Craven Coverup

The core component of the Housing and Mortgage failure that trigger our current depression was the Community Reinvestment Act. It was an act passed during the Clinton years to allow a “more equitable” opportunity for home ownership. That act FORCED banks and lending institutions to provide loans to those completely unable to repay them. When the inevitable foreclosure occurred, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would take over those mortgages and cover them from their “unlimited” store of governmental cash.

Obama will pay for it out of his stash!” said an Obama support before the election of 2008.

Well, the money tree has been picked clean. Here’s a story from the Investor’s Business Daily how the democrats are trying to keep their culpability hidden.

CRAven Cover-Up

Subprime Scandal: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was set up to sort out the mortgage mess. But it’s merely setting us up for another disaster by circling the wagons around the culprits.

The Democrat-led panel has put out a preliminary staff report defending the Community Reinvestment Act against charges the banking rule encouraged risky lending to boost homeownership in communities of color. But the studies the report cites are howlingly flawed and biased.

One is by a couple of Fed economists who argue that only 6% of subprime mortgages in 2006 were made to CRA-qualified borrowers or neighborhoods by CRA-regulated banks.

But that stat is misleading, since it doesn’t include subprime loans — or securities — bought by CRA-covered banks. Mortgages originated by independent mortgage companies can be bought by banks to get CRA credit. Nor does the study include the billions in public commitments big banks made to lend to low-income and minority households to buy off Acorn and other CRA lobbyists.

The commission cites a report by CRA booster Center for Responsible Lending as evidence. And the center is hardly an impartial observer.

“The foreclosure crisis — and the resulting economic crisis — was caused by reckless and predatory lending practices and toxic financial products, not by the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or any other policy goal aimed at increasing homeownership,” the center argues in testimony before the commission. The crisis “occurred for one reason and one reason only: for mortgage brokers, lenders and investors to make money.”

In other words, the private sector is to blame — which seems to be the commission’s premeditated conclusion.

Yet buried inside the center’s own biased report is the admission that delinquency rates on loans to CRA’s uncreditworthy borrowers were “slightly higher” than loans to prime borrowers with good credit.

Then there’s the study submitted by UC-Berkeley economist Dwight Jaffee, a friend of Commission Chairman Phil Angelides, former head of the California Democrat Party. Predictably, his 25-page paper concludes that the CRA had no real role in the crisis, even though the anti-bank redlining regulation was strengthened and enforced like never before starting in 1995.

“I find no evidence that CRA incentives played a significant role in expanding high-risk lending during the housing bubble,” Jaffee asserts. What about the affordable-housing quotas HUD slapped on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They were “secondary to profits” as a factor motivating their investments in high-risk mortgages, Jaffee advised the panel, which will use his study as a baseline for future discussion and findings.

“I see nossink!” said Sgt Schultz. He must have been a democrat. Just another cover-up by the democrats and the Obama administration.

The Cost of Obamacare

Now that Obamacare has been signed, the real experts have studied the documents to calculate a more realistic cost estimate of the new socialist entitlement. It’s staggering and worse than earlier estimates.

The Heritage Foundation has published a report that highlights some specific cost increases and the resulting impacts to Americans and employers.

Obamacare’s True Costs Coming to Light

Posted By Conn Carroll On June 2, 2010 @ 9:28 am

Remember how President Barack Obama promised that his health care plan would reduce the deficit [1] and put us on a path towards fiscal responsibility [2]? Remember how Congress kept gaming the system [3] to come up with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score that could justify those claims? Well, now that Obamacare has become (hopefully only temporarily) the law of the land, the CBO is singing a slightly different tune. Last Friday CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote [4] on his blog:

The central challenge is straightforward and stark: The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond.

In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. In fact, CBO estimated that the health legislation will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (which CBO defines as the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care) by nearly $400 billion during the 2010-2019 period. Looking further ahead, CBO estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the following decade—if the provisions of the legislation remain unchanged throughout that entire period.

