At U.N., Obama faces problems on larger stage

By Laura MacInnis WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama, grappling with a poor economy and slumping approval ratings, faces problems on a larger stage this week at the United Nations, with challenges to his …

Publish Date: 09/19/2011 8:35

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/at-un-obama-faces-prob_n_969141.html

RealClearPolitics – Obama: Failing the Lincoln Test

Obama: Failing the Lincoln Test. By Michael Gerson. WASHINGTON — During his recent speech to Congress, President Obama gave Republicans this ideological glove to the face: "We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the …

Publish Date: 09/13/2011 3:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/13/obama_failing_the_lincoln_test_111312.html

What President Obama Inherited

Obama inherited a deep recession and financial crisis resulting from problems that had been building for years and those responsible include:

Borrowers and lenders on Wall Street and Main Street.
The Federal Reserve.
Regulatory agencies.
Ratings agencies.
Different presidents and Congress.

What Obama Will Bequeath?

Huge deficits.
Massive interest payments which could ultimately destroy the Republic.
Higher inflation.
A weaker dollar.
Pressure for higher taxes.

What Exactly Did Obama Enact?

An $825 billion stimulus package.
The Public-Private Investment Partnership to buy toxic assets from the banks.
Cash for clunkers.
The home-buyers credit.
The auto bailouts.
Five versions of foreclosure relief.
Numerous lifelines to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Financial regulation and health-care reform.
Energy subsidies.

Which Succeeded?

The auto bailouts?!

Even though a rapid private bankruptcy was preferable and GM and Chrysler are not yet de-nationalized successes, we can I believe, mark this up as a success.

Which Failed?

The stimulus bill cost an astounding $280,000 per job which is over five times median pay, as reckoned by the administration’s inflated estimates of jobs "created or saved", and much more using more realistic estimates.
Cash for clunkers cost $3 billion, just to shift car sales forward a few months.
The Public-Private Investment Partnership, despite cheap federal loans, generated 3% of the $1 trillion claimed, and toxic assets are still hindering some financial institutions.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform law institutionalized "too big to fail" amid greater concentration of banking assets and mortgages in Fannie and Freddie.
The foreclosure relief program permanently modified only a small percentage of the four million mortgages the president promised.

The economic records set on Mr. Obama’s watch are historic and no corporate CEO could survive such a clear history of failure.

Under The Obama Administration Watch:

The US experienced the first downgrade of sovereign U.S. debt in American history.
Relative to GDP, it now has the highest federal spending in U.S. history with the exception of the peak years of World War II
The highest federal debt since just after World War II.
The fraction of the population working is the lowest since 1983 and long-term unemployment is by far the highest since the Great Depression.
Job growth during the first two years of recovery after a severe recession is the slowest in postwar history.
Home-ownership rate is the lowest since 1965 and foreclosures are at a post-Depression high.
The share of Americans paying income taxes is the lowest in the modern era, while dependency on government is the highest in U.S. history.

Can Or Will Obama Recover From The Catastrophes?

Based on his present ratings in the polls and the fact that the economy has little or no chance of improving before the elections, one would have to say, "No he will not recover!".

And to make a comeback even less likely is the likelihood that the Obama administration will try to deliver more of the same things that failed.

Just fourteen years ago Obama was an active member of the New Party (read Communist) and he didn’t quit; it got shut down by the courts. Meaning that there is no reasonable chance that he will switch to anything like a free market economy, soon or ever!

Related posts:

1. More Than Eighty Reasons Why Obama Shouldn’t Be Reelected!
2. Will Youths Blacks And Hispanics Desert Obama?
3. Tarp And Its Tentacles Could End Up Costing $23.7 Trillion

FCC Official: Internet Freedom Threatened | Vision to America

visiontoamerica.org12/22/11

The United States is unprepared for an international fight that's brewing over whether the Internet will remain free from government regulations or fall increasingly under the control of emerging global powers, Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell warned Monday … When obama told Joe the Plumber that "it's time to spread the wealth around," he didn't mean to just spread it in the U.S. He meant to spread it WORLDWIDE. And that's where the …

Dell's Bottom Line: Obama Assumes Personal Control Of Your Internet

dellsbottomline.blogspot.com11/10/11

What the above report fails to mention is the fact that President Obama made a personal decision to hand control of the Internet to the FCC, which he controls by way of political appointments, and a matter that is of very serious …

Does The Obama Administration Now Want Companies Such As Apple, Microsoft and Google Under Its Control?!

Several members of Congress who claim to be concerned about the poor quality of cyber security at government and critical technology web sites, are now proposing that the Department of Homeland Security should have the power to force private networks to secure themselves more effectively.

