Only 6% of Eligible Homeowners Helped From Obama's Housing Program

Making Home Affordable Program hasn't helped enough, some say

(CNN) -- When President Obama unveiled the Making Home Affordable Program in March, he said it would help "responsible folks who have been making their payments" reduce their monthly mortgage bills and avoid losing their homes to foreclosure.

The Making Home Affordable Program aims to help homeowners avoid losing their homes to foreclosures.

But six months into the program, only 6 percent of the 4 million eligible homeowners have gotten help. A lot more say they've been frustrated with the runaround they've been getting from lenders.

Are the new program's growing pains responsible for the slow start, as bankers say, or is pain to their bottom lines really preventing the program from working, as critics say?

The Making Home Affordable Program is supposed to work this way:

In return for billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money, banks would offer loans that would reduce troubled borrowers' monthly mortgage payments to 31 percent of their income. To qualify, a homeowner must have an income and must live in the house, and that house can't be worth more than $730,000.

The bank is also allowed to calculate the value of the mortgage against the profit it would make from a foreclosure.

Banks are prohibited from selling a house in foreclosure while the homeowner is being considered for an adjustment. The Treasury Department oversees the program, and the banks signed contracts with Treasury binding them to cooperate. Watch more about how the program has worked so far

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so unhappy with the program's pace that he called in lenders for a meeting and demanded they do better.

In a July 9 letter to one servicer, JP Morgan, Geithner and Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, wrote "there is a general need for servicers to devote substantially more resources to this program for it to fully succeed and achieve the objectives we share."

They called on the banks to hire more staff, expand their call centers and allow homeowners "an escalation path for borrowers dissatisfied with the service they have received."

The mortgage industry's top lobbyist says any problems to date are the growing pains associated with getting such a massive program up and running.

"It is working, and it needs to be given some time," says John Courson, head of the Mortgage Bankers Association. He says banks are still staffing up and getting the program off the ground. "It took 90 days to get out the rules and the procedures and the forms, and so that's a fairly new program," he said.

Courson says that lenders are still "training more and more staff as they are getting more and more people who are familiar with this program."

He insists that the banks want to cooperate.

"It's in the banks' best interest to work with those borrowers to keep those loans on the books and avoid foreclosure," Courson said.

But critics say that the program works against the banks' best interests, as the homeowners who most need the program are the riskiest bets.

"If the borrower is really in trouble, [the lenders] probably don't want to do the modification, because they think there's a good chance the borrower will redefault, and they will do a lot of work and they won't collect money," said Paul Willen, an economist with the Boston Federal Reserve who has studied bank foreclosures and modifications.

"The problem with this is in some deep sense, you can't penalize the banks for acting in self-interest. It's a for-profit business."

Others are critical of the voluntary nature of the program and the Obama administration's hands-off relationship with lenders.

The Treasury Department official charged with overseeing the program insists it's "off to a strong start, with hundreds of thousands of trial modifications already underway."

Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Michael Barr acknowledges that "servicer performance has been uneven, but servicers have committed to ramping up efforts to improve the process for borrowers," and he insists that "the administration will hold these institutions accountable for their progress."

He says Treasury is on track to help 3 million to 4 million homeowners in three years.

Diane Thompson of the National Consumer Law Center has a theory on why the Obama administration isn't getting tougher with the banks: "This is a voluntary program. I think Treasury has been very concerned to make sure that servicers [the banks] are willing to participate."

She's convinced that banks will improve their track record only if they're forced to make loans.

"Until it's made a mandatory program, I think we will not see a significant drop in foreclosures," Thompson said.

Another problem with the program is that banks don't always have the final say.

Many of these mortgages are held by private investors, and the bank simply acts as a middleman. If investors think they can make more money by foreclosing than modifying the loan, experts say the bank is powerless to override that decision.

Susan Wachter, professor of real estate and finance at the Wharton School, explains, "These are contracts. The government does not have the right to rescind contracts. The government can legislate all they want, but there can be lawsuits."

Willen adds: "What's upsetting about this is that with Making Home Affordable, what you ended up with may be worse [than doing nothing]. We're giving more money to banks, and not preventing many foreclosures."

The Treasury Department has begun stepping up pressure on banks. This month, it began publicly reporting the number of the program's loans the banks had offered, as a way to shame banks into better participation rates.

While JP Morgan-Chase has enrolled 20 percent of its eligible customers and Citibank 15 percent, two banks that got the biggest bailouts have some of the lowest enrollment rates, according to Treasury: Wells Fargo has enrolled 6 percent of eligible customers, and Bank of America 4 percent.

Both banks say that those numbers are misleading -- that they have many more offers in the pipeline and have increased staffing.

Bank of America also says it is bigger than other banks, so it has more applicants to process. Wells Fargo also says that it has refinanced many hundreds of thousands of loans outside of the government program.

