July 16th, 2010 News and Observer Editorial
Just in case you missed it, The News and Observer printed an editorial today that echoes the calls we've been making since October. Here is the editorial in full, along side the cartoon printed in the paper.
A little turbulence
State elections officials have some repair work to do in following up on an investigation of campaign flights
Impatience, at the least, seems to have been a problem at the State Board of Elections as a probe into campaign flights by candidates for governor dragged on.
By directing their lead investigator to wrap things up without interviewing a former top aide to Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue, board officials thrust their chins out and invited Republican critics to take a swing. GOP state chairman Tom Fetzer has been glad to comply.
But if the Democratic-majority board has put itself into an uncomfortable spot, there is a fairly simple remedy. What the board can and should do is summon Zach Ambrose, Perdue's former campaign manager and chief of staff, for a public grilling as it considers the findings of investigative bulldog Kim Strach.
The board's executive director, Gary Bartlett, also could acknowledge that it might have been a bit premature for him to announce last month that the investigation headed by Strach had turned up no evidence "indicating any intent of wrongdoing." Strach now says that Democratic board chairman Larry Leake directed her to finish her report without querying Ambrose. Even if the board was feeling some urgency to complete its probe, that was a curious omission, although Leake denies that it led to a whitewash.
Flight surgery
The investigation grew out of the board's efforts to unravel former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley's tangled accounting of campaign flights utilizing private aircraft.
Easley's campaign ended up being fined $100,000 after it was discovered that numerous such flights had gone unreported. Because a donated flight's value is supposed to be treated as a campaign contribution, failure to report means that limits on contributions could be evaded and a campaign could avoid making required reimbursements.
Perdue's campaign, through internal auditing, identified 41 flights that had not been properly reported - 35 from the 2008 election and six from 2004. Several reasons were offered for the non-compliance, although Strach suggested in her report that the campaign's bookkeeping procedures were solid enough that they should have prevented such oversights.
The elections board uncovered one other unreported flight - to Michigan, where Perdue held a 2007 fundraiser with lawyers, financial types and insurance execs that pulled in $29,550. How did that one slip through the campaign's reporting cracks? Zach Ambrose might have an idea.
Democrats in charge
This past spring, the Perdue campaign sought to have Strach quit the investigation because of a family tie: Her husband has been a state Republican Party general counsel (he no longer holds the position). The implication that Strach could not properly carry out her duties because of her husband's job is unfair to her and glosses over the fact that the board's actions against Easley and other Democratic politicians were the decisions of a board under 3-2 Democratic control.
Strach, however, objects to what she apparently regarded as meddling by Leake and Bartlett in the flights investigation. As the board's top officials, they were entitled to give her guidance. But Leake's assurances that there was no attempt to go easy on Perdue would be more convincing if Strach had been given more leeway.
The board has long been understaffed, and Bartlett understandably was anxious for Strach to move on to other business that was piling up. Under the new state budget, three new investigatory positions will be filled.
That will help the board in its efforts to keep North Carolina political campaigns on the up and up. But it also looks as though Strach might be moved aside in favor of someone with a law degree. Careful there, guys, lest you give the impression that she was just too effective for her own good.
Read the article and comments online at:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/16/583258/a-little-turbulence.html#ixzz0trL9hvBh
To view the picture in color from The Charlotte Observer click the link below:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/15/1564930/perdue-report.html
PS: Please remember, you can always donate to the NCGOP online by visiting www.ncgop.org. Donate online today!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Democratic Disconnect
Noonan article:
The first thing I learned in journalism is that every story has a name. At WEEI News Radio in Boston, the editor would label each story with one word, called a "slug," and assign a writer to write it for air. This week's devastating earthquake would be slugged "Haiti." A story about a gruesome murder might be "Nightmare."
We're at the first anniversary of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, and the slug, the word that captures its essence, is "Disconnect."
This is, still, a surprising word to use about the canny operatives who so perfectly judged the public mood in 2008. But they haven't connected since.
There is a disconnect, a detachment, a distance between the president's preoccupations and the concerns of the people. There's a disconnect between his policy proposals and the people's sense, as expressed in polls, of what the immediate problems are.
I'm not referring to what is being called the president's rhetorical disconnect. In this criticism, he is not emotional enough when he speaks, he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve, he is aloof, like a lab technician observing the movements within a petri dish called America. It may be true that this doesn't help him, but so what? In a successful presidency, his cool demeanor would be called an interesting facet, not a problem. And we don't really need presidents to move us, when you think about it. We need them to lead, and in the right direction.
View Full Image
Barbara Kelley
.Nor am I referring to an iconic disconnect. In this criticism, the president refuses to or is unable to act as a paternal figure. "A president is a father," say these critics. "He must comfort us." But, actually, your father is your father. Voters didn't hire Mr. Obama to play the old dad in the MGM movie. In any case he always seemed like the bright older brother, not the father. At the end of the day you, being a grownup, don't need him to be your daddy, do you?
You want a competent chief executive with a deep and shrewd sense of the people. Americans want him to be on the same page as they are. But he's on a different page, and he may in fact be reading a different book. Thus the latest Quinnipiac poll, which puts his approval/disapproval at a descending 45% to 45%. Pure hunch: The approval number is probably slightly high because people don't want to disapprove of their new president—the stakes are so high!—and don't like telling pollsters they disapprove of him.
The real story is that his rhetorical and iconic detachment are harped on because they reflect a deeper disconnect, the truly problematic one, and that is over policy. It doesn't really matter how he sounds. It matters, in a time of crisis, what he does. That's where the lack of connection comes in.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
Click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.The people are here, and he is there. The popularity of his health-care plan is very low, at 35% support. Someone on television the other day noted it is as low as George Bush's popularity ratings in 2008.
Yet—and this is the key part—the president does not seem to see or hear. He does not respond. He is not supple, able to hear reservations and see opposition and change tack. He has a grim determination to bull this thing through. He negotiates each day with Congress, not with the people. But the people hate Congress! Has he not noticed?
The people have come alive on the issue of spending—it's too high, it threatens us! He spends more. Everywhere I go, I hear talk of "hidden taxes" and a certainty that state and federal levies will go up, putting a squeeze on a middle and upper-middle classes that have been squeezed like oranges and are beginning to see themselves as tired old rinds. Mr. Obama seems at best disconnected from this anxiety.
The disconnect harms him politically, but more important it suggests a deepening gulf between the people and their government, which only adds to growling, chafing national discontent. It also put the president in the position, only one year in, only 12 months into a brand-new glistening presidency, of seeming like the same old same old. There's something tired in all this disconnect, something old-fashioned, something sclerotic and 1970's about it.
