The 10 most feared words, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” - Ronald Reagan
I missed this in my quick perusal of H.R. 1424 yesterday. Had I taken more time, looked closer and realized the greater implications of the following, I would have been even more adamantly against this piece of legislation.
The very important section is as follows:
10 (b) HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE BY AGENCIES.—
11 (1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent that the Fed-
12 eral property manager holds, owns, or controls mort-
13 gages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets
14 secured by residential real estate, including multi-
15 family housing, the Federal property manager shall
16 implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance
17 for homeowners and use its authority to encourage
18 the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and con-
19 sidering net present value to the taxpayer, to take
20 advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program
21 under section 257 of the National Housing Act or
22 other available programs to minimize foreclosures.
23 (2) MODIFICATIONS.—In the case of a residen-
24 tial mortgage loan, modifications made under para-
25 graph (1) may include—
1 (A) reduction in interest rates;
2 (B) reduction of loan principal; and
3 (C) other similar modifications.
This section of 1424 in essence gives the US government the authority to modify the terms of any mortgage over which it has control under H.R. 1424. Since that includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this provision extends to the majority of mortgages in the United States.
This means that if you are unhappy with the terms of your mortgage and it is in a security under the authority of the US government, you can petition the appropriate authority and they can have the holder of your mortgage lower the interest rates, reduce the principle amount owed, change the length of the note, lower the points, or what ever they determine will make you happy.
One can infer that the opposite could also happen. If you are not a constituency of what ever party is in power, if you petition the government in your behalf, it is possible they could use their authority to punish you for not having the correct political leanings. Raising your rates, increase your principle, shorten the length of the note or what ever they wish to convince you to see it their way.
This is a gross violation of both the rights of the property owner and the mortgage holder. If you are holding a note in the sale of property while you have a mortgage covered under this section, while you may be able to secure a reduction in the terms of the mortgage you owe, you may be required to reduce the terms to the individual to whom you are selling the property as well. In effect, reducing the income you receive from the sale of the property.
This is a huge socialization of the mortgage industry that very well may have implications far beyond the $700 Billion bailout of the financial markets. If you think this analysis is overblown, consider that lines 15, 16, and 17 state that “…the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage…”
That is a mandate, not a suggestion, to federal officials to secure the very best situation for the homeowner. There is no mandate to ensure a fair process, to take into consideration the costs, risks or profits of the holder of the mortgage.
And that last part, “use it’s authority to encourage.” As we all know, the federal government doesn’t “encourage” anything. They “mandate, direct, require.” Does the IRS “encourage” you to pay your taxes?
Does the State Department “encourage” you to get a passport if you wish to re-enter this country after you visit a foreign nation? Does the military “encourage” you to serve you full term of enlistment?
While many parts of this bill are legislated to expire at a date certain, and there are provisions to extend the authority set in the bill, there is no sunset provision of the authority given in Section 110. Therefore, without specific legislation by Congress, this authority will extend for as long as the federal government holds interest in any mortgages, either directly or by proxy via an institution in which it holds interest.
No, our representatives have not voted for a bailout of the financial system, they just voted in a far more sinister move to socialism than the original bill rejected by the House on Monday.
We all need to take a very jaundiced look at our Washington legislators and put them and the legislation they consider under the microscope of democracy. The actions they are taking, some with cunning and guile, others by misguided counsel and poor oversight, is taking us in a direction where we will lose the ability to live our lives in freedom.
With freedom comes responsibility. When we accede responsibility to a higher authority, we also give up our freedom.
Download and read the full text of Section 110
Read the full text of H.R. 1424
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Friday, October 03, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
H.R. 1424 remains step toward socialism
Dear Representative Keller,
Thank you for taking the time to listen to your constituency. I’ve written previously about the “bailout” legislation for the financial markets. Specifically, I’ve been decidedly against any such legislation.
I want to reiterate that I remain so. I am a small investor, a postal worker who lives frugally and saves and invests about 20% of my gross income. I have a pretty fair exposure to the markets and have in the past year watched the value of my investments go down considerably.
The negative reaction, some would say temper tantrum, of the markets the past few days has in no way changed my take on the so-called “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.” I remain convinced that government intervention in the private markets is dangerous and ultimately will have negative repercussions in the US economy.
Because of the nature of politics, government cannot intervene without distorting the marketplace to try to gain some political advantage for one party or the other. It’s the nature of the beast.
