In March 2007, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke at the Community Affairs Research Conference in Washington, D.C., where he talked about how the CRA would continue to evolve "to reflect the ongoing changes in financial markets and in the economy more generally."

"Recent problems in mortgage markets illustrate that an underlying assumption of the CRA -- that more lending equals better outcomes for local communities -- may not always hold," Bernanke said.

Six months later, Thomas DiLorenzo, an author and an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland, wrote a column blaming the CRA for creating the subprime mortgage mess.

His take was that because banks were monitored for compliance with the CRA, they essentially were pressured to make bad loans.

Since DiLorenzo's column in September 2007, editorial writers, columnists and pundits have waxed poetic about the CRA. And Dugan -- who's in charge of one of the federal agencies that oversees the CRA -- it would seem, has heard enough.

"CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace," he told the audience at the Enterprise Annual Network Conference. "Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA."

CRA has expanded homeownership, promoted economic development and brought more money to small businesses and farmers, Dugan said.

In a way, blaming the Community Reinvestment Act itself for the economic crisis we face is a little like blaming McDonald's for our obesity problem. The CRA didn't make banks give bad loans; lenders chose to do that. Just like McDonald's didn't make people eat too much of their food. Customers chose how often to stop at Mickey D's and how much to consume when they did.

What's your take on this issue?