And of course the public is reacting. All politicians are canaries in coal mines, they're always the first to feel the political atmosphere. It was significant when the Democrats lost the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey two months ago. It is significant that a handful of House and Senate Democrats have decided not to run this year. And it is deeply significant that a Republican state senator in Massachusetts, Scott Brown, may topple the Democratic nominee to fill Ted Kennedy's former seat, Martha Coakley. In a way, the Republicans have already won—it's a real race, it's close, and in "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"!
Mr. Brown's whole story right now is not about disconnect but connect. Massachusetts has an 8.8% unemployment rate, and graduates of the commonwealth's great universities can't find work. An old Boston Republican hand said of the race, "It's 100% about policies—health care, taxes, what's the plan on the economy?" Mr. Brown charges that Ms. Coakley's support for cap and trade and health care will amount to $2 trillion in taxes in the next five years.
Ms. Coakley has the advantage—Massachusetts is the heart of blue-state America—but in a way her advantage is her curse. Because she is the candidate of a party that for 40 years has been used to winning, reigning and winning again, she looks like the same old same old, a standard old-line liberal, the frontwoman for a machine, a yes woman for the Obama-Pelosi era.
It is interesting that Ms. Coakley, too, has been told by pundits the past week that her problem is that she's not emotional enough. She should show passion and fire! She should cry like Hillary!
This comes not only from pundits but normal people, and if you contemplate the meaning it is, weirdly: You're not good enough at manipulating us! We want more theatrics!
Both national parties are trying to pour in money and resources, but the most obnoxious intrusion must have been the fund-raising letter this week from New York's Sen. Charles Schumer, who tried to rouse the troops by calling Mr. Brown a "far-right teabagger." Does that kind of thing even work anymore? Doesn't name calling put off anyone not already predisposed to agree with it?
In a time when the people of Massachusetts have real concerns about their ability to make a living, stuff like the Schumer letter is just more evidence of a party's disconnect.
Politics is about policy. It's not about who's emotional and who cries or makes you cry. It's not about big political parties and the victories they need in order to rule. It's not about going on some ideological toot, which is what the health-care bill is, hoping the people will someday see and appreciate your higher wisdom.
In a way, Mr. Obama's disconnection is a sign of the times. We are living in the age of breakup, with so many of the ties that held us together loosening and fraying. If the president wants to lead toward something better, he should try listening. If you can't connect through the words you speak, at least you can do it through your ability to hear.
StumbleUpon
Viadeo
Orkut
Yahoo! Buzz
Fark
Reddit
LinkedIn
del.icio.us
MySpace
.
Add a CommentAll comments will display your real name.
Journal Community..Want to participate in the discussion?
Register for Free
.Or log in or become a subscriber now for complete Journal access.
Track Replies to my comment
Go to Comments tab..ClearPost...Back To ...
Back To..MSN Money Homepage.MSN Money Investing...
Recent Columns.Noonan: Slug the Obama Story 'Disconnect'
.Noonan: The Risk of Catastrophic Victory
.Noonan: Look Ahead With Stoicism—and Optimism
..
.Declarations.
Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal's Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com.
She is the author of eight books on American politics and culture. The most recent, "Patriotic Grace," was published in October 2008. Her first book, the bestseller "What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era," was published in 1990.
She was a special assistant to the president in the White House of Ronald Reagan. Before that she was a producer at CBS News in New York. In 1978 and 1979 she was an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.
.Video .
previous next Why Haiti Is So Vulnerable
4:35 . An Obama-GOP Entente on Terror
3:18 . Democratic Departures
4:57 ...More in Opinion.
Strassel: The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing
.Dorothy Rabinowitz: Martha Coakley's Convictions
.D.C. Witness Protection Program
.Midnight Masquerade
.Oregon at the Tax Crossroad
...Most Popular.ReadEmailedVideoCommented.1.Opinion: Dorothy Rabinowitz: Martha Coakley's Convictions .Subscriber Content Read Preview
2.Verizon, AT&T Cut Wireless Prices .3.Opinion: Noonan: Slug the Obama Story 'Disconnect' .4.11 Minutes of NFL Action .5.Opinion: Strassel: The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing .1.11 Minutes of NFL Action .2.Opinion: Dorothy Rabinowitz: Martha Coakley's Convictions .3.Opinion: Noonan: Slug the Obama Story 'Disconnect' .4.Opinion: Oregon at the Tax Crossroad .Subscriber Content Read Preview
5.Verizon, AT&T Cut Wireless Prices .
1.Haiti Survivors Desperately Wait for Aid.2.Haiti Copes with Rising Death Toll.3.Haiti Quake Survivors Speak.4.How Israel Screens for Terrorists.5.AM Report: Banks Pay $145B Bonuses.
1. Obama Unveils $90 Billion Bank Tax With Sharp Words489 comments .2. Opinion: The President's Bait-and-Switch Operation450 comments .3. Unions Cut Special Deal on Health Taxes357 comments .4. Opinion: Martha Coakley's Convictions275 comments .5. Haiti Despairs as Quake Deaths Mount210 comments .
Most Read Articles Feed
Most Emailed Feed
Most Popular Video Feed
Most Commented Feed
..Latest Headlines.
Obama to Campaign for Coakley
.Ft. Hood Review Exposes Problems
.Bugs in the Global Trading System
.Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt
.U.S. Lead in Science Shrinks
.Obama Unveils Bank Tax Plan
.Paperwork Woes Plague Mortgage Plan
.D.C. Considered Venue for Gitmo Trial
.Swine Flu Death Count Rises
.Man Pleads Guilty to Obama Threat
.More Headlines...Editors' Picks.
previousnext.
Elegy to an Elevated Line ...
'The Last Station': Splendidly on Track ...
Bugs in the Global Trading System ...
Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt ...
Beyond the 'Mad Men' Sound ...
11 Minutes of NFL Action ...
Economists: Muted Growth in '10 ...
The Death of the Slush Pile ...
The CW's Indie Experiment ...
Another 'Slumdog'? ...
Japan Probe Burdens Ruling Party ...
Joyce Carol Oates on Herself ...
Playwright in Greasepaint ...
A Financial Plan for the Newly Rehired ...
Redeeming Rewards Miles ..Subscriber Content Read Preview
.
Ten Mistakes Men Make Selling Products to Women ..... nullEmail Newsletters and AlertsThe latest news and analysis delivered to your in-box. Check the boxes below to sign up.
WSJ.com Email Features On the Editorial Page Best of the Web Today SubmitThe email address null is already associated with another account. Please enter a different email address:
Enter Your Email
Sign UpSIGN UP New! To sign up for Keyword or Symbol Alerts click here.To view or change all of your email settings, visit the Email Setup Center..Thank you !
You will receive in your inbox.