And there is ample evidence that the CBO may be underestimating Obamacare’s true costs. Ethics and Public Policy Center Fellow James Capretta details:

Omission of the Medicare “Doc Fix.” The Obama Administration and leaders in Congress chose to use all of the tax hikes and spending cuts they could find to create another new entitlement instead of paying for a fix for Medicare physician fees (the so-called “doc fix”). Under current law, those fees are set to get cut by 21 percent in June. The Obama Administration wants to undo the cut permanently, but it does not provide any offsetting savings. The result will be a spending increase of between $250 billion and $400 billion over a decade. Passing an unfinanced “doc fix” wipes out all of the supposed savings from the new legislation and greatly adds to the burden on future taxpayers.

The CLASS Act Gimmick. The new health law creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program, called the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. Those who sign up for it must pay premiums for five years before becoming eligible for benefit payments. Consequently, premiums paid by enrollees build a small surplus—about $70 billion over 10 years according to CBO—which the health law’s proponents claim as deficit reduction. But these premiums will be needed in short order to pay actual claims.

Medicare Cuts. CBO and the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program have both stated that Medicare spending cuts cannot be counted twice—to pay for a new entitlement expansion and to claim that Medicare’s financial outlook has improved. But that is exactly what the proponents of the new legislation do. If the Medicare cuts and tax hikes for the hospital trust fund (about $400 billion over 10 years, according to CBO) are used solely to improve the capacity of the government to pay future Medicare claims, then the health law becomes a massive exercise in deficit spending.

Estimates of Employees Dropped from Job-Based Coverage. The new insurance arrangements in the state-based exchanges will provide massive new subsidies to low- and moderate-wage households. For instance, at 200 percent FPL, the subsidy for a family of four will reach nearly $11,000 in 2014. But CBO estimates that only 3 million Americans will move from job-based insurance into the exchanges to take advantage of the subsidies, even though there are about 130 million Americans under age 65 with incomes between 100 and 400 percent FPL. Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith of the American Action Forum have estimated that as many as 35 million people will be moved out of job-based coverage and into subsidization. If that is the case, the 10-year cost of the coverage expansion provisions would jump by $400 billion more.

According to one recent estimate, Obamacare will add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years and $1.5 trillion in the decade following. No wonder support for the repeal of Obamacare continues to grow [5].

So much of what was said by Pelosi and Reid along with the other democrats was nothing more than out-and-out lies. They played games with the CBO to hide costs and failed to add any off-sets that may have actual reduced some expenses. Instead, they kept piling on more expenses, more bureaucracies, more taxes until it has reached the point where in a few years the entire Gross National Product of the United States will not be able to cover the cost of Obamacare. But long before we reach that point, the economy will collapse when Federal bonds will no longer be accepted and bought on the world’s financial markets. The Golden Goose of American Taxpayers will be dead. Obamacare is nothing more than a ponzie scheme foisted on the American public by a pack of criminals masquerading as our federal representatives.

Remember, come November.

Obama’s attempt to demonize corporations (AIG in this case) fails.

Obama and his marxist shills demonize capitalism and corporations as the cause of the financial collapse in 2008. They must direct attention away for the democrat policies and regulations of Fannie May and Freddie Mac (and the malfeasance of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). They don’t want any investigation into the failure of the democrat “Community Investment Act” passed during the Clinton Administration that directly lead to the housing bubble and FORCED the banks and other institutions to take billions of dollars of bad debt and risky mortgages.

The the FedGov bailed out AIG with TARP and then pushed the SEC to charge two AIG executives with fraud. Well, guess what? There was NO fraud and the government is dropping all charges. Here’s the story published by Reuters.

U.S. drops criminal probe of AIG executives

(Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department has dropped a probe of American International Group Inc executives involving the credit default swaps that sent the insurer to the brink of bankruptcy and forced a huge taxpayer bailout, lawyers for the executives said on Saturday.