Courson said many other banks are also offering their own mortgage modification programs, and if you count those, "a million and a half borrowers were assisted in the first six months in this year."

Multiple administration officials insist to CNN that there is adequate oversight of the program and that the Treasury Department has enlisted Freddie Mac to monitor the banks.

A Freddie Mac official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because it is acting "at the direction of Treasury," told CNN that its investigators visit banks, but only after giving the banks' management notice that they're coming.

The agency reviews loan documents, but only those that lenders provide. There are no surprise visits, no tape recordings of bank calls to assure quality assurance, and no way to respond to individual homeowner complaints.

Recently, Freddie Mac began random reviews of cases in which homeowners were denied Making Home Affordable loans. So far, Freddie Mac has not found a single instance of noncompliance worth referring to the Treasury Department for a penalty.

The Treasury Department was unable to show CNN any instance of a lender being penalized for breaking the program's rules.

By Jessica Yellin - CNN National Political Correspondent

I have personally had the experience of dealing with this program and system to help a family member who needed some help trying to wade through this program.  It is a nightmare!  The people who need the program the most, don’t qualify for help and then only 6% of the people who do qualify have received help.  Another Obamanomics nightmare program that didn’t work!  Ask Marion~

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources: 

• The Truth About the Economy… Obamanomics Is a Failure~
• U.S. Raises Estimate for 10-Year Deficit to $9 Trillion as Bernanke – Tapped by Obama to Continue as Fed Chairman??
• Warren Buffett Joins Critics on Obamanomics:  Too Much Spending – Too Much Debt – Not Sustainable…
• The Failure of Obamanomics
• Obamanomics:  Naive, or Intentionally Destructive
• Why the ‘O’-ministration will implode in weeks
• Renters Left Hanging in the Middle in Foreclosure Proceedings
• Meltdown
• Money Mischief
• The Housing Boom and Bust

All Aboard the Tea Party Express~

Healthcare Reform Foes Using Radical Alinsky's Tactics

Influential Chicago activist Saul Alinsky wrote the book on community organizing for the left.

Now in an ironic twist, opponents of President Barack Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform plans are employing some of the very same tactics that Alinsky, who died in 1972, espoused in his work "Rules for Radicals."

As healthcare reform foes angrily confront lawmakers at town-hall meetings, The New York Times observed: "It is an irony of the current skirmishing about healthcare that those who could be considered Mr. Alinsky's sworn enemies — the groups, many industry sponsored, who are trying to shout down Congressional town hall meetings — have taken a page from his handbook on community organizing."

Among the Alinsky "trademarks" that the Times' Noam Cohen pointed to are "using spectacle to make up for lack of numbers," targeting an individual — in this case Obama — and "using ridicule to persuade the undecided."

As for complaints from Democrats about the reform opponents' sometimes belligerent tactics, Alinsky stated that "any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical."

The Internet availability of many town-hall confrontations would have won approval from Alinsky, who urged activists to seek media attention — in particular by challenging public officials on camera.

The boisterous disruption of the meetings by reform foes also jibes with Alinsky's tactics. He advised organizers to "raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does."

Among the many community organizers influenced by Alinsky, the most prominent today is — Barack Obama. He learned and taught Alinsky's methods for community organizing while working for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago.

---------

To find out how to participate in the Tea Party Express events across the country, CLICK HERE. But be prepared to be called part of a right-wing organized mob!!

The Tea Party Express is meeting up with events and tea parties along its 7000+ mile route from Sacramento to Washington D.C.where people are protesting local issues, ObamaCare, taxes, government spending, stimulus, and the list goes on.

The Tea Party Express will end up in Washington D.C. to meet up with and take part in the National Tax Payer March on 9/12. Glenn Beck was asked to MC the event, but has decided to cover it for Fox Cable News.

Check back daily for updates on the Expresses progress and coverage of National Tax March on 9.12.09. I guess this should count as patriotic service to our Country since President Obama signed a bill last April changing 9/11 from a day to remember the events of 9/11 to a National Day of Service backed by mostly liberal organizations including ACORN, Color of Change and the Apollo Alliance.

See you in Washington D.C. on 9/12 if you can there or along the way at a tea party event. If you can’t be in DC in person, watch Glenn on Fox Cable News live that day from the event.

Ask Marion

SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 - HONOR IDEA

We have a little less than one month and counting to get the word out all across this great land and into every community in the United States of America.

THE PROGRAM:

On Friday, September 11th, 2009, an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States. Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this eighth anniversary of one of our country's worst tragedies. We do this to honor those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends, and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.

In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds

So, here's what we need you to do .

(1) Forward this email to everyone you know (at least 11 people). Take a moment to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those sentiments guide you.