To view or change all of your email settings, visit the Email Setup Center.nullEmail Newsletters and AlertsThe latest news and analysis delivered to your in-box. Check the boxes below to sign up.
WSJ.com Email Features On the Editorial Page Best of the Web Today SubmitThe email address null is already associated with another account. Please enter a different email address:
Enter Your Email
Sign UpSIGN UP Manage Email Preferences.Thank you !
You will receive in your inbox.
Manage Email PreferencesVideo .previous next Why Haiti Is So Vulnerable 4:35 . An Obama-GOP Entente on Terror 3:18 . Democratic Departures 4:57 ...Editors' Picks.previousnext.Elegy to an Elevated Line ...'The Last Station': Splendidly on Track ...Bugs in the Global Trading System ...Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt ...Beyond the 'Mad Men' Sound ...11 Minutes of NFL Action ...Economists: Muted Growth in '10 ...The Death of the Slush Pile ...The CW's Indie Experiment ...Another 'Slumdog'? ...Japan Probe Burdens Ruling Party ...Joyce Carol Oates on Herself ...Playwright in Greasepaint ...A Financial Plan for the Newly Rehired ...Redeeming Rewards Miles ..Subscriber Content Read Preview
.Ten Mistakes Men Make Selling Products to Women .....Journal Communityclose window..Hello .Your question to the Journal Community Your comments on articles will show your real name and not a username.Why?
Why use your real name? The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided.
Please enter your first and last nameFirst name: Last name: . Create a Journal Community profile to avoid this message in the future. (As a member you agree to use your real name when participating in the Journal Community)
.PostCancel.Privacy PolicyCommunity Rules..Notice: .Your participation access with Journal Community has been disabled due to violation of Journal Community Guidelines.
If you feel you have reached this status change in error, please contact TBD@wsj.com
back to top
WSJ.com Account:
My AccountSubscriber Billing InfoCreate an Account:
Register for FreeSubscribe NowHelp & Information Center:
HelpCustomer ServiceContact UsNew on WSJ.comTour the new JournalAbout:
News LicensingAdvertisingAdvertise LocallyConferencesAbout Dow JonesPrivacy Policy - UpdatedSubscriber Agreement & Terms of Use - UpdatedCopyright PolicyJobs at WSJ.comFuture Leadership Program
WSJ.com:
Site MapHomeWorldU.S.BusinessMarketsMarket DataTechPersonal FinanceLife & StyleOpinionAutosCareersReal EstateSmall BusinessCorrectionsTools & Formats:
Today's PaperVideo CenterGraphicsColumnsBlogsTopicsGuidesAlertsNewslettersMobilePodcastsRSS FeedsJournal Community
- Message Center
WSJ on TwitterWSJ on FacebookMy Journal
Digital Network
WSJ.comMarketwatch.comBarrons.comSmartMoney.comAllThingsD.comFINS.comFiLife.comBigCharts.comVirtual Stock ExchangeWSJ U.S. EditionWSJ Asia EditionWSJ Europe EditionWSJ India PageForeign language editions:WSJ ChineseWSJ JapaneseWSJ PortugueseWSJ Spanish ACAP Enabled
Copyright ©2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Save to ↓ More.
Save This ↓ More.
Saved ↓ More.
.
Please log in or register for free to use Save This.
Log InRegister.What is Save This?Save to+ New CollectionGo to Save & Share »Name your new Collection and click save.
SaveCancel.Go to Save & Share »Go to Save & Share ».Journal Communityclose window ..Hello, .Your comments on articles will show your real name and not a username.Why?
Why use your real name? The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided.
Create a Journal Community profile to avoid this message in the future. (As a member you agree to use your real name when participating in the Journal Community)
.PostCancel.Privacy PolicyCommunity Rules..This feature requires membership in the Journal Community.
Become a member to get the most from your Wall Street Journal experience. It's free and easy to join.
As a member, you agree to use your full name when participating.
BECOME A MEMBER JOIN LATER .Privacy PolicyCommunity Rules..
FD HIDDEN DIV
The first thing I learned in journalism is that every story has a name. At WEEI News Radio in Boston, the editor would label each story with one word, called a "slug," and assign a writer to write it for air. This week's devastating earthquake would be slugged "Haiti." A story about a gruesome murder might be "Nightmare."
We're at the first anniversary of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, and the slug, the word that captures its essence, is "Disconnect."
This is, still, a surprising word to use about the canny operatives who so perfectly judged the public mood in 2008. But they haven't connected since.
There is a disconnect, a detachment, a distance between the president's preoccupations and the concerns of the people. There's a disconnect between his policy proposals and the people's sense, as expressed in polls, of what the immediate problems are.
I'm not referring to what is being called the president's rhetorical disconnect. In this criticism, he is not emotional enough when he speaks, he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve, he is aloof, like a lab technician observing the movements within a petri dish called America. It may be true that this doesn't help him, but so what? In a successful presidency, his cool demeanor would be called an interesting facet, not a problem. And we don't really need presidents to move us, when you think about it. We need them to lead, and in the right direction.
View Full Image
Barbara Kelley
.Nor am I referring to an iconic disconnect. In this criticism, the president refuses to or is unable to act as a paternal figure. "A president is a father," say these critics. "He must comfort us." But, actually, your father is your father. Voters didn't hire Mr. Obama to play the old dad in the MGM movie. In any case he always seemed like the bright older brother, not the father. At the end of the day you, being a grownup, don't need him to be your daddy, do you?
You want a competent chief executive with a deep and shrewd sense of the people. Americans want him to be on the same page as they are. But he's on a different page, and he may in fact be reading a different book. Thus the latest Quinnipiac poll, which puts his approval/disapproval at a descending 45% to 45%. Pure hunch: The approval number is probably slightly high because people don't want to disapprove of their new president—the stakes are so high!—and don't like telling pollsters they disapprove of him.
The real story is that his rhetorical and iconic detachment are harped on because they reflect a deeper disconnect, the truly problematic one, and that is over policy. It doesn't really matter how he sounds. It matters, in a time of crisis, what he does. That's where the lack of connection comes in.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
Click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.The people are here, and he is there. The popularity of his health-care plan is very low, at 35% support. Someone on television the other day noted it is as low as George Bush's popularity ratings in 2008.
Yet—and this is the key part—the president does not seem to see or hear. He does not respond. He is not supple, able to hear reservations and see opposition and change tack. He has a grim determination to bull this thing through. He negotiates each day with Congress, not with the people. But the people hate Congress! Has he not noticed?
The people have come alive on the issue of spending—it's too high, it threatens us! He spends more. Everywhere I go, I hear talk of "hidden taxes" and a certainty that state and federal levies will go up, putting a squeeze on a middle and upper-middle classes that have been squeezed like oranges and are beginning to see themselves as tired old rinds. Mr. Obama seems at best disconnected from this anxiety.