A number of cyber security experts have stated however that the broadly worded bill that has been referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security could also impact many ordinary tech firms that merely play a role in infrastructure.

And Michael Gregg, chief operating officer of the cyber security firm Superior Solutions is on record as saying, “If the bill becomes law, even firms like Apple, Microsoft and Google could come under DHS’s thumb .They are stepping forward to regulate a potentially huge amount of the Internet. It’s up to DHS to decide who they want to fall under this umbrella and I have little doubt that large tech companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Cisco could all find themselves being heavily regulated, and given the DHS’ record on security, they should have reservations about granting the agency such sweeping oversight”.

What Would The Bill Do?

The Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 (HR 6423, proposed by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss.) would empower DHS to set security standards for the networks at various private facilities and would authorize penalties against any web sites it deemed to have lax security.

At the time of writing, almost every headline is now reflecting the public’s anger at pat-downs and scanners and an amazing 70% of Americans that were just polled said that they are now in favor of Israeli style profiling and quick fire questions, so just imagine having the DHS in charge of cybersecurity!

The bill would create a new department within Homeland Security, called the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, and a new Cybersecurity Compliance Division that would measure and rate how effectively certain private companies respond to network security risks.

But Jeff Bardin, who’s a chief security strategist and a cyber terror expert with XA Systems says, “The bill would most likely also end up regulating utilities and telecoms and a wide array of software firms. Anything that critical infrastructures depend upon, which is pretty much all information security companies, major and minor Internet hubs, the networks, database companies, software companies, etc. could fall under the umbrella of HR 6423, he told FoxNews.com. and it could run the gamut depending upon interpretation”.

An aide for the House Committee on Homeland Security said the bill wasn’t intended to be as broad as industry experts fear it may be and pointed out that there would be medium for voicing concerns, “In those cases where a company wants to challenge its designation, the bill calls for DHS to make a reconsideration process available”.

The committee aide noted that the private sector wouldn’t be included in the panel establishing the rules, “For the private sector regulations, the bill provides for an open regulatory process with notice and comment”.

But Gregg argued that even with the help of the private sector that, “The DHS isn’t in the best position to offer cyber security advice. The real problem is that DHS and other government agencies don’t have a great record of protecting their own critical assets. As recently as 2008, DHS did not have its own cyber crisis plan. Also in 2008, a DHS [internal phone system] was hacked using an attack vector that was at least 10 years old”.

Where Would The Power Come From

The power to regulate private networks comes from the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, which was established in 2003 and who’s goal was to prioritize critical infrastructure, and to protect it from terrorist attacks.

And The Danger?

The bill was originally a public-private relationship based upon cooperation and collaboration, but the intended changes would force compliance.

The real concern lies in the breadth of the new bill, which would mean that any technology company that sold to key infrastructures could potentially be regulated by it, including such companies as Oracle, Symantec, EMC, Cisco, HP, Dell and others.

And the list would be potentially endless!

Related posts:

1. Does Obama Want To Control The Media? Including The Internet?!
2. Is The Internet A Human Right?
3. Are You Addicted To The Internet? Deepak Chopra

Obama Needs Luck To Win In 2012

www.huffingtonpost.com12/26/11

MattMackowiak MUST READ: Smart @GlennThrush piece on the nine numbers Obama will watch in 2012 — http://t.co/gjerVGAz #tcot #RS #2012tweets #GOP · 18 hours ago from web ….. will have a hard time because this will be a referendum on him not the GOP candidate. People will be voting AGAINST Obama not FOR the GOP oh and Independents decide elections and within that group that voted for him (like myself) Obama's approval is 35% Then there is this …

9 numbers Obama will watch in 2012 – Glenn Thrush – POLITICO.com

www.politico.com12/25/11

Obama has only one metric to watch, which is a distillation of all the things mentioned in the article: his approval among Independents. In a polarized election like 2012 Dems will vote Dem and Rep will vote Rep. …

And When He Lost The Independents, He Lost The War!

The Crux Of The Problem

Obama’s democrats took control of the House and the Senate with substantial margins, but America is center right.
For twenty months Democrats had the power to do almost anything they wanted.
They controlled every lever of elective power in Washington but sadly for them they didn’t and don’t control the public’s allegiance.

So How Did The Democrats Lose The War?

The Democrats’ demise is actually simple to explain, they lost the support of the independents.

In 1994 the Republicans got the backing of 14% of independents.
In 2006 the Democrats got the backing of 18%.
But in the latest Gallup survey, Republicans lead among independents by 11%.

You Can’t Win If Only One In Five People Want You!

