Is It Barney Frank Mortgage Fraud All Over Again?

How the Government Is Creating another Housing Bubble

It looks like the government will soon use the taxpayers’ checkbook again to create a vast market for mortgages with low or no down payments and for overstretched borrowers with blemished credit, say Peter J. Wallison, a senior fellow, and Edward J. Pinto, a resident fellow, at the American Enterprise Institute.

The Dodd-Frank Act, which imposed far-reaching new regulation on the financial system after the meltdown, allows the administration to substitute the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for Fannie and Freddie as the principal and essentially unlimited buyer of low-quality home mortgages.

• Along with two other federal agencies, FHA now accounts for about 60 percent of all U.S. home purchase mortgage originations.
• This amounts to more than $1 trillion and is rising rapidly.
• The administration justifies this policy by saying it is necessary to support the mortgage market, yet borrowers are once again receiving high-risk loans.

The goal of Congress and regulators should be to foster the residential mortgage market’s return to the standards that used to prevail in 1990, before the affordable housing requirements were imposed on Fannie and Freddie.  

• At that time, mortgages required 10 percent to 20 percent down payments, and were only made to borrowers with good credit and relatively low debt-to-income ratios.
• When loans of this kind were the standard in the residential mortgage market, we did not have financial crises brought on by the collapse of a housing bubble.

The Dodd-Frank Act, however, exempts the FHA and other government agencies from appropriate standards on mortgage quality.

• For example, thanks to expanded government lending, 60 percent of home purchase loans now have down payments of less than 5 percent, compared to 40 percent at the height of the bubble, and the FHA projects that it will increase its insured loan total to $1.34 trillion by 2013.
• Indeed, the FHA just announced its intention to push almost half of its home purchase volume into subprime territory by 2014-2017, essentially a guarantee to put taxpayers at risk again.

Source: Peter J. Wallison and Edward J. Pinto, “How the Government Is Creating another Housing Bubble,” November 30, 2010.

For text:

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/november/how-the-government-is-creating-another-housing-bubble 

(The above information comes from the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

The Disingenuous President Teleprompters to His Troops

Leading in my deep dislike for this man, Barack Hussein Obama, is his cold, controlling disingenuousness covering whatever might be real in the underbelly. 

Let no one forget his claimed disdain for the conflict in Iraq.  He advertised we were in the wrong war; that the real war was in Afghanistan getting rid of the Taliban.   This advertisement was political expediency  over mind, for he has never shown any interest in waging war for any purpose with any ‘art’ in this remoted geography.   It was his misfortune that he had to follow up on this duplicitous politics of expediency becoming president or his lie would become public for all to  see.

That he travels to the troops there is most appropriate and meaningful.  That he visits with his same memorized monotonous oscillatings in tune with his teleprompter, is shameful and tell tale.

Does this man believe in anything that might disjoint his arrogance and pomposities?   Couldn’t he simply talk to “the guys’ who face real death and disaster by fulfilling his demand that this is the ‘correct’ war America must wage?   Is there a chance he might suggest honesty and sincerety….something from the heart?

Sorry, there is no such heart.   Again I aske all readers, when have you every seen or heard this president ever show some real feeling for the country he is supposed to lead?    How many times has he ‘made stink’ about America, denigrating and compromising the nation and its purpose.   He warmly and romantically explains Ramadan to the public at Ramadan time.   He sneers about American church goers, especially the ones who play guns.   When have you ever heard him give a warm or romantic anectdote off the cuff, about America?

He cannot.  Compared to all previous presidents, he is the one foreign to the office.   His mentor and father figure for 22 years,  don’t forget, was  black preacher, Jeremiah, “Goddamn America” Wright.  

Barack Hussein Obama is persuaded by Marxism.  His education and actions have made this clear for those not crippled by the fog of Political Correctness.   As he has demonstrated throughout his antiAmerican presidency thus far, he wants to create his vision of a New America, one run by the State.

Barack visits the troops, reported at CBS, Brian Montopoli posting the following:

“President Obama thanked members of the military on behalf of the American people during a speech at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan Friday, telling the troops, “As we begin this holiday season, there’s no place I’d rather be than be here with you.”

“I know it is not easy for all of you to be away from home, especially during the holidays,” the president said. “I know it’s hard on your families. They have got an empty seat at the dinner table. Sometimes during the holiday season, that’s when you feel the absence of somebody you love most acutely.”