The disconnect harms him politically, but more important it suggests a deepening gulf between the people and their government, which only adds to growling, chafing national discontent. It also put the president in the position, only one year in, only 12 months into a brand-new glistening presidency, of seeming like the same old same old. There's something tired in all this disconnect, something old-fashioned, something sclerotic and 1970's about it.
And of course the public is reacting. All politicians are canaries in coal mines, they're always the first to feel the political atmosphere. It was significant when the Democrats lost the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey two months ago. It is significant that a handful of House and Senate Democrats have decided not to run this year. And it is deeply significant that a Republican state senator in Massachusetts, Scott Brown, may topple the Democratic nominee to fill Ted Kennedy's former seat, Martha Coakley. In a way, the Republicans have already won—it's a real race, it's close, and in "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"!
Mr. Brown's whole story right now is not about disconnect but connect. Massachusetts has an 8.8% unemployment rate, and graduates of the commonwealth's great universities can't find work. An old Boston Republican hand said of the race, "It's 100% about policies—health care, taxes, what's the plan on the economy?" Mr. Brown charges that Ms. Coakley's support for cap and trade and health care will amount to $2 trillion in taxes in the next five years.
Ms. Coakley has the advantage—Massachusetts is the heart of blue-state America—but in a way her advantage is her curse. Because she is the candidate of a party that for 40 years has been used to winning, reigning and winning again, she looks like the same old same old, a standard old-line liberal, the frontwoman for a machine, a yes woman for the Obama-Pelosi era.
It is interesting that Ms. Coakley, too, has been told by pundits the past week that her problem is that she's not emotional enough. She should show passion and fire! She should cry like Hillary!
This comes not only from pundits but normal people, and if you contemplate the meaning it is, weirdly: You're not good enough at manipulating us! We want more theatrics!
Both national parties are trying to pour in money and resources, but the most obnoxious intrusion must have been the fund-raising letter this week from New York's Sen. Charles Schumer, who tried to rouse the troops by calling Mr. Brown a "far-right teabagger." Does that kind of thing even work anymore? Doesn't name calling put off anyone not already predisposed to agree with it?
In a time when the people of Massachusetts have real concerns about their ability to make a living, stuff like the Schumer letter is just more evidence of a party's disconnect.
Politics is about policy. It's not about who's emotional and who cries or makes you cry. It's not about big political parties and the victories they need in order to rule. It's not about going on some ideological toot, which is what the health-care bill is, hoping the people will someday see and appreciate your higher wisdom.
In a way, Mr. Obama's disconnection is a sign of the times. We are living in the age of breakup, with so many of the ties that held us together loosening and fraying. If the president wants to lead toward something better, he should try listening. If you can't connect through the words you speak, at least you can do it through your ability to hear.
StumbleUpon
Viadeo
Orkut
Yahoo! Buzz
Fark
del.icio.us
MySpace
.
Add a CommentAll comments will display your real name.
Journal Community..Want to participate in the discussion?
Register for Free
.Or log in or become a subscriber now for complete Journal access.
Track Replies to my comment
Go to Comments tab..ClearPost...Back To ...
Back To..MSN Money Homepage.MSN Money Investing...
Recent Columns.Noonan: Slug the Obama Story 'Disconnect'
.Noonan: The Risk of Catastrophic Victory
.Noonan: Look Ahead With Stoicism—and Optimism
..
.Declarations.
Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal's Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com.
She is the author of eight books on American politics and culture. The most recent, "Patriotic Grace," was published in October 2008. Her first book, the bestseller "What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era," was published in 1990.
She was a special assistant to the president in the White House of Ronald Reagan. Before that she was a producer at CBS News in New York. In 1978 and 1979 she was an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.
.Video .
previous next Why Haiti Is So Vulnerable
4:35 . An Obama-GOP Entente on Terror
3:18 . Democratic Departures
4:57 ...More in Opinion.
Strassel: The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing
.Dorothy Rabinowitz: Martha Coakley's Convictions
.D.C. Witness Protection Program
.Midnight Masquerade
.Oregon at the Tax Crossroad
...Most Popular.ReadEmailedVideoCommented.1.Opinion: Dorothy Rabinowitz: Martha Coakley's Convictions .Subscriber Content Read Preview
2.Verizon, AT&T Cut Wireless Prices .3.Opinion: Noonan: Slug the Obama Story 'Disconnect' .4.11 Minutes of NFL Action .5.Opinion: Strassel: The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing .1.11 Minutes of NFL Action .2.Opinion: Dorothy Rabinowitz: Martha Coakley's Convictions .3.Opinion: Noonan: Slug the Obama Story 'Disconnect' .4.Opinion: Oregon at the Tax Crossroad .Subscriber Content Read Preview
5.Verizon, AT&T Cut Wireless Prices .
1.Haiti Survivors Desperately Wait for Aid.2.Haiti Copes with Rising Death Toll.3.Haiti Quake Survivors Speak.4.How Israel Screens for Terrorists.5.AM Report: Banks Pay $145B Bonuses.
1. Obama Unveils $90 Billion Bank Tax With Sharp Words489 comments .2. Opinion: The President's Bait-and-Switch Operation450 comments .3. Unions Cut Special Deal on Health Taxes357 comments .4. Opinion: Martha Coakley's Convictions275 comments .5. Haiti Despairs as Quake Deaths Mount210 comments .
Most Read Articles Feed
Most Emailed Feed
Most Popular Video Feed
Most Commented Feed
..Latest Headlines.
Obama to Campaign for Coakley
.Ft. Hood Review Exposes Problems
.Bugs in the Global Trading System
.Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt
.U.S. Lead in Science Shrinks
.Obama Unveils Bank Tax Plan
.Paperwork Woes Plague Mortgage Plan
.D.C. Considered Venue for Gitmo Trial
.Swine Flu Death Count Rises
.Man Pleads Guilty to Obama Threat
.More Headlines...Editors' Picks.
previousnext.
Elegy to an Elevated Line ...
'The Last Station': Splendidly on Track ...
Bugs in the Global Trading System ...
Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt ...
Beyond the 'Mad Men' Sound ...
11 Minutes of NFL Action ...
Economists: Muted Growth in '10 ...
The Death of the Slush Pile ...
The CW's Indie Experiment ...
Another 'Slumdog'? ...
Japan Probe Burdens Ruling Party ...
Joyce Carol Oates on Herself ...
Playwright in Greasepaint ...
A Financial Plan for the Newly Rehired ...
Redeeming Rewards Miles ..Subscriber Content Read Preview
.
Ten Mistakes Men Make Selling Products to Women ..... nullEmail Newsletters and AlertsThe latest news and analysis delivered to your in-box. Check the boxes below to sign up.