Since 1984 both the Republicans and the Democrats have had hovered around the mid-30s to 40s in terms of their proportion of the public, whilst Independents have been around the mid 20s.

The GOP’s share declined from 40% in 2002 to 33% in 2008, and independents hovered between 22 and 28%.
So whoever gets those independents wins and reflect the basic center-right contour of American opinion.

The Liberals Need The Center Even More

Since 1992, according to Gallup, ideological opinion has been roughly constant:

Self-described moderates have been right around 40%
Conservatives were always in the high 30s
Liberals were in the high teens to low 20s.

So it should be clear to almost everybody that to try to govern on the strength of only one in five people would be rank foolishness, but Obama and his Czars didn’t seem to grasp this obvious fact for whatever reason.

The Liberal Response

Not having grasped the seemingly obvious, Obama’s advisers and the left wing press are now exhorting him to get even more angry, insistent, and ambitiously liberal.
To be fair to Obama though, I sense that he knows that going further left would be suicide even if the Liberal lemmings would happily jump off of the cliff.

It’s The Public That’s Got It Wrong!

What is almost incomprehensible is that Liberals not only don’t seem to recognize that the country as a whole is seeking a different reality, but they see the majority as just plain wrong on immigration enforcement and the Ground Zero mosque, and they they continue to accuse the American public of bigotry even after it elected an African-American president.

Former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner wrote, “Liberals are expressing deepening alienation from our nation and turning on the American people with a vengeance”.

The Bottom Line

Liberals thought that they thought they had a mandate that was made in heaven in 2008 and they seemingly can’t bear the thought that they deluded themselves and the they’ve gone from triumphalism to a petulant and uncomprehending tantrum in less than two years.

Related posts:

1. Will Youths Blacks And Hispanics Desert Obama?
2. More Than Eighty Reasons Why Obama Shouldn’t Be Reelected!
3. New Poll Says Obama’s Base Is Crumbling

“The Bank Bailouts Have Created More Risk in The System”.

Neil Barofsky, who is the special inspector general for  TARP (The Troubled Asset Relief Program)  states quite clearly in a quarterly report that was released to Congress last Sunday, January 31, 2010 that the problems that led to the last financial crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have actually grown worse.
“Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car”.

And referring to the “Too big to fail approach” he added, “The government’s bailout of financial institutions deemed “too big to fail” has created a risk that the United States could face a worse fiscal meltdown in the future, and the $700 billion financial bailout has encouraged more risk-taking because bank executives, who are still receiving massive bonuses, figure the government will come to the rescue the next time they steer their ships nearly aground”.

The report warns that these supports mean the government has done more than simply support the mortgage market, and in many ways has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor.

“The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away and if we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious underlying concerns, there really is a risk of artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years”.

The report also revealed that, while the Obama administration pledged to spend $75 billion to prevent foreclosures, that only a tiny fraction of it amounting to just over $15 million has been spent so far and figures indicate that under the Making Home Affordable program, only about 66,500 borrowers, or only 7% of those who signed up had completed the process as of December.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said, “The market mentality now seems fixed that the U.S. government will continue to step in and bail out giant financial institutions. The IG’s findings confirm my decision to oppose releasing $350 billion in TARP funds last year and my recent vote to terminate the program altogether”.

And Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who is the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee added, “The SIGTARP’s report is just another reminder of how Congress and the administration have ignored the role that politics and government played in causing the housing crisis and the economic collapse while pursuing other regulatory reforms will not fix the underlying problem”.

Related posts:

1. Will China Cause America’s Next Financial Crisis?
2. More Than Eighty Reasons Why Obama Shouldn’t Be Reelected!
3. Will Youths Blacks And Hispanics Desert Obama?

Barofsky, who is the government’s top bailout watchdog says that the total price tag for federal support stemming from the financial crisis could reach as much as $23.7 trillion in the after factoring in commitments from dozens of programs that were implemented throughout the federal government since 2007, and added that just the financial exposure of TARP and its related programs could reach $3 trillion.

He says that TARP, which started as a $700 billion bailout has expanded way beyond that;

“TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity. Moreover, TARP does not function in a vacuum but is rather part of the broader government efforts to stabilize the financial system”.

In his report, Barofsky also says that the Treasury Department has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that his office believes would bring more transparency and accountability to the execution of the bailout.

In a written response, the Treasury again rejected that call saying, “Although it might be tempting to do so, it is not possible to say that investment of TARP dollars resulted in particular loans, investments or other activities by the recipient”.

The report found that fifteen banks had used funds that were acquired from the FDIC to buy weaker rivals, with the banks saying that “the acquisitions helped preserve banking services to customers”.