The president flew to Afghanistan overnight in a surprise trip that the White House said was focused primarily on thanking service-members fighting the more than nine-year-old conflict. The visit, which comes in the midst of a worsening jobs picture and a fight over extending the Bush tax cuts at home, was planned one month ago.

The president spent about three hours at Bagram. In addition to giving the speech, he met with top military commanders, awarded five Purple Hearts during a visit to a hospital on base, and spoke via videoconference with Afghan Leader Hamid Karzai. A planned face-to-face meeting between the two in Kabul was canceled because of bad weather.

I’m not here to give a long speech – I want to shake as many hands as I can,” Mr. Obama told cheering troops after being introduced by Gen. David Petreaus, the top commander in Afghanistan. Petreaus hailed the president for his approachability and for making the “tough decision” to give the military the resources it needs to succeed in Afghanistan.

The president told the troops that while there may be political divisions within America, there is at least one thing left and right agree on: Their “uniform support” for “the men and women of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.”

“Everybody back home is behind you,” he said. “Everybody.”

 

“Your generation, the generation of Afghanistan and Iraq, has met every mission that you have been given,” he said. “You have served tour after tour. You’ve earned not just our admiration. You’ve earned your place in American history alongside those greatest generations.”

The president also gave thanks to the families of those serving, telling the troops, “They’re serving here with you, in mind and spirit if not in body.”

The president said the assembled troops, largely from the 101st Airborne Division, “are part of an unbroken line of Americans who have given up your comfort, your ease, your convenience for America’s security.”

“The freedom, the liberty that we treasure, that’s not simply a birthright,” he said. “It has to be earned by the sacrifices of generations; generations of patriots, men and women who step forward and say, send me.”

“In our time, in this 21st century when so many other institutions seem to be shirking their responsibilities, you have embraced your responsibilities,” he added. “You have shown why the United States military remains the most trusted institution in America.”

One year ago, Mr. Obama tripled the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan as compared to when he took office, bringing the total number of troops up to roughly 100,000. Despite some successes, there have been a number of setbacks since then; 467 American troops have been killed so far in Afghanistan this year, the highest number since the war began. The White House has its eye on 2014 as a possible date to end combat operations and next summer as the beginning of the wind-down period.

“We will never let this country serve as a safe haven for terrorists who would attack the United States of America again,” he said.

 The president argued America is “making important progress” and said the troops are succeeding in efforts “to break the Taliban’s momentum.”

 Still, he acknowledged, “there are going to be difficult days ahead.”

 ”Progress comes at a high price,” he said. Thoughts turn to the families of the fallen particularly during the holidays, Mr. Obama added. He told the story of Medal of Honor winner Salvatore Giunta, to whom he awarded a Medal of Honor last month, noting that Giunta insisted that if he’s a hero, so is every other man and woman in the military is as well.

 ”Sal is right, every single one of you is a hero,” he said. “Some people ask whether America’s best days lie ahead or whether our greatness stretches back behind us in the stories of those who have gone before. When I look out at all of you, I know the answer to that. You give me hope. You give me inspiration.”

 Mr. Obama’s high-security visit was his second as commander-in-chief. It comes amid a review of the conflict that is not expected to result in a change in the U.S. strategy.

 It also follows the release of secret diplomatic cables that described out-of-control corruption and bribery in Afghanistan.

The leaks, from the group WikiLeaks, described the country as “a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest official is a distinct outlier,” as the New York Times reported Friday.

 Mr. Obama last visited Afghanistan in March, at which time he pressed Karzai on corruption in his administration. The two men met face-to-face less than two weeks ago at a NATO summit in Lisbon. Karzai has complained angrily in recent weeks about U.S. military tactics, specifically special operations raids designed to root out insurgents, amid heightened tensions between his administration and its U.S. counterpart.

 In the WikiLeaks cables, Karzai was described as an “erratic” leader who was “indecisive and unprepared” and a less-than-reliable partner.

 A rock band from the division played songs by Metallica, Blink 182, Oasis and other groups before the president spoke. Troops also sang a portion of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.”

 Mr. Obama shook hands with troops following the conclusion of his remarks, after which he was set to board Air Force One for the flight back to Washington.”

Comment:  CBS does not report that his remarks to the troops was made via teleprompter or by teleprompter caused oscillations of his head.   View them for yourself.   His fans and image makers insist Obama is a great speaker and communicator.   He is neither.  His monotones via teleprompter are skillfully presented as if by a god.  