WSJ.com Email Features On the Editorial Page Best of the Web Today SubmitThe email address null is already associated with another account. Please enter a different email address:
Enter Your Email
Sign UpSIGN UP New! To sign up for Keyword or Symbol Alerts click here.To view or change all of your email settings, visit the Email Setup Center..Thank you !
You will receive in your inbox.
To view or change all of your email settings, visit the Email Setup Center.nullEmail Newsletters and AlertsThe latest news and analysis delivered to your in-box. Check the boxes below to sign up.
WSJ.com Email Features On the Editorial Page Best of the Web Today SubmitThe email address null is already associated with another account. Please enter a different email address:
Enter Your Email
Sign UpSIGN UP Manage Email Preferences.Thank you !
You will receive in your inbox.
Manage Email PreferencesVideo .previous next Why Haiti Is So Vulnerable 4:35 . An Obama-GOP Entente on Terror 3:18 . Democratic Departures 4:57 ...Editors' Picks.previousnext.Elegy to an Elevated Line ...'The Last Station': Splendidly on Track ...Bugs in the Global Trading System ...Consumer Protection Agency in Doubt ...Beyond the 'Mad Men' Sound ...11 Minutes of NFL Action ...Economists: Muted Growth in '10 ...The Death of the Slush Pile ...The CW's Indie Experiment ...Another 'Slumdog'? ...Japan Probe Burdens Ruling Party ...Joyce Carol Oates on Herself ...Playwright in Greasepaint ...A Financial Plan for the Newly Rehired ...Redeeming Rewards Miles ..Subscriber Content Read Preview
.Ten Mistakes Men Make Selling Products to Women .....Journal Communityclose window..Hello .Your question to the Journal Community Your comments on articles will show your real name and not a username.Why?
Why use your real name? The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided.
Please enter your first and last nameFirst name: Last name: . Create a Journal Community profile to avoid this message in the future. (As a member you agree to use your real name when participating in the Journal Community)
.PostCancel.Privacy PolicyCommunity Rules..Notice: .Your participation access with Journal Community has been disabled due to violation of Journal Community Guidelines.
If you feel you have reached this status change in error, please contact TBD@wsj.com
back to top
WSJ.com Account:
My AccountSubscriber Billing InfoCreate an Account:
Register for FreeSubscribe NowHelp & Information Center:
HelpCustomer ServiceContact UsNew on WSJ.comTour the new JournalAbout:
News LicensingAdvertisingAdvertise LocallyConferencesAbout Dow JonesPrivacy Policy - UpdatedSubscriber Agreement & Terms of Use - UpdatedCopyright PolicyJobs at WSJ.comFuture Leadership Program
WSJ.com:
Site MapHomeWorldU.S.BusinessMarketsMarket DataTechPersonal FinanceLife & StyleOpinionAutosCareersReal EstateSmall BusinessCorrectionsTools & Formats:
Today's PaperVideo CenterGraphicsColumnsBlogsTopicsGuidesAlertsNewslettersMobilePodcastsRSS FeedsJournal Community
- Message Center
WSJ on TwitterWSJ on FacebookMy Journal
Digital Network
WSJ.comMarketwatch.comBarrons.comSmartMoney.comAllThingsD.comFINS.comFiLife.comBigCharts.comVirtual Stock ExchangeWSJ U.S. EditionWSJ Asia EditionWSJ Europe EditionWSJ India PageForeign language editions:WSJ ChineseWSJ JapaneseWSJ PortugueseWSJ Spanish ACAP Enabled
Copyright ©2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Save to ↓ More.
Save This ↓ More.
Saved ↓ More.
.
Please log in or register for free to use Save This.
Log InRegister.What is Save This?Save to+ New CollectionGo to Save & Share »Name your new Collection and click save.
SaveCancel.Go to Save & Share »Go to Save & Share ».Journal Communityclose window ..Hello, .Your comments on articles will show your real name and not a username.Why?
Why use your real name? The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided.
Create a Journal Community profile to avoid this message in the future. (As a member you agree to use your real name when participating in the Journal Community)
.PostCancel.Privacy PolicyCommunity Rules..This feature requires membership in the Journal Community.
Become a member to get the most from your Wall Street Journal experience. It's free and easy to join.
As a member, you agree to use your full name when participating.
BECOME A MEMBER JOIN LATER .Privacy PolicyCommunity Rules..
FD HIDDEN DIV
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
This Government can't get it right
U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
comments
(329)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By PETER S. GOODMAN
Published: January 1, 2010
The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic
Slow Progress on Loan Modifications
Related
U.S. Will Push Mortgage Firms to Reduce More Loan Payments (November 29, 2009)
Times Topics: Obama Housing PlanReaders' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (329) »
Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.
As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.
Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.
“The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”
Mr. Katari contends that banks have been using temporary loan modifications under the Obama plan as justification to avoid an honest accounting of the mortgage losses still on their books. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.
“Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”
The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.
But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out.
In late November, with scant public disclosure, the Treasury Department started the Foreclosure Alternatives Program, through which it will encourage arrangements that result in distressed borrowers surrendering their homes. The program will pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow homeowners to sell properties for less than they owe on their mortgages — short sales, in real estate parlance. The government will also pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow delinquent borrowers to hand over their deeds in lieu of foreclosing.
Ms. Reilly, the Treasury spokeswoman, said the foreclosure alternatives program did not represent a new policy. “We have said from the start that modifications will not be the solution for all homeowners and will not solve the housing crisis alone,” Ms. Reilly said by e-mail. “This has always been a multi-pronged effort.”
Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.
In 2008, more than 1.7 million homes were “lost” through foreclosures, short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. Last year, more than two million homes were lost, and Economy.com expects that this year’s number will swell to 2.4 million.
“I don’t think there’s any way for Treasury to tweak their plan, or to cajole, pressure or entice servicers to do more to address the crisis,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass.”
Mr. Zandi argues that the administration needs a new initiative that attacks a primary source of foreclosures: the roughly 15 million American homeowners who are underwater, meaning they owe the bank more than their home is worth.
Increasingly, such borrowers are inclined to walk away and accept foreclosure, rather than continuing to make payments on properties in which they own no equity. A paper by researchers at the Amherst Securities Group suggests that being underwater “is a far more important predictor of defaults than unemployment.”
Sign in to Recommend
comments
(329)
Sign In to E-Mail
Single Page
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By PETER S. GOODMAN
Published: January 1, 2010
The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic
Slow Progress on Loan Modifications
Related
U.S. Will Push Mortgage Firms to Reduce More Loan Payments (November 29, 2009)
Times Topics: Obama Housing PlanReaders' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (329) »
Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.
As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.
Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.