The investigation had centered on AIG Financial Products, which nearly brought down the giant insurer after writing tens of billions of dollars on insurance-like contracts on complex securities backed by mortgages that turned out to be toxic.

The U.S. government stepped in with a $182 billion bailout to avert a bankruptcy filing by AIG.

The criminal probe had focused on whether Joseph Cassano, who ran the financial products unit, and Andrew Forster, his deputy, knowingly misled investors about the company’s accounting losses on its credit default swaps portfolio.

“Although a 2-year, intense investigation is tough for anyone, the results are wholly appropriate in light of our client’s factual innocence,” F. Joseph Warin and Jim Walden, Cassano’s lawyers, said in a statement.

Forster’s lawyers also confirmed the probe had been dropped.

“We were very pleased but not surprised to hear from the DOJ late yesterday that they were dropping the criminal investigation of our client,” David Brodsky, one of Forster’s lawyers, said in a statement. “In the end, the facts were stronger than the emotions surrounding AIG’s problems.”

The Department of Justice declined to comment.

You can read the entire article here.

Well, well, Obama fails again. Good!

Not my 401K!

The democrats have set their sights on the next item to be raped by their pathological need to control every aspect of our nation. Their next target is the pensions and savings the people have set aside to supplement their retirement. I’m included in that population segment.

I’m approaching retirement next fall. I was kicked loose by my employer last December. Because of my 18 year tenure, I accumulated enough time for a severance package that will, with some husbanding, last until next October. Then I have a decision to make.

In October, I will be age 63. I can retire at that time and accept reduced payments from the Social Security Administration and my corporate pension plan. Normally, I would be eligible for full SSA payments at age 66. That amount is reduced for every year earlier. I would be eligible for full pension from my employer at age 65. That amount is reduced by 5% every year earlier. If I retired at age 63, that would mean a full 10% less for my pension.

I would prefer to wait until March 2011, when I’m 64 to retire. Waiting that long would increase my SSA and company pension payments significantly. So, the decision is how to subsist from October 2010 until April 2011. The obvious answer is through my savings—my 401K for example.

Like most Americans, my 401K is not infinite. My adviser has said that I can withdraw 4-5% per year and have a realistic expectation that the fund will last the rest of my life. Given the sum of my expected SSA and pension payments, I could add increase my monthly retirement income by 1/3rd.

That is IF I can retain control of my 401K. The democrats think they can manage my money better than I.

Thieves!

Nancy Pelosi has said that retirement funds should be managed to guarantee equal amounts. That is my retirement funds, including my life-time savings, must be managed to let those who have done nothing for retirement receive an equal amount. In other words, my money will be stolen by the government and given to those who have saved nothing, those who have not worked and slaved, and have not saved, nor planned for retirement. The money will be used to subsidize union pension plans who are running out of money through the union’s mismanagement, theft and malfeasance.

That is theft by governmental fiat. I worked for every penny of my savings and NO ONE will take it from me!

Federal Mutual Fund

Posted 05/11/2010 06:32 PM ET

Government Retirement: Democrats have obliquely admitted they covet Americans’ pensions. Last week, congressional Republicans told them to stay away. The shame is that they had to do anything at all.


IBD Exclusive Series:
American Freedom And Prosperity Under Attack


The first rumblings were heard in the 1990s, when Democrats were said to be coming after our retirement accounts. Back then, the warnings were easy to pass off as hyperbole or a cranky conspiracy theory. Today, they pass as prescient.

In January, Bloomberg reported the “U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and individual retirement accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry.”

Alarms went off. In February, former House Speaker New Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara warned in our “On The Right” column that “Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings.”

“The idea,” they said, “is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

“They will tell you that you are ‘investing’ your money. … But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

Last week, Connie Hair wrote the following in Human Events about the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class released in February:

“The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.”

Hair says a “backdoor bull’s-eye is on your 401(k) plan and trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.”

