we want to lose every fight with him, we can devour those “choice bites” of leaking (gossip), respond to them before they are official, and both preserve Obama’s political capital (“it wasn’t an official announcement”) and embarass ourselves by acting on gossip.

If we want to win a few, we need to hold our fire and only go after the things he makes official by open, sourced announcements.

Avoiding gossip isn’t just a Biblical imperative; it’s a way to be effective in life.

Maybe not guilty by reason of insanity, but if he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong, why clean up afterwards?