(2) Fly an American flag of any size on 9/11. Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but if you don't, then at least make it a priority on this day.

Thank you for your participation.

God Bless You and God Bless America!

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

• Fighting ObamaCare in the Spirit of Ted Kennedy
• Tea Parties Are Back – The Tea Party Express Makes Its Way to D.C. for 9/12
• Rules for Radicals

The Truth About the Economy… Obamanomics Is a Failure!

This week we found out that Team Obama was off by 2 Trillion Dollars. Hello? In ten years we will be 9 trillion dollars, not $7 trillion, in debt… and counting; and that is without so-called Healthcare reform or Cap and Trade Spending. One Trillion Dollars equals one hundred million dollars. How can you be in charge of the economy, let alone the Country, and be off by 200 hundred million dollars and claim that you know what you are doing? You can’t! You are either incompetent or lying!! Take your pick.

Also, let us remember that most of the debt doesn’t kick in until years 11 through 20.

Then, the real unemployment figures, including all the people who have dropped off the unemployment rolls, cannot find work or are working part-time… which are not part of the official government figures is between 14 and 16 %, depending who is compiling. There are counties in California that are now at 20% unemployment. What happened to the 400 million jobs saved and earned? 40% of the jobs lost are manufacturing and construction jobs that aren’t coming back. And if Cap and Tax, uh, Trade really does pass the Senate at some point, there will be more job losses. In every country where a forced green program has been implemented, there has been a loss of permanent jobs and a pretty quick turn-around loss of temporary jobs.

And the recent slight upsurge in the economy has come to us to by way of a $700+ Billion Stimulus Bill, a Cash for Clunkers Program, and huge incentives and discounts for first time home buyers, mostly buying distressed and discounted properties.

Add to this higher taxes for cigarettes, junk food and alcohol. What was that about no tax increases for people making under $250,000?

Then we are seeing utility shortages… like water in California. The government is asking Americans to cut back in their use. Most have complied; if not they are fined. Then once everyone has cut back and does without, like good citizens, the government will realize that with less usage, comes lower tax intakes, which will cause them to up the prices to recoup those taxes. Then when the shortage is over and you are finally allowed to use the normal amount again, the cost will remain at the higher rate. Explain that to the seniors living on a fixed income, many of whom have lost their nest eggs and retirement investments due to the economy, and now won’t be getting a cost of living increase for the next 2-years… because fuel costs have ‘temporarily’ dropped. And let's not forget, Obama himself told us that Cap and Trade and moving to a green economy, which Australia, China, India, Spain etc have abandoned or refused to support, "will" up the costs of energy for all Americans.

Add this all up and it spells trouble!!!

And now Team Obama and the Dems want to add another $1 Trillion to $1.6 Trillion to the staggering debt for a Healthcare Bill that everyone is realizing won’t work and most Americans don’t want. And let's remember:

• The White House was just 2 Trillion off in their debt estimates.

and

• It is impossible to cover more people, maintain or improve healthcare, and cut costs!

If you think healthcare is expensive now… wait until it is free.

Ask Marion/Marion Algier

• Green Hell
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense
• The End of Prosperity
• Money Mischief
• The Housing Boom and Bust

Warren Buffett Joins Critics on Obamanomics: Too Much Spending – Too Much Debt – Not Sustainable: Stop Spending, Stop Printing Money and No New Big Pr

Double Dip Recession Around the Corner

Times Topics: Warren E. Buffett

IN nature, every action has consequences, a phenomenon called the butterfly effect. These consequences, moreover, are not necessarily proportional. For example, doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions.

The butterfly effect reaches into the financial world as well. Here, the United States is spewing a potentially damaging substance into our economy — greenback emissions.

To be sure, we’ve been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud. Last fall, our financial system stood on the brink of a collapse that threatened a depression. The crisis required our government to display wisdom, courage and decisiveness. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve and key economic officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations responded more than ably to the need.

They made mistakes, of course. How could it have been otherwise when supposedly indestructible pillars of our economic structure were tumbling all around them? A meltdown, though, was avoided, with a gusher of federal money playing an essential role in the rescue.

The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.

To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out.

An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money. Let’s look at the prospects for each individually — and in combination.

The current account deficit — dollars that we force-feed to the rest of the world and that must then be invested — will be $400 billion or so this year. Assume, in a relatively benign scenario, that all of this is directed by the recipients — China leads the list — to purchases of United States debt. Never mind that this all-Treasuries allocation is no sure thing: some countries may decide that purchasing American stocks, real estate or entire companies makes more sense than soaking up dollar-denominated bonds. Rumblings to that effect have recently increased.