The current legislation sent over from the Senate remains a piece of legislation that I think if approved will one day will be looked upon as the day the United States took a great leap into socializing the US financial markets and industry as a whole.
Still, I know that the art of politics is compromise. If there is anyway that this bill can be stripped of it’s socialist underpinnings while keeping the legislative changes insuring troubled assets (Sec 103 ), Mark to Market (Sec.132), FASB 157 (Sec.132), and increases in FDIC insurance to $250,000 (Sec.132) it has the makings of a decent bill that addresses the problems that created the stagnation in the financial markets.
I would also like to see repeal of some of the provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that have resulted in a situation where many who truly cannot afford the responsibilities of home ownership are now finding themselves strangled with unaffordable mortgages. The result of which is the sub-prime “meltdown” we are now seeing.
Sec. 124 addresses some changes in the HOPE program, but I have neither the resources nor the expertise in legislative language to cross-reference and discover the implication of these changes.
I am glad to see codified in the legislation that all proceeds from the sale of the purchased assets will be returned to the Treasury for the purpose of reducing the public debt. I can only hope that future administrations and Congresses will not find a loophole around this provision.
The inclusion of sunset provisions for the aforementioned legislative changes is distressing. If we recognize that the original adoption of these provisions was a precursor to the current situation, that we would even consider returning to them a some future time demonstrates an amazing lack of foresight and stewardship with the public trust.
The addition of “sweeteners” to this legislation makes it even more distasteful to me. Inclusion of important legislation on energy issues, a plethora of random tax provisions and Title V Subtitle B are acid to me. They should stand on their own without being thrust though on the coattails of H.R. 1424.
The provisions of Title V Subtitle B alone will most likely result in further increases in health insurance costs, for benefits many would not opt for, during a time when costs are escalating on their own at intolerable rates.
While I don’t support this bill in it’s current form, it’s preferable to the original legislation defeated on Monday. I am concerned that with a new administration coming, depending on their political leanings may migrate more towards the provisions of Sec. 101 rather than those of Sec. 102. That would be a tragedy for the American people and the long-term health of US economy.
Download H.R. 1424 as passed by the Senate October 1, 2008 from FoxNews
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Thank you for taking the time to listen to your constituency. I’ve written previously about the “bailout” legislation for the financial markets. Specifically, I’ve been decidedly against any such legislation.
I want to reiterate that I remain so. I am a small investor, a postal worker who lives frugally and saves and invests about 20% of my gross income. I have a pretty fair exposure to the markets and have in the past year watched the value of my investments go down considerably.
The negative reaction, some would say temper tantrum, of the markets the past few days has in no way changed my take on the so-called “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.” I remain convinced that government intervention in the private markets is dangerous and ultimately will have negative repercussions in the US economy.
Because of the nature of politics, government cannot intervene without distorting the marketplace to try to gain some political advantage for one party or the other. It’s the nature of the beast.
The current legislation sent over from the Senate remains a piece of legislation that I think if approved will one day will be looked upon as the day the United States took a great leap into socializing the US financial markets and industry as a whole.
Still, I know that the art of politics is compromise. If there is anyway that this bill can be stripped of it’s socialist underpinnings while keeping the legislative changes insuring troubled assets (Sec 103 ), Mark to Market (Sec.132), FASB 157 (Sec.132), and increases in FDIC insurance to $250,000 (Sec.132) it has the makings of a decent bill that addresses the problems that created the stagnation in the financial markets.
I would also like to see repeal of some of the provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that have resulted in a situation where many who truly cannot afford the responsibilities of home ownership are now finding themselves strangled with unaffordable mortgages. The result of which is the sub-prime “meltdown” we are now seeing.
Sec. 124 addresses some changes in the HOPE program, but I have neither the resources nor the expertise in legislative language to cross-reference and discover the implication of these changes.
I am glad to see codified in the legislation that all proceeds from the sale of the purchased assets will be returned to the Treasury for the purpose of reducing the public debt. I can only hope that future administrations and Congresses will not find a loophole around this provision.
The inclusion of sunset provisions for the aforementioned legislative changes is distressing. If we recognize that the original adoption of these provisions was a precursor to the current situation, that we would even consider returning to them a some future time demonstrates an amazing lack of foresight and stewardship with the public trust.
The addition of “sweeteners” to this legislation makes it even more distasteful to me. Inclusion of important legislation on energy issues, a plethora of random tax provisions and Title V Subtitle B are acid to me. They should stand on their own without being thrust though on the coattails of H.R. 1424.
