About Me

Name: John Wallace
Email: john@grayrider.org Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

WALL STREET EXECS TO GET BIG BONUSES WITH AMERICAN TAXPAYERS' BAILOUT MONEY

The following article from Bloomberg.com should make you feel real good about how the Federal Reserve, Congress, the big Banks and Wall Street firms have teamed up to give your hard earned taxpayers bailout money to executives who brought our economy to the brink of collapse. They should all be arrested for fraud.

John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
www.NYCampaignForLiberty.com

Here's the article:

TITLE: Broken Securities Industry Still Has $20 Billion to Pay Bonuses

By Christine Harper and Serena Saitto

Five straight quarters of losses and a 70 percent slide in its stock this year haven't stopped Merrill Lynch & Co. from allocating about $6.7 billion to pay bonuses.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, both still on track for profitable years, have set aside about $13 billion for bonuses after three quarters, down 28 percent from a year ago. Even some employees at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which declared the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history last month, will get the same bonus they received a year ago.

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a $700 billion taxpayer bailout, public outcry over excessive pay and the demise of three of the biggest securities firms won't deter Wall Street from offering year-end rewards to employees on top of their salaries, compensation experts say.

``Critical producers and critical managers will be retained with the same bonus they had last year,'' said Robert Sloan, head of U.S. financial-services recruiting at Egon Zehnder International, a New York-based executive-search firm. ``The others will see sharp cuts.''

Goldman, the biggest and most profitable Wall Street firm until it opted to become a bank holding company last month, has set aside about $6.85 billion for bonuses, or an average of $210,300 for each employee, down 32 percent from $339,400 a year ago. Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm until it also converted to a bank, has $6.44 billion for bonuses, or $138,700 per person, down 20 percent from last year. Both firms accrue a fixed percentage of their revenue for compensation, so the decline in bonus pools matches the drop in revenue.

Merrill's Compensation

The money Merrill has set aside for bonuses equates to an average $110,000 for each of its 60,900 people, up from $108,000 a year ago because more than 3,000 jobs have been cut.

The bonus figures are based on estimates that about 60 percent of the compensation and benefits expenses reported by the companies will be paid in year-end bonuses, as occurred in past years. Average bonuses aren't an indication of how much any employee will receive, since payments range widely from assistants to top traders. Bonuses aren't paid until the end of the fiscal year, so firms could choose to reallocate the funds.

``We are in the process of determining appropriate levels of year-end compensation, and no decisions have been made,'' said Mark Lake, a spokesman at Morgan Stanley. Ed Canaday, a spokesman for Goldman in New York, declined to comment.

Merrill spokeswoman Jessica Oppenheim said the firm's accrued bonuses aren't down as much as those at Goldman and Morgan Stanley because the firm reduced expenses last year, when it also had a loss. Compensation costs are down 18 percent this year, compared with the first nine months of 2006, Merrill's last profitable year.

`Moratorium on Bonuses'

A worldwide economic slowdown, caused in part by the financial industry's losses, and a U.S. Treasury plan to spend $250 billion of taxpayer money buying stakes in banks, have made pay a political issue this year.

``There should be a moratorium on bonuses,'' Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told reporters last week. ``If nobody gave them, there wouldn't be a competitive aspect.''

In Zurich, protesters blocked UBS AG's private-banking branch on Paradeplatz last week to seek curbs on executive pay after Switzerland's largest bank was forced to ask for government aid.

$145 Billion

``I'm just flabbergasted that the financial community has failed to show any sense of leadership on this issue and doesn't seem to understand how angry people are at them,'' said Nell Minow, editor of Corporate Library, a Portland, Maine-based corporate-governance research firm. ``They are just a bonus away from having the villagers come after them with torches.''

New York-based Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Lehman and Bear Stearns Cos. awarded their employees a cumulative $145 billion in bonuses from 2003 through 2007, according to estimates based on company reports. That's more than the annual gross domestic product of the Philippines. Last year the firms paid out a record $39 billion.

At the end of this year, companies may decide against paying the money accrued for bonuses and instead use part of it to cover severance costs, said Rose Marie Orens, a New York-based partner at Mercer, the human resources consulting unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos., who specializes in executive compensation for financial- service companies. Goldman and Morgan Stanley end their fiscal year in November, and Merrill's ends in December.

Lehman Bankruptcy

``Whether what you see is what they're going to pay, you can't tell yet,'' she said. ``It's highly unlikely they'll add to those numbers and more likely they'll bring them down.''