Republican lawmakers are taking the threat seriously. They have expressed to the administration through a letter their “strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans.” These congressmen know that among their Beltway brethren there exists an eagerness to “essentially dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan.”

This isn’t the first time Democrats have eyed Americans’ retirements. In 1993 the Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration considered an “unprecedented effort by the federal government to deal with its budget woes by turning to the more than $4 trillion in cash, stocks and other investments held by pension funds.”

They made another pass in 2008, when Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research who was invited by Democrats to testify, brought the idea of government “guaranteed retirement accounts” to the House subcommittee on income security and family support. Such accounts would be administered by the Social Security Administration. “Contributions” would be required and the payout would be a lean 3%.

Ghilarducci didn’t suggest that 401(k)s be eliminated, but she didn’t have to. She supports removing the favorable tax treatment they receive, which would virtually destroy their reason to exist.

To close the loop, we refer back to the White House’s middle-class task force report. It mentions guaranteed retirement accounts as a way to “give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk and, in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.”

Or, as Gingrich and Ferrara say, the government would treat ostensibly private retirement savings the same negligent way it’s treated Social Security. Let’s not forget: The courts have ruled that Washington isn’t obligated to pay back a dime it’s seized from paychecks to fund Social Security.

Don’t think Washington would never wreck private pensions in the name of the collective good. It happened in Argentina, and if the same group that’s determined to take over the U.S. health care system stays in power long enough, it could happen here.

Not my 401K!

The democrats have set their sights on the next item to be raped by their pathological need to control every aspect of our nation. Their next target is the pensions and savings the people have set aside to supplement their retirement. I’m included in that population segment.

I’m approaching retirement next fall. I was kicked loose by my employer last December. Because of my 18 year tenure, I accumulated enough time for a severance package that will, with some husbanding, last until next October. Then I have a decision to make.

In October, I will be age 63. I can retire at that time and accept reduced payments from the Social Security Administration and my corporate pension plan. Normally, I would be eligible for full SSA payments at age 66. That amount is reduced for every year earlier. I would be eligible for full pension from my employer at age 65. That amount is reduced by 5% every year earlier. If I retired at age 63, that would mean a full 10% less for my pension.

I would prefer to wait until March 2011, when I’m 64 to retire. Waiting that long would increase my SSA and company pension payments significantly. So, the decision is how to subsist from October 2010 until April 2011. The obvious answer is through my savings—my 401K for example.

Like most Americans, my 401K is not infinite. My adviser has said that I can withdraw 4-5% per year and have a realistic expectation that the fund will last the rest of my life. Given the sum of my expected SSA and pension payments, I could add increase my monthly retirement income by 1/3rd.

That is IF I can retain control of my 401K. The democrats think they can manage my money better than I.

Thieves!

Nancy Pelosi has said that retirement funds should be managed to guarantee equal amounts. That is my retirement funds, including my life-time savings, must be managed to let those who have done nothing for retirement receive an equal amount. In other words, my money will be stolen by the government and given to those who have saved nothing, those who have not worked and slaved, and have not saved, nor planned for retirement. The money will be used to subsidize union pension plans who are running out of money through the union’s mismanagement, theft and malfeasance.

That is theft by governmental fiat. I worked for every penny of my savings and NO ONE will take it from me!

Federal Mutual Fund

Posted 05/11/2010 06:32 PM ET

Government Retirement: Democrats have obliquely admitted they covet Americans’ pensions. Last week, congressional Republicans told them to stay away. The shame is that they had to do anything at all.


IBD Exclusive Series:
American Freedom And Prosperity Under Attack


The first rumblings were heard in the 1990s, when Democrats were said to be coming after our retirement accounts. Back then, the warnings were easy to pass off as hyperbole or a cranky conspiracy theory. Today, they pass as prescient.

In January, Bloomberg reported the “U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and individual retirement accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry.”