Check out his ’person to person’ conversations.   One on one he is stiff, cold, defensive  and tense.   Alone facing crowds speaking outside of his five or six memorized ‘pieces’, this Obama loses confidence and begins to stutter.  America suddenly has 57 states……or he reminds John McCain in a televised committee meeting, “The campaign is over, John.  I won.

All in all Barack Hussein is incompetent in nearly everything he presents in public and in government.  He is okay when teleprompting to the troops, but cold, distant and officious.   Every day he earns the public’s disdain.

Will Obama Now Avoid Congress and Govern by Executive Order?

“Because President Obama will now have a tough time getting his liberal agenda through a more Republican Congress, many Democrats are urging him to ram it through using the executive branch’s unilateral power.

John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, even issued a list of executive orders and rule-makings last month that Mr. Obama can use to “push the country to a better place.” If the Department of Labor is representative, his advice is in sync with moves already under way.

On Sept. 22, Labor’s Office of the Solicitor—which employs 400 attorneys to enforce the nation’s labor laws—issued a draft “operating plan” to dramatically increase pressure on employers. A source inside the department says the plan has been adopted.

Patricia Smith, who heads the solicitor’s office, told me in an interview yesterday that the plan is a “living document” that will “never be finalized.” Whatever its status, it includes the following:

 ”Identify a public affairs liaison in each Regional Office” to “send stronger, clearer messages to the regulated community about DOL’s emphasis on litigation.”

One tactic to be employed by the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) division will be to “deter [employers] through shaming.” Ms. Smith told me she didn’t know what that means. But whatever it might involve, it doesn’t sound appropriate for an agency charged with carrying out the law in an even-handed fashion. 

 ”Engage in enterprise-wide enforcement.” Ms. Smith said that means targeting multiple work sites of the same company. A department source says it also is likely to involve enforcement agents from the Wage and Hour Division and from OSHA showing up at the same time. The plan also calls for “Imposing shorter deadlines for implementing remedial measures in conciliation agreements and consent decrees.”

“Engage in greater use of injunctive relief,” which means using court injunctions rather than fines to enforce compliance. The department plan also wants to “identify and pursue test cases” that could stretch the meaning of the law.

All of this is in stark contrast to the approach of the previous administration. “Laws and regulations at the local, state and federal level are a dizzying array of sometimes conflicting requirements,” Elaine Chao, the secretary of labor from 2001 to 2009, told me. “The best way to protect workers is to help employers understand their legal obligations and promote collaborative working relationships between employers and workers on safety and other issues.”

Ms. Chao points to the fruits of what she claims was a more balanced approach: Workplace injuries and illnesses declined by 21% beginning in 2002, both reaching all-time lows by the end of the Bush administration.

But while the Department of Labor prepares for a hyper-aggressive enforcement strategy against business, it has rolled back Bush-era reforms mandating greater union transparency. Just this week the department rescinded its Form T-1, which required unions to report on strike funds and other accounts under union control.

The Labor Department is also planning to transfer responsibility for whistleblower investigations from OSHA (which currently has 80 investigators on this beat) to the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), which oversees union financial integrity. But the Obama administration has severely cut funding and staff for OLMS. There are 187 OLMS investigators, down from 223 last year. With additional responsibilities, the office’s ability to investigate embezzlements and union corruption will be further hindered.

This work is important. Since 2001, OLMS investigations have resulted in 972 indictments for various financial misdeeds, with 905 of them resulting in convictions. As a result, $88 million in restitution was made to rank-and-file union members.

Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, a government watchdog group that monitors union issues, says Labor’s new approach should trigger oversight hearings by the new GOP House. “But that won’t be enough,” he predicts. “The solicitor’s budget at Labor will have to be kept in check.”

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com. “   And this article was foundat today’s Wall Street Journal.

Comment:  One wonders, if one hasn’t already forgotten their existence, what Obama created all those Czars in his White House executive corps for.

What Will Happen When Some Julian Assange Hacks into the New York Times Computers?

It is only a matter of time, one would think.  Would the folks and the “Grey Lady” pay the intruder off handsomely?  laugh it off, handsomely?  or should  the Lady folks there celebrate the skills of the hacker and anger handsomely when all of their intimate materials are handsomely and exclusively given to Fox News.

Although the New York Times plays government regularly, boss-people there would quickly deny that they have the same rights to public invasions as they attribute to Washington.  Only the New York Times has the best interests of the American people in mind…..don’t you agree?   

Daniel Flynn at Human Events writes the following about the New York Times, “In the Gutter”:

“What would happen to a newspaper if its adversaries routinely outed its sources, hacked into its computers and publicized the conversations at sensitive managerial meetings?