Then take the second element of the scenario — borrowing from our own citizens. Assume that Americans save $500 billion, far above what they’ve saved recently but perhaps consistent with the changing national mood. Finally, assume that these citizens opt to put all their savings into United States Treasuries (partly through intermediaries like banks).

Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime.

Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

I want to emphasize that there is nothing evil or destructive in an increase in debt that is proportional to an increase in income or assets. As the resources of individuals, corporations and countries grow, each can handle more debt. The United States remains by far the most prosperous country on earth, and its debt-carrying capacity will grow in the future just as it has in the past.

But it was a wise man who said, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll never go there.” We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy described by Keynes.

Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.

Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt. Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt. The dollar’s destiny lies with Congress.

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

America Senses Something's Not Right - Glenn Beck

Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

I've always wanted to be in the mob and now I am. It's fantastic: the drugs, the women, the town hall health care protests.

Here's The One Thing: This isn't a GOP mob or "manufactured anger." America — Democrat, Republican and independent — senses in her gut something isn't right.

According to the latest polls:

• 65 percent say President Obama is taking on too many issues

• His approval rating is at 50 percent (worse than Bush was after six months)

• He's fallen 7 points with independents (45 approve, 45 disapprove)

• 52 percent now oppose how he's handling health care — only 39 percent approve

• More than 3 out of 4 think Obama's plan will add to the deficit

Why the decline? Because Americans know something isn't right. Since when are we rushed like this? Since when are politicians the ones who guide our ethics and morals?

We had the AARP on the other day. They said, oh no, we don't see anything hurtful to seniors in there — it looks great.

Hey Glenn! I just found out I'm related to a Nigerian prince! He's going to wire me $10 million. All I have to do is give him $10,000 and my bank account number!

Wait! That's a scam! Stop!

No, you stop! It doesn't say anywhere in the e-mail that it's a scam. Plus, he made a pinky promise.

How many times have politicians promised us the moon and given us Detroit? No offense, Detroit, but you keep voting the same people in and your median home price is $7,500.

In 1965, the politicians said Medicare — something progressives see as a stepping stone to universal health care — would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost: $66 billion — whoops, only off by $57 billion.

Obama's current plan is about $1.6 trillion. If it goes as well as the other government medical programs we've tried — or say, "cash for clunkers" — it will only cost us $13 trillion. Unless the government makes up the gap with higher taxes on coffins, we can't afford universal health care.

I want to ask you a very important question: That $13 trillion number is an actual number based on the errors of the past; would an $8-13 trillion error cause an emergency in this country? You decide, but hold your answer for a second.

Here's why I ask: When we're short money, the government has to decide who gets what. Who in government will be influencing and making those life and death decisions? The organizers, the advisers and the "czars."

AARP members, you must demand that the organization that claims to be looking out for you answers these questions. Who makes the life and death decisions?

Well, one of the people currently advising President Obama on health care policy has come up with his own "cost saving" health care methods. His name is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, he's the brother of Rahm Emanuel and he wrote in January of this year:

"When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value."

But even more disturbing is this chart (above) that Ezekiel added into that article.

Another "czar" the media has ignored is Cass Sunstein, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

"I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."

I want to make it very clear: What these people are talking about is how to ration in case of an emergency shortage — shortage of kidneys, hospital beds or flu vaccine.

What we all need to remember is that universal health care creates another shortage: a shortage of money. And when we are out of money, these are the people making the rules governing your health care.

I don't know if Obama believes any of this crazy stuff, but I also don't know why if he didn't he would appoint at least three people that do.

Never in my life would I appoint people who believe things like this. Why has no one in the media told you who these people are? And why hasn't AARP brought them to your attention?

Maybe that manufactured anger isn't manufactured. It's just Americans across the political spectrum sensing in their gut that they're moving to fast.

Why? Because something's not right.

• Is Beck right?

Related Resources:

• Memo - How to Beat the Right-Wing Mob
• Meet Ezikiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good
• Senator Grassley (and Others): Democrats Want to Nationalize Healthcare
• White House Initiates "Snitch" Program
• Why Is the White House Attacking and Making Fun of Americans?

GM May Need More U.S. Job Cuts as Buyouts Fall Short

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. may have to cut more U.S. hourly jobs after an offer of buyouts and early retirements fell about 7,500 workers short of the reorganized automaker’s target.

The possibility of layoffs was disclosed today by Sherrie Childers Arb, a spokeswoman, in an interview after GM announced that more than 6,000 United Auto Workers members, or 11 percent of the hourly workforce, left the company on Aug. 1.

GM’s latest voluntary exits pushed the total of U.S. hourly workers leaving through buyouts and retirement offers to about 66,000 since 2006. The biggest domestic automaker is shrinking its workforce to match reductions including the shutdown of 14 U.S. plants and 3 warehouses by the end of 2011.