The provisions of Title V Subtitle B alone will most likely result in further increases in health insurance costs, for benefits many would not opt for, during a time when costs are escalating on their own at intolerable rates.
While I don’t support this bill in it’s current form, it’s preferable to the original legislation defeated on Monday. I am concerned that with a new administration coming, depending on their political leanings may migrate more towards the provisions of Sec. 101 rather than those of Sec. 102. That would be a tragedy for the American people and the long-term health of US economy.
Download H.R. 1424 as passed by the Senate October 1, 2008 from FoxNews
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Congressional statesmen hold the line for the people.
An open letter to Florida Rep. Ric Keller:
Thank you for your vote against the flawed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - H.R.3997. It was and remains deeply flawed and fails to address the fundamental problems underlying the current weakness in the credit markets.
It seems that many in Congress have the mindset that the only solution to a problem is to “throw” money at it. You cannot fix is problem caused by bad legislation with more bad legislation.
There is a much better solution that will be less costly to the American taxpayer. According to William Isaac the Fair Value Accounting rules, better known as mark to market, are a prime culprit in the current crisis.
According to Isaac, “This is contrary to everything we know about bank regulation. When there are temporary impairments of asset values due to economic and marketplace events, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire-sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value (a discounted cash-flow analysis).”
One Rep. John Linder has said that were this rule returned to mark to par almost every financial institution that is now in trouble would be back on solid footing. Mark to par served our nations financial institutions well for 220 years. FAS 157 and mark to market has resulted, in conjunction with other flawed legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act, in the current crisis in our financial markets.
The CRA requires banks and lending institutions to make loans to that were otherwise fiscally indefensible. Many of the loans made under CRA form the basis of the current sub-prime mortgage foreclosure problem.
Community organizers have used CRA to force banks to make loans they otherwise would not have extended. A.C.O.R.N., for one, is well know for its methods of “shaking down” lenders and requiring them, under the auspices of CRA, to make “exotic” loans to unqualified applicants.
Contrary to assertions by Democrats, deregulation by Republicans has not been a factor in the current crisis in the financial markets. To the contrary, Sarbanes-Oxley, voted into existence by a Republican Congress in response to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, et. al., was a buzz saw where a scalpel was needed.
This should be revisited and repealed in part or, better, in whole.
Additionally, updating F.D.I.C. insurance to cover up to $250,000 in deposits will ensure small businesses that the money they need for payrolls and operating expenses will be there when needed despite the turmoil in the credit markets.
I’m not financial wiz, but I do understand that when government gets involved in the private sector, the primary result is chaos and disruption. There is a place for prudent regulations and laws to punish abusers.
But government manipulating the private sector for the purpose of advancing “progressive” policies that fly in the face of common sense and good business practice must stop.
Further reading:
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Thank you for your vote against the flawed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - H.R.3997. It was and remains deeply flawed and fails to address the fundamental problems underlying the current weakness in the credit markets.
It seems that many in Congress have the mindset that the only solution to a problem is to “throw” money at it. You cannot fix is problem caused by bad legislation with more bad legislation.
There is a much better solution that will be less costly to the American taxpayer. According to William Isaac the Fair Value Accounting rules, better known as mark to market, are a prime culprit in the current crisis.
According to Isaac, “This is contrary to everything we know about bank regulation. When there are temporary impairments of asset values due to economic and marketplace events, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire-sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value (a discounted cash-flow analysis).”
One Rep. John Linder has said that were this rule returned to mark to par almost every financial institution that is now in trouble would be back on solid footing. Mark to par served our nations financial institutions well for 220 years. FAS 157 and mark to market has resulted, in conjunction with other flawed legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act, in the current crisis in our financial markets.
The CRA requires banks and lending institutions to make loans to that were otherwise fiscally indefensible. Many of the loans made under CRA form the basis of the current sub-prime mortgage foreclosure problem.
Community organizers have used CRA to force banks to make loans they otherwise would not have extended. A.C.O.R.N., for one, is well know for its methods of “shaking down” lenders and requiring them, under the auspices of CRA, to make “exotic” loans to unqualified applicants.
Contrary to assertions by Democrats, deregulation by Republicans has not been a factor in the current crisis in the financial markets. To the contrary, Sarbanes-Oxley, voted into existence by a Republican Congress in response to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, et. al., was a buzz saw where a scalpel was needed.
This should be revisited and repealed in part or, better, in whole.