Related posts:

1. Ten Banks Win Approval To Buy Back Their Shares From TARP
2. The ‘Loan Modification Program’ Finally Gets Underway.
3. Does Obama’s $8.6 Trillion Deficit Worry You?

Other banks which are said to have met government approval are
JPMorgan, American Express Co., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., BB&T Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., Northern Trust Corp., State Street Corp. and U.S. Bancorp.

The repayments come almost eight months after the Treasury provided nine banks with the first $125 billion from the $700 billion TARP fund.

Amongst banks which didn’t win approval are Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co.

The Treasury announced today, June 9th, that combined with repayments that have already been received from twenty other firms, the government will have gotten back about $70 billion so far, and added that dividend payments on the shares issued to the government under the Capital Purchase Program total about $4.5 billion to date, including $1.8 billion from the ten banks that have now been released.

The treasury statement also noted that, “Proceeds from the TARP repayments will help reduce the federal government’s borrowing and the national debt”. “The repayments also boost the cushion to respond to any future financial instability that might otherwise jeopardize economic recovery”. “Firms buying back the government’s preferred shares also have the right to repurchase warrants the Treasury holds at fair market value”.

Related posts:

1. Ten US Banks Needs A Total Of $75 Billion
2. Tarp And Its Tentacles Could End Up Costing $23.7 Trillion
3. As Stocks Advanced The Number Of Defaulting Homebuyers Rose By 50%

A number of the companies involved offered to buy small bank holding companies last fall, but added the proviso that the purchases would be dependent on their obtaining bank holding company status, and TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds.

Life insurance companies that are bank holding companies are already technically eligible to receive TARP money, and if approved by the Treasury several of them will receive a total of $20 billion.

The companies with their hands out are, Prudential Financial, Genworth Financial, Hartford Financial Services and Lincoln National, and a financial industry source close to the TARP process says that following a review which is still in its preliminary stages, “that some assistance for life insurance companies cannot be ruled out”.

A life policy would more than likely only have to be paid 20 or 30 years down the line, whereas a health insurer might have to start paying out almost immediately.

The Treasury was considering providing TARP funds to life insurance companies under the Bush Administration, but the review was postponed because of the transition to the Obama Administration and the problems in the auto industry.

Related posts:

1. Ten US Banks Needs A Total Of $75 Billion
2. As Stocks Advanced The Number Of Defaulting Homebuyers Rose By 50%
3. Several Banks Are Preparing To Repay Taxpayer Money

NAR's 2012 President Committed to Facing Challenges Ahead …

states.realestaterama.com11/14/11

Owings Mills, MD – November 18, 2011 – (RealEstateRama) — Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) will host a foreclosure prevention workshop in Owings Mills tomorrow, Saturday, November 18, 2011, to help …

Waiting for the Jubilee | Badlands Journal

www.badlandsjournal.com12/2/11

"This could put pressure on banks and lead to a stronger settlement for homeowners," said Lewis Finfer, executive director of Massachusetts Communities Action Network, an organization that works on foreclosure prevention. …

A “foreclosure-prevention” plan that was announced on Feb.18th by President Obama, that was intended to quickly help between seven to nine million home-buyers who are presently facing foreclosure, is now facing many obstacles. Whatever the outcome, it will likely help far fewer buyers than was originally intended, and the help will be a lot slower in coming, with a Treasury source having recently stated that, “the lack of consensus among stakeholders likely means a slower, more limited modification process that reworks mortgages, loan by loan, rather than in bulk”.

The proposed plan, can essentially be divided into two parts.

Part 1

Would allocate $75 billion in funding from ‘TARP’ (Troubled Asset Relief Program), that would be used to cover subsidies and incentive fees for struggling home-buyers, mortgage servicers and investors.

Part 2

Would allow some homeowners to refinance their loans at lower interest rates by means of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The two lenders collectively own or insure about one half of the nation’s $12 trillion in mortgages and pension funds, hedge funds, insurance companies and private investors hold the other half.

New Treasury guidelines that are due to be released today (March 4th) will more than likely suggest safe-harbor provisions for servicers who are presently lobbying Congress to pass a House bill that would give them more protection from investor lawsuits.

The problem facing “servicers’ was neatly summed up by Joseph Suh who is a mortgage securities lawyer in New York, “The servicers really have limited power to make adjustments to mortgages. The investors could suffer. You can’t take private property without due process”.