“The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”
Mr. Katari contends that banks have been using temporary loan modifications under the Obama plan as justification to avoid an honest accounting of the mortgage losses still on their books. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.
“Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”
The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.
But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out.
In late November, with scant public disclosure, the Treasury Department started the Foreclosure Alternatives Program, through which it will encourage arrangements that result in distressed borrowers surrendering their homes. The program will pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow homeowners to sell properties for less than they owe on their mortgages — short sales, in real estate parlance. The government will also pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow delinquent borrowers to hand over their deeds in lieu of foreclosing.
Ms. Reilly, the Treasury spokeswoman, said the foreclosure alternatives program did not represent a new policy. “We have said from the start that modifications will not be the solution for all homeowners and will not solve the housing crisis alone,” Ms. Reilly said by e-mail. “This has always been a multi-pronged effort.”
Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.
In 2008, more than 1.7 million homes were “lost” through foreclosures, short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. Last year, more than two million homes were lost, and Economy.com expects that this year’s number will swell to 2.4 million.
“I don’t think there’s any way for Treasury to tweak their plan, or to cajole, pressure or entice servicers to do more to address the crisis,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass.”
Mr. Zandi argues that the administration needs a new initiative that attacks a primary source of foreclosures: the roughly 15 million American homeowners who are underwater, meaning they owe the bank more than their home is worth.
Increasingly, such borrowers are inclined to walk away and accept foreclosure, rather than continuing to make payments on properties in which they own no equity. A paper by researchers at the Amherst Securities Group suggests that being underwater “is a far more important predictor of defaults than unemployment.”
Friday, December 18, 2009
Our current Administration and Congress the worst in History
Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.
There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.
Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting, bipartisan consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new kind of politics—free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin—was a mirage. He has cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.
Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a triumphant sense about war."
.This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts"); and John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed").
This kind of attack gives Mr. Obama's words a slippery quality. For example, he voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it during the campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called it "flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it "hastily."
Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If it was "flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?
Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the help" of Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a Dec. 9 letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which went to small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush administration lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?
.Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the problem," he insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their part" and pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from putting us in this kind of pickle again."
But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005 filibuster of a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot of shame" that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory system" that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the first place.
The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also claimed his $787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the economy growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he said there would be if nothing were done.
And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent. Why was $787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly got the job done?
Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will actually bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He said his reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and businesses" (though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he claimed 30 million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15 million of them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private insurance).
Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a pretty darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed where "seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have failed."
But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they are tiring of the president's blame shifting and distortions.
Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview, that he deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American people beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is receiving unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's earned them.
There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.
Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting, bipartisan consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new kind of politics—free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin—was a mirage. He has cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.
Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a triumphant sense about war."
.This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts"); and John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed").
This kind of attack gives Mr. Obama's words a slippery quality. For example, he voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it during the campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called it "flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it "hastily."
Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If it was "flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?
Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the help" of Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a Dec. 9 letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which went to small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush administration lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?
.Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the problem," he insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their part" and pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from putting us in this kind of pickle again."
But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005 filibuster of a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot of shame" that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory system" that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the first place.
The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also claimed his $787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the economy growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he said there would be if nothing were done.
And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent. Why was $787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly got the job done?
Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will actually bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He said his reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and businesses" (though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he claimed 30 million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15 million of them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private insurance).
Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a pretty darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed where "seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have failed."
But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they are tiring of the president's blame shifting and distortions.
Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview, that he deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American people beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is receiving unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's earned them.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
If not you who?
1. Our forefathers acknowledged our creator God in the Declaration of Independence, but we are forbidden to acknowledge him in our public schools.
2.Our entertainment industry glamorizes sexuality yet is held unaccountable despite the rising rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies.
3. Moral relativism continues to reign in our public schools even though a nation reaps the results of such relativism with unprecedented greed on Wall Street.
4. 39.8 million people live below the poverty line in America -- over 14.1 million of them are children -- yet close to 100 billion pounds of food is wasted each year.
5. There have been over 50 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land with the vast majority being for no other reason than simple birth control.
6. Darwinism is taught as fact while Creationism is excluded from the American classroom.
7. More Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the entire history of Christianity.
8. A cross erected in 1934, at a WWI memorial site in the Mojave Desert, is currently at the center of a debate over whether or not its presence violates the Constitution.
9. The Ten Commandments have been taken from our court houses.
10. The community of faith is, in large measure, quiet and complacent.
It has been said that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Ultimately we will be judged not by our titles or bank accounts but by something far more sacred. Future generations hang in the balance. Whether we speak out or remain silent, act or step back will create the inheritance we bequeath
2.Our entertainment industry glamorizes sexuality yet is held unaccountable despite the rising rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies.
3. Moral relativism continues to reign in our public schools even though a nation reaps the results of such relativism with unprecedented greed on Wall Street.
4. 39.8 million people live below the poverty line in America -- over 14.1 million of them are children -- yet close to 100 billion pounds of food is wasted each year.
5. There have been over 50 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land with the vast majority being for no other reason than simple birth control.
6. Darwinism is taught as fact while Creationism is excluded from the American classroom.
7. More Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the entire history of Christianity.
8. A cross erected in 1934, at a WWI memorial site in the Mojave Desert, is currently at the center of a debate over whether or not its presence violates the Constitution.
9. The Ten Commandments have been taken from our court houses.
10. The community of faith is, in large measure, quiet and complacent.
It has been said that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Ultimately we will be judged not by our titles or bank accounts but by something far more sacred. Future generations hang in the balance. Whether we speak out or remain silent, act or step back will create the inheritance we bequeath
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
New Nixon in the White House
GOP senator says Obama showing Nixonian tendencies
By BEN EVANS (AP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The third-ranking Senate Republican said Wednesday the Obama administration appears to be launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an "enemies list" of people who disagree with the president.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who once worked in President Nixon's administration, warned the White House that such a "street brawl" approach of attacking political opponents "can get you in a lot of trouble."
Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, "I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing."
"It's a mistake for the president of the United States," he said. "Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list."
White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai responded that it's Republicans who "seem to be formulating lists of people and policies to oppose" while the president "is focused on tackling the list of critical priorities that Washington has ignored for too long."
The president "remains committed to working with Republicans to include their best ideas, even if he doesn't get their support," Tseggai said.
Alexander's criticism, which echoed weekend remarks from Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, comes amid an unusual public feud between Fox News and the White House. Alexander also cited widening disputes between the administration and business groups such as the insurance industry, Wall Street banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Several top administration officials have sharply criticized Fox News in recent days, saying the cable television channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party and shouldn't be viewed as a legitimate news organization.