“It’s not surprising they didn’t reach their goal,” said Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group Inc. in Ann Arbor, Michigan. With U.S. unemployment at 9.5 percent in June, “workers are more reluctant to accept a buyout because the prospects for other employment are more challenging.”

GM aims to eliminate 13,500 hourly positions in 2009, trimming that payroll to about 40,500 jobs, said Tom Wilkinson, a spokesman. Detroit-based GM began the year with about 61,000 U.S. hourly jobs and cut that total to about 54,000 at the end of April with buyouts and early retirements.

Moving Jobs

Any layoffs probably wouldn’t total 7,500, Childers Arb said. Some employees are likely to leave on their own or retire rather than relocate once GM shuffles work among its facilities, dropping jobs in some locations while keeping others, she said. GM hasn’t said where the job cuts will take place.

Hourly workers who took the buyout and retirement offers are receiving cash payments of $20,000 to $115,000 as well as $25,000 vehicle vouchers.

Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson is also paring the U.S. salaried workforce and chopping its eight domestic brands in half.

GM left a government-backed bankruptcy on July 10 as a new company whose largest shareholder is the U.S. Treasury. Losses at predecessor General Motors Corp. totaled $88 billion since the company last posted an annual profit in 2004.

To contact the reporter on this story: Katie Merx - in Southfield, Michigan, at kmerx@bloomberg.net

Source: Bloomberg.com

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Pulling No Punches

John McCain is red in the face and hopping mad. I’m sitting in his office in the Senate Russell Office Building, and he’s just rushed in after delivering a speech on the Senate floor where he seethed about the earmarks in the Homeland Security Bill.

“Can you believe they are putting $6 million of pork into Homeland Security?” he asks with his trademark clenched-fists. “They promised they wouldn’t do that. Ben Nelson [the Democratic senator from Nebraska] just inserted a $200,000 museum in Omaha into the legislative branch appropriations bill. These earmarks are a creeping disease. First members condemn them, then they condone, then they embrace them.” Then Mr. McCain adds, “Eight or nine Republican appropriators routinely vote for this pork.” Shaking his head he says, “It’s killing our party.”

If you thought that the senior senator from Arizona would ride off into the political sunset last November, inconsolable after losing his bid for the presidency, think again. He’s over it. And he’s as energized and spry as ever I’ve known him.

I interviewed John McCain for these pages four years ago when he was just launching his presidential campaign. Now I’m here to see how he is coping with defeat, and what his priorities are this year.

Many feared he’d become the Obama administration’s ambassador to the Republican Party, cutting deals to get things done. On the contrary: He’s emerged as one of the lead critics of Obamanomics.

He says he has worked to keep his relations with President Barack Obama “cordial,” but he pulls no punches criticizing the president’s economic policies. “Never. Never have I seen such a transfer from the private enterprise system to the government of such massive scale,” he says. He goes through the list: car companies, banks, insurance firms owned by government, and he especially grimaces when he mentions the $787 billion stimulus package.

Terry Shoffner

Not much has improved because of the stimulus. Mr. McCain scoffs, “And now, the answer is, according to the Obama economists, we didn’t spend enough.” He’s referring to the notion that we should have a second stimulus. This is not something the senator favors.

Asked about the deficits, his response is blunt. “I think it’s the biggest problem we’ve ever faced.”

Ever? “Yep,” he replies. “The only time where we amassed greater debt was during World War II, and that was temporary spending. We won the world war and then cut back. But now . . . the spending is permanent.”

“Look, this is a very popular, attractive, and eloquent president,” he continues. “But I think he was elected to govern in a centrist fashion. And instead,” he says, the administration is “governing from the far left.” Mr. McCain thinks this approach will capsize. “They don’t get that this is a right-of-center nation. Sooner or later, it becomes increasingly clear to the American people that he’s out of sync with the majority.” The latest polls are already showing some of this slippage: Mr. Obama’s favorable rating is now just over 50%, down from 70% his first weeks in office.

Will Mr. Obama ever move to the center as President Clinton did? “He will try to, but he’s got an overwhelmingly liberal Congress and his political instincts are to move to the left. It’s not an accident that he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate,” he says, reciting a line from his campaign. On health-care reform, Mr. McCain calls the Pelosi bill “a fish in the sun” that smells more rotten the longer it sits. But he’s worried that this may end badly. The administration has “co-opted the hospitals, he’s co-opted the pharmacists; he’ll co-opt AMA [American Medical Association]. And by the way, if the pharmaceutical companies can save us $100 billion, why don’t they do it now? For the love of God, doesn’t this mean that they’ve been ripping us off?”

In the 2005 interview, Mr. McCain told me rather famously that “I don’t understand economics very well.” The Obama team echoed that phrase throughout the campaign. It’s still stuck in his craw, and it’s one of the first topics he brings up.