The New York Times, the U.S. printing arm of Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, began publishing illegally obtained U.S. diplomatic cables earlier this week that the paper admits “could strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.”  The Saudi Arabian king badmouthing neighboring leaders, State Department officials calling Hamid Karzai’s half brother a corrupt drug dealer, and Yemen’s president admitting his cover up of U.S. missile strikes on local al Qaeda outposts are among the embarrassing revelations that will make it more difficult for foreign leaders to speak frankly with American envoys.

The Times, as it did in its damaging exposés on NSA wiretapping and the SWIFT program, maintains its right to keep secrets.  Indeed, the editor notes that the trove of documents purloined from U.S. diplomatic channels was “made available to the Times by a source who insisted on anonymity.”  While reserving the right to keep its sources secret, and respecting WikiLeaks’s right to do likewise, the Times rejects the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s keeping matters of national security private. The Times justified its publishing of secret documents by claiming that “it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.”

Was it not “presumptuous” for the Times, rather than the elected government of the American people, to decide what is in the national interest to keep secret and what is in the national interest to tell the world?

The arrogance is familiar to readers of the Times.  It’s certainly familiar to readers of William McGowan’s new book, Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America. Therein, Gray Lady Down depicts a newsroom drenched in “subtle and not-so-subtle anti-Americanism, anti-bourgeois hauteur, hypersensitivity toward ‘victim’ groups, double standards, historical shallowness, intellectual dishonesty, cultural relativism, moral righteousness and sanctimony.”

While the Times has understandably held the U.S. government up to scrutiny, it has exhibited little curiosity examining the claims of shady characters seeking to undermine that government. “Journalists are supposed to have an adversarial relationship to the institutions they cover,” McGowan concedes, “but when it turns into a reflexive oppositionalism, at odds with the middle register of American society and its values, there’s a problem.”  The paper’s declining circulation, stock price and ad revenue would suggest that McGowan is onto something.

Why does the Times get so much so wrong, and why are its motives so suspect on WikiLeaks and other stories?  Because the onetime “newspaper of record” allows itself to be driven more by ideology than by the facts.  This is particularly true of the daily’s coverage of America at war.

McGowan highlights the gullible Times coverage of the looting of the Baghdad Museum in the early days of the Iraq War.  “In truth, the museum was not ransacked; and much of its most priceless collections had simply been secreted away,” Gray Lady Down points out.  “Pejorative information about America’s allowing the looting came from former Baath officials, who had a self-interest in representing the U.S. military as the culprit in the cultural ‘crime of the century.’” Even after the stolen objects were numbered at a few dozen, the Times reported “thousands” of items lost. 

When an Iraqi identified himself as the hooded man standing atop a box at Abu Ghraib, the Times featured him in the March 11, 2006, front-page article “Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare.”  But two years earlier, the military had identified the ugly indelible image as that of another man, and the Times retracted the story.

The following year, the Times Sunday Magazine reported on Amorita Randall, a Seabee who claimed to have been raped in the Navy prior to suffering an IED-inflicted brain injury in Iraq.  The piece meshed with the jaundiced view of the military held by the Times, so the paper ran with it without fact-checking diligence.  And as McGowan notes, “Three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called the Times to say that Amoritas Randall had never been in Iraq.”

When did the Gray Lady start to go down?  McGowan recounts a famous conversation during the 1960s between longtime Times Publisher Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger, Sr., a former Marine, and his anti-war protestor son/successor.  “Walking across Boston Commons one day discussing the war,” Gray Lady Down relates, “Punch asked Arthur Jr. which he would like to see get shot if an American soldier came across a North Vietnamese soldier in battle.  Arthur Jr. defiantly answered that he would like the American to get shot because it was the other guy’s country. For Punch, the remark bordered on treason, and the two began shouting.”

In other words, publishing the WikiLeaks story is totally in keeping with Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger’s beliefs.”

Comment:   America is still divided today along roughly the same lines as it was during the Leftwing Cultural revolution of the late 1960s and 70s.   Actually, we have never recovered.    The rebels , that is the  rioters, the Black Panthers and other racists, the sex perverts, anarchists,  bombers, druggies and drop outs of the American Left of the day are now runing the Democrat Party.  They have alienated the Doug Schoens and Joe Liebermans by leaving the American body in favor of Marxism and nearly anything else that is antiAmerica, from Castro to Hugo Chavez to the Palestininan Hamas. 

They have dragged much in American society down with them into the gutter, not least of all, the establishment media and the nation’s educational systems.