Another thorny issue is how to prevent the financially stronger home-buyers from stopping their mortgage payments after which they’d then apply for government aid and then likely lock out many truly needy families. A proposed amendment would require applicants to provide some proof of hardship, such as evidence of illness or job loss.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Tuesday (March3rd) when testifying on the administration’s budget proposals, “You have to use a mix of incentive and persuasion to get investors and lenders to modify mortgages for homeowners. And, as a condition for government assistance in our new TARP capital programs, banks are going to have to commit to adopt foreclosure modifications strategies that meet a set of standards we lay out. That will help with persuasion, but you also have to do things that are going to help make it economically, economically compelling for them to do that”.

Related posts:

1. The ‘Loan Modification Program’ Finally Gets Underway.
2. Two New Plans Announced To Help Homebuyers
3. More U.S. Cities Are Bulldozing Abandoned Homes

The report maintains that the Treasury received bank assets worth about $176 billion in exchange for capital purchases of $254 billion under the ‘Troubled Asset Relief Program’ – commonly known as TARP and the oversight committee blamed what it calls TARP’s “one-size-fits-all investment policy” for the shortfall.

“The use of standardized documents probably contributed to Treasury’s ability to obtain speed of execution and wide participation, but it meant Treasury could not address differences in credit quality among various capital infusion recipients”.

Neel Kashkari, who is now in charge of TARP told a ‘Mortgage Bankers Association’ conference in Washington on December 5th, that the government isn’t “looking for a return tomorrow. We are looking to try to stabilize the financial system, get credit flowing again, and over time, we believe that the taxpayers will be protected and have a return on their investment”.

The original designer of TARP, Henry Paulson also went on record as saying, “This is an investment, not an expenditure and there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything”.

But certainly not everybody sees it the way that Kashkari and Paulson do.

Representative Alan Grayson, who is a Florida Democrat on the ‘House Financial Services Committee’ had this to say, “The loss estimate is conservative and it could turn out that those assets in the end are worthless. These are massive handouts to favored institutions to try to make up with taxpayer money the mistakes they made with investor money”.

Representative Scott Garrett who is a New Jersey Republican on the same commission said, “From day one, it’s been apparent that Treasury’s interest leaned more favorably toward that of the bank’s, with taxpayers as simply an afterthought and unfortunately, the actions of the Treasury ultimately resulted in negative, albeit foreseeable by some, consequences for the banks, and questionable benefit for the taxpayer”.

Gregory Miller, who is the chief economist at ‘SunTrust Banks Inc.’ in Atlanta said, “TARP hasn’t succeeded in clearing bad assets from banks’ balance sheets, which would allow the companies to lend money and get the economy going again. It hasn’t cleaned up the asset side of bank balance sheets and it hasn’t helped bank uncertainty about bank balance sheets at all and uncertainty has now overwhelmed economic decision making”.

Well if the above didn’t send a shiver down your spine or cause blood to rush to your head then it might be time to take this on board. TARP, which will be a recipient of a part of the more than $9 trillion that the government just pledged has guaranteed a further $350 billion to banks up to now with another $350 billion to be added over the coming months.

Related posts:

1. Ten US Banks Needs A Total Of $75 Billion
2. Will Life Insurance Companies Get $20 Billion Bailout Money?
3. Foreclosure-Prevention Plan Faces Many Obstacles

One of the main reasons that the bill is in trouble however is that almost every Republican and many Democrats too argue that no money is presently being allocated to foreclosure relief, apart from a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers.

Last October, the government created the ‘Troubled Assets Relief Program’ (TARP) and its mandate was to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of “troubled” assets from banks and other financial institutions in the hope that it would encourage the banks to resume lending at levels similar to those that existed before the economic downturn.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell put forward a proposal on Monday that has attracted many supporters and possibly just as many opposers.

In a nutshell his recommendation is to offer government-backed, low-interest loans which would be fixed at between 4-4.5 % to any credit-worthy borrower and the amendment would require banks to issue these lower fixed-rate mortgages for both for new homes purchases and for the refinancing of mortgages.

Bert Ely, who is the president of ‘Ely and Company’ which is a financial institutions and monetary policy consulting firm said however that, “McConnell’s 4% proposal would allow for several trillion dollars of mortgages to be refinanced and that would overwhelm the mortgage system. It might sound good, conceptually, but it’s simply not feasible and would have a lot of unintended consequences”.

McConnell countered however that the proposal would make an enormous difference to families and added that he would not like to see the remainder of the TARP money being used to decide winners and losers in the financial markets.

“I do, at the risk of being redundant, think that we ought not to start dictating everything they can do in their businesses. That’s not a great way for them to recover; it’s not a great way for them to raise private capital if they’re really not running the business, we are”.

Related posts:

1. U.S. Fixed Mortgage Rates Continue To Drop
2. Two New Plans Announced To Help Homebuyers
3. Are Low Interest Rates The Same As Tax Cuts?