Alarms went off. In February, former House Speaker New Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara warned in our “On The Right” column that “Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings.”

“The idea,” they said, “is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

“They will tell you that you are ‘investing’ your money. … But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

Last week, Connie Hair wrote the following in Human Events about the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class released in February:

“The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.”

Hair says a “backdoor bull’s-eye is on your 401(k) plan and trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.”

Republican lawmakers are taking the threat seriously. They have expressed to the administration through a letter their “strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans.” These congressmen know that among their Beltway brethren there exists an eagerness to “essentially dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan.”

This isn’t the first time Democrats have eyed Americans’ retirements. In 1993 the Washington Post reported that the Clinton administration considered an “unprecedented effort by the federal government to deal with its budget woes by turning to the more than $4 trillion in cash, stocks and other investments held by pension funds.”

They made another pass in 2008, when Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research who was invited by Democrats to testify, brought the idea of government “guaranteed retirement accounts” to the House subcommittee on income security and family support. Such accounts would be administered by the Social Security Administration. “Contributions” would be required and the payout would be a lean 3%.

Ghilarducci didn’t suggest that 401(k)s be eliminated, but she didn’t have to. She supports removing the favorable tax treatment they receive, which would virtually destroy their reason to exist.

To close the loop, we refer back to the White House’s middle-class task force report. It mentions guaranteed retirement accounts as a way to “give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk and, in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.”

Or, as Gingrich and Ferrara say, the government would treat ostensibly private retirement savings the same negligent way it’s treated Social Security. Let’s not forget: The courts have ruled that Washington isn’t obligated to pay back a dime it’s seized from paychecks to fund Social Security.

Don’t think Washington would never wreck private pensions in the name of the collective good. It happened in Argentina, and if the same group that’s determined to take over the U.S. health care system stays in power long enough, it could happen here.

Hey! Algore, this one’s for you!

Globull Worming! Phfffft!

How about this? All your CO2 emission schemes went up in…ash.

For all of you out there in America and across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, that bogus god you worship named “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”, there is some really bad news that will be very painful for you to process. But it is my duty to pass it on to you anyway.

Are you sitting down?

Okay, here’s the bombshell. The current volcanic eruption going on in Iceland, since it first started spewing volcanic ash a week ago, has, to this point, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet. Not only that, this single act of God has added emissions to the earth estimated to be 42 times more than can be corrected by the extreme human regulations proposed for annual reductions.


Go visit Okietalk for more.

More Global Non-warming news

Once again, there is news on the AlGore fraud front. This little piece from Bloomberg News is another refutation of the “shrinking Polar Ice Cap” myth.

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Season Posts Latest Start on Record

April 06, 2010, 1:52 PM EDT

By Alex Morales

April 6 (Bloomberg) — The extent of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean grew until the last day of March, the latest the annual melting season has begun in 31 years of satellite records, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

Cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering Sea and Barents Sea meant that the area of ocean covered by ice expanded through last month, the Boulder, Colorado-based center said today in a statement on its Web site. That’s two days later than in 1999, the previous latest start to a melting season since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

The article continues with the Bloomberg required spin attempting to make this new data irrelevant while pushing the Global Warming fraud. The truth is there is no man-made global warming, there never has been. Yes, there has been periods with the world climate warmed. One such period was around 2000 years ago. There has also been period of cooling. The Ice Ages are examples. The last period of cooling ended only 200 years ago. (Google Mini-Ice Age, 17th Century weather, Maunder Minimum.) Recent climate models, rejected by all the AGW promoters, indicate we may be entering another solar cycle that triggered the last mini-Ice Age.

Never forget the entire purpose of AGW is to increase state control over our lives, increase taxes and spread the liberal’s Marxist agenda. They could not care less about actual climate effects unless it supports their political goals.

By the way, have you noticed that Algore remains in hiding? He’s just canceled his next public appearance to swindle more money from his true-believers.