The president bypassed "Fox News Sunday" during a string of appearances on news shows recently, and Fox News officials have said the White House threatened a boycott. The White House has denied that and says it will book administration officials on Fox News shows.
The administration also has taken on the Chamber of Commerce, for example, suggesting the group is out of touch with the business community on health care, climate change and other issues.
By BEN EVANS (AP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The third-ranking Senate Republican said Wednesday the Obama administration appears to be launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an "enemies list" of people who disagree with the president.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who once worked in President Nixon's administration, warned the White House that such a "street brawl" approach of attacking political opponents "can get you in a lot of trouble."
Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, "I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing."
"It's a mistake for the president of the United States," he said. "Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list."
White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai responded that it's Republicans who "seem to be formulating lists of people and policies to oppose" while the president "is focused on tackling the list of critical priorities that Washington has ignored for too long."
The president "remains committed to working with Republicans to include their best ideas, even if he doesn't get their support," Tseggai said.
Alexander's criticism, which echoed weekend remarks from Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, comes amid an unusual public feud between Fox News and the White House. Alexander also cited widening disputes between the administration and business groups such as the insurance industry, Wall Street banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Several top administration officials have sharply criticized Fox News in recent days, saying the cable television channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party and shouldn't be viewed as a legitimate news organization.
The president bypassed "Fox News Sunday" during a string of appearances on news shows recently, and Fox News officials have said the White House threatened a boycott. The White House has denied that and says it will book administration officials on Fox News shows.
The administration also has taken on the Chamber of Commerce, for example, suggesting the group is out of touch with the business community on health care, climate change and other issues.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Rest of the story
> HOW IT REALLY
> HAPPENED AND WHO DID
> IT ! ! !
> !
>
>
> It is mandatory that
> each and
> every one of us learn who committed
> the acts that created the
> mess we
> are currently in.
> 1977: Pres. Jimmy
> Carter signs into Law
> the
> Community Reinvestment Act the foundation and
> cornerstone for the
> impending disaster.. The law pressured
> financial institutions to
> extend home loans to those who would otherwise
> not
> qualify.
> The publicized
> premise: Home
> ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden
> communities and
> neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment,
> jobs,
> etc.
> The Results:
> Statistics bear out that it did not
> help.
> How did the
> government get
> so deeply involved in the housing
> market?
> Answer: Bill
> Clinton wanted it that
>
> way.
> 1992: Republican
> representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the
> danger that Fannie and
> Freddie were changing from being agencies of
> the public at large to
> money machines for the principals and the
> stock-holding
> few.
> 1993: Clinton extensively
> rewrote
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning
> the quasi-private
> mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
> monopolies dispensing
> cash and loans to large Democratic voting
> blocks and handing favors,
> jobs and contributions to political
> allies. This potent mix
> led inevitably to corruption and now the
> collapse of Freddie and
> Fannie.
> 1994: Despite
> warnings, Clinton unveiled his
> National
> Home-Ownership Strategy, which broadened the
> CRA in ways congress
> never intended.
> 1995: Congress, about to change
> from
> a Democrat majority to
> Republican. Clinton orders Robert
> Rubin's Treasury Dept
> to
> rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's
> Treasury reworked rules,
> forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime
> and minority loans to
> get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating
> was key to expansion
> or mergers for banks. Loans began to be
> made on the basis of
> race and little else.
> 1997 -
> 1999: Clinton, bypassing
> Republicans in
> Congress,
> enlisted Andrew
> Cuomo,
> then Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev
> elopement, allowing Freddie
> and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in
> a BIG way. Led
> by Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd, congress doubled
> down on the
> risk by easing capital limits and allowing them
> to hold just 2.5% of
> capital to back their investments vs. 10% for
> banks. Since
> they could borrow at lower rates than banks
> their enterprises
> boomed.
> With incentives in
> place,
> banks poured billions in loans into poor
> communities, often "no
> doc", "no income",
> "no assets", requiring no money down,
> no verification of income, no nothing .
> Worse still was the
> cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home
> to out-of
>
> work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384
> politicians got
> big campaign donations from Fannie and
> Freddie. Over $200
> million had been spent on lobbying and
> political activities.
> During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie
> enjoyed a subsidy of as much as
> $182 Billion, most of it going to principals
> and shareholders, not
> poor borrowers as
> claimed.
> Did it work?
> Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
> homeowners but many
> of those loans have gone bad and the minority
> home ownership rates
> are shrinking fast.
> 1999: New Treasury
> Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at
> Fannie and Freddie's
> excesses. Congress held hearings the
> ensuing year but nothing
> was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated
> millions to key
> congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no
> meaningful changes would
> take place. "We manage our political
> risk with the same
> intensity that we manage our credit and
> interest rate risks," Fannie
> CEO Franklin Raines, a
> former Clinton official and current
> Barack
> Obama advisor, bragged to
> investors in
> 1999.
> 2000:
> Secretary
> Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
> Congress seeking an end
> to the "special status".
> Democrats raised a ruckus as did
> Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically
> connected CEO's who knew
> how to reward and punish. "We think
> that the statements
> evidence a contempt for the nation's
> housing and mortgage markets"
> Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.
> It was the last
> chance during the Clinton era for
> reform.
> 2001:
> Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal
> sanity to Fannie and
> Freddie but Democratsblocked any attempt at
> reform;
> especially Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd who now run key
> banking
> committees and were huge beneficiaries of
> campaign contributions
> from the mortgage
> giants.
> 2003: Bush proposes
> what
> the NY Times called "the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the
> housing finance industry since the savings and
> loan crisis a decade
> ago". Even after discovering a
> scheme by Fannie and Freddie to
> overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost
> their bonuses, the
> Democrats killed
> reform.
> 2005: Then Fed
> chairman
> Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We
> are placing the total
> financial system at substantial
> risk". Sen. McCain, with two
> others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill
> and said, "If
> congress does not act, American taxpayers will
> continue to be
> exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac pose to
> the housing market, the overall financial
> system and the economy as
> a
> whole". Sen. Harry
> Reid accused the
> GOP of
> trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie
> and Freddie to carry out
> their mission of expanding home
> ownership" The bill went
> nowhere.
> 2007: By now Fannie
> and
> Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12
> trillion US mortgage
> market. The mortgage giants, whose
> executive suites were
> top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had
> been working with
> Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell
> them to
> investors. As the housing market fell in
> '07, subprime
> mortgage portfolios suffered major
> losses. The crisis was
> on, though it was 15 years in the
> making.
> 2008: McCain has
> repeatedly
> called for reforming the behemoths, and
> Bush urged reform 17
> times. Still the media have repeated
> Democrats' talking points
> about this being a "Republican"
> disaster. A few Republicans
> are complicit
> but Fannie and Freddie were
> created
> by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely
> run by Democrats and
> protected by
> Democrats. That's
> why taxpayers
> are now being asked for $700
> billion!!