“Could I mention, Steve, that I kept hearing during the campaign the stuff about McCain being weak on economics. They obsessed about this in the media. They never said Obama is weak on economics. I came to Washington as a Reaganite limited government tax cutter.” He’s right about the media treatment. Neither candidate had a strong command of economics—certainly not Mr. Obama, as events have shown. Mr. McCain was simply being honest.

He seems perplexed that his pals in the media turned on him in 2008 after years of worshipful press treatment. “In 2000 [when he ran against George W. Bush] I used to go chat with reporters on the back of the bus, and we would have these long, pleasant conversations . . . . I was the underdog clawing my way up. But then in 2008, I noticed that it would be kind of a gotcha session with the press—a totally more hostile attitude.”

Yet conservatives had warned Mr. McCain that he would remain a media darling up until the moment he won the GOP nomination, at which time they would rip him apart. I’m only surprised that he was surprised this happened.

Mr. McCain is initially reluctant to talk about the campaign, but he provides me with snippets of what went right and wrong. He believes that he could have won the election had it not been for the market collapse in mid-September. “We were three points up on September 14. The next day the market lost 700 points and $1.2 trillion in wealth vanished, and by the end of the day we were seven points down. We lost the white college graduate voters, who became profoundly disillusioned with Republicans. And by the way, that was the way it ended up. We lost by seven points.”

He certainly was dealt a lousy hand. But I challenge him on whether he might have played that hand better. During the first days of the financial crisis, Mr. McCain looked indecisive and worse, a creature of Washington insider politics. Why did he suspend his campaign, and why did he vote for the $700 billion bank bailout plan, which was wildly unpopular with voters?

“You have no idea the pressure I was under,” he says. “I remember being on the phone with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Treasury secretary and [Fed Chairman Ben] Bernanke. They assure me the world financial system is going to collapse if I don’t vote for the bill. So I do the impetuous and rash thing by saying, look, I have got to go back to Washington and see how I can help. And by the way, so did Obama—but it was McCain that was the impetuous one. Obama came back to Washington.” Mr. McCain grumbles, “He was at the White House with me. But he wasn’t impetuous.” This is the only time in our interview he shows any bitterness about the campaign.

He feels he was misled by the Bush economic team. He wanted the focus of the rescue plan to be on housing and home owners under water—not the lenders or the big banks. “Paulson and Bernanke both told me on the phone, our primary focus is going to be on the housing crisis. That’s our primary focus. And then three days later they switched their whole priorities around.” Instead, the Bush administration got a $700 billion check from Congress to save banks, investment houses and eventually car companies.

Had he been president, Mr. McCain says he would have done things differently. “Small business has been ignored in this whole bailout. You know, I hate to use the word but it seems to me that the philosophy of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke is trickle down, you know? Save Wall Street, save these financial institutions and then maybe they’ll have enough money to loan to the small business person. Wall Street seems to be doing okay. The executive salaries are fine.”

He continues: “But I just came from driving down Central Avenue in Phoenix and saw closed up storefronts because they’re too small to save, but these giant banks are too big to fail.” This is vintage John McCain, the economic populist fighting for the little guy.

If the market crash was the low point, I ask him for his best memory from the campaign. “The high point, I think, was the convention, the selection of Sarah Palin, and the enthusiasm that was generated all over the country.” His fondness for Mrs. Palin and her family strikes me as from the heart; he believes she was a net asset for the ticket.

“Let’s face it,” he says, “she galvanized our base in a way that I couldn’t. Everywhere she went she drew enormous and enthusiastic crowds like a rock star.” He says his only regret in selecting the Alaska governor was that no one on the campaign predicted the ferocity of the assaults against her. “To the liberal left, particularly the feminists, she is their worst nightmare.”

Since Mr. McCain was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Lieberman bill last year to limit CO emissions through a cap-and-trade system, I ask him about the climate change bill that passed the House last month and he surprised me with his opposition. “I believe climate change is real . . . but this 1,400-page bill is a farce. They bought every industry off—steel mills, agriculture, utilities,” he says.

So you wouldn’t vote for the House bill? “I would not only not vote for it,” he laughs, “I am opposed to it entirely, because it does damage to those of us who believe that we need to act in a rational fashion about climate change.”

A s Mr. McCain keeps circling our discussion back to fiscal responsibility, I ask him if the trillion dollar deficits are a sign that America is an empire in decline. “I think there’s a risk of that . . . unless we change. I’m a student of history. The shift in power from the British to the United States took place when the economy and the world’s gold reserves shifted and Britain went from the world’s [creditor] to a world debtor. The same thing could be happening now. I emphasize ‘could.’”

My last question is about the possibility for a 2012 rematch against Mr. Obama. “No chance,” he says.