Additionally, updating F.D.I.C. insurance to cover up to $250,000 in deposits will ensure small businesses that the money they need for payrolls and operating expenses will be there when needed despite the turmoil in the credit markets.
I’m not financial wiz, but I do understand that when government gets involved in the private sector, the primary result is chaos and disruption. There is a place for prudent regulations and laws to punish abusers.
But government manipulating the private sector for the purpose of advancing “progressive” policies that fly in the face of common sense and good business practice must stop.
Further reading:
- Wikipedia - Mark to Market
Talk Gwinnett - 10 Reasons Why Republican Oppose the Bailout
TMP Cafe - William Isaac's quote
Wikipedia - Community Reinvestment Act
Michelle Malkin - The A.C.O.R.N. Obama knows
Wikipedia - Sarbanes-Oxley Act
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Sunday, September 28, 2008
An open letter to Congress...
I am very concerned about the legislation currently being drafted to socialize the US financial markets. The primary reason for the current financial crisis is the manipulation of the financial system by Congress through entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
An additional primary factor is the decade old legislation such as HOPE IV promoting home ownership by all that provided stiff penalties to “unfair” practices in mortgage lending. Those unfair practices were left ambiguous enough to force banks and institutions to make unsound loans to unqualified applicants in a bid to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Secondarily, giving taxpayer funds to activist agencies such as A.C.O.R.N. is a travesty. A.C.O.R.N. has been a major player in creating this crisis taking advantage of the aforementioned legislation. Included in recent drafts of the bail out legislation is language giving them 20% of any profits. This is like allowing a convicted murderer to profit from books written about his crime.
A major initial concern of my was what Congress would do with any "profits" from this supposed "investment." I had no faith they would actually return it to the people from whom they took it. There is no precedence for that. Now we know what their intent is.
Ayn Rand said, "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
The Congress has done that to our financial systems through demands for housing loans to many who cannot afford it, in the process encouraging the "cooking of the books" and fraudulent application and approval process that Congress now rails against.
The creation of GSEs Freddie and Fannie, then failing to provide strong rules to prevent them from buying up weak mortgage packages while allowing them to enrich members of Congress through lobbying and contributions has only created an incestuous and disastrous relationship.
Instead of a rush to create another monster that may address the short term "crisis" but in the process create unintended consequences that will irreparably damage our financial systems for decades to come and take us dramatically into socialism, the Congress needs to step back and breath deeply.
The American people in their intuitive grasp of this problem has said, "slow down and back off!" Congress needs to do just that. The major players in the financial system are sitting back to see what Congress is going to do.
If Congress stands down, the financial players will step up to the plate. But why should they if there is a socialist Congress willing to commit the wealth and treasure of ordinary Americans to the task.
I'll do my own investing; I don't need Congress to do it for me.
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
An additional primary factor is the decade old legislation such as HOPE IV promoting home ownership by all that provided stiff penalties to “unfair” practices in mortgage lending. Those unfair practices were left ambiguous enough to force banks and institutions to make unsound loans to unqualified applicants in a bid to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Secondarily, giving taxpayer funds to activist agencies such as A.C.O.R.N. is a travesty. A.C.O.R.N. has been a major player in creating this crisis taking advantage of the aforementioned legislation. Included in recent drafts of the bail out legislation is language giving them 20% of any profits. This is like allowing a convicted murderer to profit from books written about his crime.
A major initial concern of my was what Congress would do with any "profits" from this supposed "investment." I had no faith they would actually return it to the people from whom they took it. There is no precedence for that. Now we know what their intent is.
Ayn Rand said, "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
The Congress has done that to our financial systems through demands for housing loans to many who cannot afford it, in the process encouraging the "cooking of the books" and fraudulent application and approval process that Congress now rails against.
The creation of GSEs Freddie and Fannie, then failing to provide strong rules to prevent them from buying up weak mortgage packages while allowing them to enrich members of Congress through lobbying and contributions has only created an incestuous and disastrous relationship.
Instead of a rush to create another monster that may address the short term "crisis" but in the process create unintended consequences that will irreparably damage our financial systems for decades to come and take us dramatically into socialism, the Congress needs to step back and breath deeply.
The American people in their intuitive grasp of this problem has said, "slow down and back off!" Congress needs to do just that. The major players in the financial system are sitting back to see what Congress is going to do.
If Congress stands down, the financial players will step up to the plate. But why should they if there is a socialist Congress willing to commit the wealth and treasure of ordinary Americans to the task.
I'll do my own investing; I don't need Congress to do it for me.
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)