> If you doubt any of this,
> just
> click the links below and listen to your
> lawmakers' own words.
> Decide for yourself.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related #
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9j=
>
>
> uJr8CSY4&feature=related #
> Postscript:
> ACORN is
> one of the principlal beneficiaries of Fannie/
> Freddie's slush
> funds. They are currently under
> indictment or investigation in
> many states. Barack Obama served as their
> legal counsel,
> defending their activities for several
> years. Last year the
> democratic congress gave ACORN $500 million and
> attempted to sneak
> in $20 BILLION (Yes BILLION) into the first
> version of the bailout.
> That's why Republicans voted
> no.
>
> HAPPENED AND WHO DID
> IT ! ! !
> !
>
>
> It is mandatory that
> each and
> every one of us learn who committed
> the acts that created the
> mess we
> are currently in.
> 1977: Pres. Jimmy
> Carter signs into Law
> the
> Community Reinvestment Act the foundation and
> cornerstone for the
> impending disaster.. The law pressured
> financial institutions to
> extend home loans to those who would otherwise
> not
> qualify.
> The publicized
> premise: Home
> ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden
> communities and
> neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment,
> jobs,
> etc.
> The Results:
> Statistics bear out that it did not
> help.
> How did the
> government get
> so deeply involved in the housing
> market?
> Answer: Bill
> Clinton wanted it that
>
> way.
> 1992: Republican
> representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the
> danger that Fannie and
> Freddie were changing from being agencies of
> the public at large to
> money machines for the principals and the
> stock-holding
> few.
> 1993: Clinton extensively
> rewrote
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning
> the quasi-private
> mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
> monopolies dispensing
> cash and loans to large Democratic voting
> blocks and handing favors,
> jobs and contributions to political
> allies. This potent mix
> led inevitably to corruption and now the
> collapse of Freddie and
> Fannie.
> 1994: Despite
> warnings, Clinton unveiled his
> National
> Home-Ownership Strategy, which broadened the
> CRA in ways congress
> never intended.
> 1995: Congress, about to change
> from
> a Democrat majority to
> Republican. Clinton orders Robert
> Rubin's Treasury Dept
> to
> rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's
> Treasury reworked rules,
> forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime
> and minority loans to
> get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating
> was key to expansion
> or mergers for banks. Loans began to be
> made on the basis of
> race and little else.
> 1997 -
> 1999: Clinton, bypassing
> Republicans in
> Congress,
> enlisted Andrew
> Cuomo,
> then Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev
> elopement, allowing Freddie
> and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in
> a BIG way. Led
> by Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd, congress doubled
> down on the
> risk by easing capital limits and allowing them
> to hold just 2.5% of
> capital to back their investments vs. 10% for
> banks. Since
> they could borrow at lower rates than banks
> their enterprises
> boomed.
> With incentives in
> place,
> banks poured billions in loans into poor
> communities, often "no
> doc", "no income",
> "no assets", requiring no money down,
> no verification of income, no nothing .
> Worse still was the
> cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home
> to out-of
>
> work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384
> politicians got
> big campaign donations from Fannie and
> Freddie. Over $200
> million had been spent on lobbying and
> political activities.
> During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie
> enjoyed a subsidy of as much as
> $182 Billion, most of it going to principals
> and shareholders, not
> poor borrowers as
> claimed.
> Did it work?
> Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new
> homeowners but many
> of those loans have gone bad and the minority
> home ownership rates
> are shrinking fast.
> 1999: New Treasury
> Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at
> Fannie and Freddie's
> excesses. Congress held hearings the
> ensuing year but nothing
> was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated
> millions to key
> congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no
> meaningful changes would
> take place. "We manage our political
> risk with the same
> intensity that we manage our credit and
> interest rate risks," Fannie
> CEO Franklin Raines, a
> former Clinton official and current
> Barack
> Obama advisor, bragged to
> investors in
> 1999.
> 2000:
> Secretary
> Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to
> Congress seeking an end
> to the "special status".
> Democrats raised a ruckus as did
> Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically
> connected CEO's who knew
> how to reward and punish. "We think
> that the statements
> evidence a contempt for the nation's
> housing and mortgage markets"
> Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.
> It was the last
> chance during the Clinton era for
> reform.
> 2001:
> Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal
> sanity to Fannie and
> Freddie but Democratsblocked any attempt at
> reform;
> especially Rep. Barney Frank and
> Sen. Chris
> Dodd who now run key
> banking
> committees and were huge beneficiaries of
> campaign contributions
> from the mortgage
> giants.
> 2003: Bush proposes
> what
> the NY Times called "the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the
> housing finance industry since the savings and
> loan crisis a decade
> ago". Even after discovering a
> scheme by Fannie and Freddie to
> overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost
> their bonuses, the
> Democrats killed
> reform.
> 2005: Then Fed
> chairman
> Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We
> are placing the total
> financial system at substantial
> risk". Sen. McCain, with two
> others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill
> and said, "If
> congress does not act, American taxpayers will
> continue to be
> exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac pose to
> the housing market, the overall financial
> system and the economy as
> a
> whole". Sen. Harry
> Reid accused the
> GOP of
> trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie
> and Freddie to carry out
> their mission of expanding home
> ownership" The bill went
> nowhere.
> 2007: By now Fannie
> and
> Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12
> trillion US mortgage
> market. The mortgage giants, whose
> executive suites were
> top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had
> been working with
> Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell
> them to
> investors. As the housing market fell in
> '07, subprime
> mortgage portfolios suffered major
> losses. The crisis was
> on, though it was 15 years in the
> making.
> 2008: McCain has
> repeatedly
> called for reforming the behemoths, and
> Bush urged reform 17
> times. Still the media have repeated
> Democrats' talking points
> about this being a "Republican"
> disaster. A few Republicans
> are complicit
> but Fannie and Freddie were
> created
> by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely
> run by Democrats and
> protected by
> Democrats. That's
> why taxpayers
> are now being asked for $700
> billion!!
> If you doubt any of this,
> just
> click the links below and listen to your
> lawmakers' own words.
> Decide for yourself.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related #
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9j=
>
>
> uJr8CSY4&feature=related #
> Postscript:
> ACORN is
> one of the principlal beneficiaries of Fannie/
> Freddie's slush
> funds. They are currently under
> indictment or investigation in
> many states. Barack Obama served as their
> legal counsel,
> defending their activities for several
> years. Last year the
> democratic congress gave ACORN $500 million and
> attempted to sneak
> in $20 BILLION (Yes BILLION) into the first
> version of the bailout.
> That's why Republicans voted
> no.
>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)