But the good news for those who admire this maverick is that he’s likely to stay in the Senate for years and is focusing single-mindedly on holding back Obamanomics. For now, that means trying to stop budget busters like ObamaCare, but also saving a few million dollars at a time by cancelling museums in Nebraska, turtle crossings in Florida, and the endless flow of dollars to Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s airport to nowhere in Johnstown, Pa.

And then Mr. McCain is out the door—running to vote on another anti-pork amendment.

By STEPHEN MOORE - a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal.

Newsmax Poll Shows Strong Support for Sarah Palin in 2012

An Internet poll sponsored by Newsmax.com reveals that nearly 4 out of 5 respondents would support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012.

A slightly larger majority believe the then-Alaska governor helped John McCain in the 2008 presidential race — while only 31 percent think McCain did a good job running for president.

The poll drew more than 600,000 responses, and Newsmax will provide the results to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country.

Here are the poll questions and results:

1) What is your opinion of Sarah Palin? Favorable: 83 percent Unfavorable: 17 percent

2) Do you believe Sarah Palin as a running mate helped or hurt John McCain? Helped: 80 percent Hurt: 20 percent

3) In the election between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden, who did you vote for? McCain-Palin: 81 percent Obama-Biden: 16 percent
Other: 3 percent

4) Would you support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012? Yes: 78 percent No: 22 percent

5) Do you believe McCain did a good job running for president? Good Job: 31 percent Bad Job: 69 percent

6) Do you believe Barack Obama "bought" the White House by outspending McCain? Yes: 72 percent No: 28 percent

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

• We Figured Him Out - Ben Stein
• Obama Told Us This Was Coming… America Wasn’t Listening

We've Figured Him Out - Updated

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.

By: Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator - on 7.24.09 @ 9:45AM

Related Resources:

• Obama Told Us This Was Coming… America Wasn’t Listening
• Reparations By Way of Health Care Reform
• Nobody Took Barack Obama At His Word
• Rep Conyer's Probe of Acorn Blocked by Powers That Be
• Michelle Obama Wants More Input on the Presidents Agenda
  • Michelle Obama is Building Her Boot Camps For Radicals with Tax-Payer Money
• Acorn Cracked: Exposes ACORN’s Push for Socialized Medicine
• Op-Ed: Obama’s Census Castrates Caucasians
• Obama's Record of Apologies and Diminishment of His Country Continues
• Obama's Anti-American Foreign Policy
• The Humbling of a Super Power
• Welcome to Obamaland
• The Case Against Barack Obama
• Culture of Corruption
• American Progressivism
• Catastrophe
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense
• Nineteen Eighty-Four

$23.7 Trillion to Fix Financial System?

In New Report, Neil Barofsky Says It's Possible Government Could Spend $23.7 Trillion to Fix Financial System

Sitting down?

In a July 2009 report on government efforts to fix the financial system, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP, says total government support has the potential to reach $23.7 trillion.

(Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

"The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion," says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in a new report obtained Monday by ABC News on the government's efforts to fix the financial system.

Yes, $23.7 trillion.

"The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn't even imaginable," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn't even come close to just $1 trillion -- $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure."

Granted, Barofsky is not saying that the government will definitely spend that much money. He is saying that potentially, it could.

At present, the government has about 50 different programs to fight the current recession, including programs to bail out ailing banks and automakers, boost lending and beat back the housing crisis.

Barofsky's estimate means that if each federal agency spends the maximum potential amount involved in these 50 different initiatives -- if the Federal Reserve ends up spending $6.8 trillion on its programs. If the Treasury Department spends $4.4 trillion, if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation spends $2.3 trillion, and so on -- then the numbers add up to a total of $23.7 trillion.

That figure, Barofsky notes, is designed to "suggest the scale and scope of these efforts and not to provide a firm financial statement." It is not a figure that has been evaluated to give an estimate of likely net costs to the American taxpayer. "The actual potential for losses," he says, "is likely to be lower."

But in his new quarterly report to Congress that will be released Tuesday, the watchdog warns that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost if the government does not make certain changes to these programs. The Treasury Department, he cautions, needs to increase the transparency of the $700 billion TARP program, which he says has grown to an unprecedented scope and scale.

"Although Treasury has taken some steps toward improving transparency in TARP programs, it has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill Treasury's stated commitment to implement TARP with the highest degree of accountability and transparency possible," Barofsky says in the report.

Barofsky said his office currently has 35 ongoing civil or criminal investigations.

Treasury Should Require TARP Recipients to Report on Use of Funds, Says Barofsky

Barofsky notes that there are currently four specific recommendations that the Treasury Department has not adopted. The department, he believes, should require all TARP recipients to report on their use of funds. The department should also report on the values of its TARP portfolio so taxpayers know about the value of their investments; disclose the identity of any TALF borrowers; and disclose tradings, holdings and valuations of assets of the public-private investment funds that will be buying toxic assets from banks.

This public-private investment program is a key source of concern for the watchdog. In the program, a handful of selected funds will purchase toxic assets -- like mortgage-backed securities -- from banks in an effort to cleanse their balance sheets and help them increase lending.

In his last quarterly report in April, Barofsky cautioned that many aspects of the toxic asset program left it vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, such as conflicts of interest for fund managers, collusion with fund managers, money laundering and misuse with the Fed's lending program, known as the TALF.

Since then, Treasury has incorporated many of the watchdog's recommendations, so now "the program has a significantly improved compliance and fraud-prevention regime than that initially proposed," Barofsky says. However, he warns that "there remain some significant areas in which Treasury's plan for PPIP falls short."

One such area is the lack of an informational barrier -- or a wall -- between fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the program and employees of the fund management company who manage funds that are not part of the program. A fund manager, Barofsky warns, "could generate massive profits in its non-PPIF funds as a result of an unfair advantage."

Treasury has declined to put such a wall in place.

"Failure to impose a wall will leave Treasury vulnerable to an accusation that has already been leveled against it -- that Treasury is using TARP to pick winners and losers and that, by granting certain firms PPIF manager status, it is benefiting a chosen few at the expense of the dozens of firms that were rejected, of the market as a whole, and of the American taxpayer," Barofsky says. "The reputational risk is not one that can be readily measured in dollars and cents, but is rather a risk that could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their Government."

"Such transparency not only dissuades misconduct and promotes sound management but also promotes a better understanding of PPIP and thus enhances the credibility of PPIP and TARP more broadly," he says. "Even more importantly, the most significant investors in each PPIF, the American taxpayers, have a right to know the status of their investments. The lack of transparency as to what use TARP funds were put by recipients in other TARP programs, in SIGTARP's view, has damaged the credibility of TARP and therefore may have threatened its viability. Treasury should not repeat that apparent error with PPIP."

However, the department, Barofsky says, plans to disclose "no more than the bare minimum required by statute."

With nearly $24 trillion potentially flying out of federal coffers, the watchdog wants the government to do a lot more than just "the bare minimum."

When Barofsky testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday, Congress is expected to sound off on the watchdog's findings.

In a separate report released Monday, Barofsky said he obtained responses from banks on what they did with TARP funds, something that the Treasury Department has refused to do. Many of the banks, he said, used some funds to make investments, buy other banks and pay off debts.

"This administration promised an 'unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise," Issa said. "In fact, the Treasury Department is actively obstructing transparency. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent -- especially considering they are the ones who are footing the bill."

Source: abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics / Fox Nation

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Czar Watch! FOX Nation Exclusive Video! Who Are These People? | The FOX Nation

24 Czrs Are Pictured Here... Latest Count is Closer to 34. Nobody Knows Who They Are: What They Do; And Why! The Circumvent the Checks and Balances Created by the Founding Fathers and Are Accountable to No One, But Obama... Scary?? Definitley!!!

Czar Watch! FOX Nation Exclusive Video! Who Are These People? | The FOX Nation

Related Resources:

• After the "Special Master of Compensation"
• Czarred and Featherd
• We Warned You About Czars – Jim Harper and Fox’s Neil Cavuto Discuss “Cyber Czar”
• Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to "control the people"
• White House Set to Appoint a ‘Pay’ Czar
• Rep Jane Harman: Shut Down Satellite Surveillance
• Power Grab
• Where Were You??? - Supporting Those Around You Who Are Standing Up, Being Successful or Making a Difference
• Catastrophe
• Liberal Fascism – Just out in paperback
• American Progressivism
• The Late Great U.S.A.
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense

It’s All Just A Little Bit Of History Repeating…Yet Again!

A fantastic cartoon from 1934, entitled “Planned Economy or Planned Destruction”

Amazingly accurate, incredibly prescient. Note Stalin in the bottom right corner. This cartoon, according to sources, was created in 1934. The Great Depression was on, people were destitute, things were lousy – yet here is a cartoon that exhibits the same beliefs that a growing number of Americans feel. You can not spend your way into prosperity. Capitalism is good. The Republic (and the rule of law) is always better than the oligarchy (and being ruled by a few.) That the last thing we need is another “new deal.”

The past is trying to tell us something.

Carthago Delenda Est!

What a great find and a reminder that history does indeed repeat itself if we don’t pay attention (and don’t teach our kids history or accurate history)!

Source: Tony Katz - Posted on July 11, 2009

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

• American Progressivism
• Liberal Fascism
• Liberty and Tyranny
• One-Party Classroom
• Expelled
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense
• John Adams
• Catastrophe
• We the Sheeple?
• American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper - Pravda