Lehman filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15. Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns were rescued in emergency sales to Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. Goldman and Morgan Stanley are each receiving $10 billion of capital from the government.

Bank of America is offering Merrill's U.S. brokers bonuses of as much as 100 percent of the revenue they generate to keep them after the deal is complete, people briefed on the plan said last week. Scott Silvestri, a spokesman for Bank of America, declined to comment.

Employees at Lehman Brothers in Europe have been promised by their new owner, Nomura Holdings Inc., that they will receive the same bonus as last year, according to two people familiar with the situation. A Nomura spokesman declined to comment.

Earnings Slump

Share prices and profits have dropped more than bonuses so far. Goldman's profit has fallen 47 percent this year, and the stock is down 53 percent. Morgan Stanley's earnings have tumbled 41 percent, and the shares have shed 69 percent of their value.

``Performances have certainly not been what investors would expect,'' said Daniel Moynihan, a principal at Compensation Resources Inc., a 25-year-old company in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey that advises companies on pay practices. Still, ``smart companies are going to reward those people who performed well,'' he said.

Even without bonuses, Wall Street's traders and bankers typically receive salaries that range from $80,000 to $600,000 a year. That compares with the mean annual wage for the average U.S. employee of about $40,690 and a mean for CEOs of $151,370, according to a May 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

For many on Wall Street, those salaries aren't enough. Top employees expect to receive bonuses that can be in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman's chief executive officer, was awarded a $67.9 million bonus last year on top of his $600,000 salary.

`Obscene' Mindset

At Merrill Lynch, CEO John Thain, 53, received a $15 million bonus when he was hired in December. Peter Kraus, 56, who is leaving after joining Merrill last month as strategy head, may be eligible to collect on a pay package originally valued at $95 million, including stock and options that replaced a Goldman stake he had to forfeit, people familiar with the matter have said.

While some of the most senior executives may choose to forgo their bonuses, like Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack, 63, did last year, others whose compensation isn't disclosed can still take home millions, said Mercer's Orens.

At investment banks, ``the largest compensation doesn't necessarily get paid to the top five executives,'' she said. ``They could be zeros, but there still will be people making $28 million.''

``When you work on Wall Street and you get no bonus, that is a huge shock to the system,'' said Bill Coleman, chief compensation officer at Salary.com, a software provider based in Waltham, Massachusetts. ``Wall Street has created this mindset that most people find obscene, which is that it's hard to live on just half a million dollars a year.''

`No Wall Street'

A Morgan Stanley investment banker in Europe, speaking on the condition that he wouldn't be identified, said his bonus last year was five times his salary and that he would quit if he didn't get a bonus this year, unless his salary was doubled.

``There is no Wall Street without bonuses,'' said Andy Kessler, a former analyst and hedge-fund manager turned author. ``The guys who know how to make money are the ones who are in demand. If you want to keep them, you have to pay them something.''

More than 148,000 financial jobs have been eliminated worldwide since the middle of 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Securities industry jobs in New York fell by 9,000, or 5 percent, through August 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said in an Oct. 23 report. The mean annual salary of securities-industry employees in 2007 was ``slightly less than $400,000,'' according to the Fed report.

Goldman Cuts

Goldman Sachs plans to cut about 3,200 people, or 10 percent of its employees, a person familiar with the matter said last week. That's a reversal from Sept. 16, when Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said he expected the number of employees to grow this year. Viniar told analysts in March that compensation costs make up two-thirds of the firm's expenses and that year-end bonuses are roughly two-thirds of compensation.

More job reductions are likely, especially at Merrill and Lehman. About 10,000 Merrill employees may lose their jobs, estimates Richard Bove, an analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Options Group, a financial services recruitment and consulting firm in New York, estimates that global banking job cuts could reach 200,000, with as many as 50,000 in New York.

``The vast majority of the guys who are being let go are not going to find another job in this environment on the Street,'' said Fred Joseph, the former CEO of Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. who's now co-head of Morgan Joseph & Co. in New York. ``Middle- market firms like us are growing, but all of us won't hire enough people to dent the 10 percent of people that Goldman's going to let go.''

Hedge Funds

Barclays Plc, which is acquiring Lehman's North American investment banking and capital markets businesses, will cut about 3,000 jobs, Barclays President Robert Diamond said in an Oct. 10 Fortune magazine article. While London-based Barclays has a $2.5 billion pool of money to pay severance and other compensation, it hasn't promised former Lehman employees any bonuses. Seth Martin, a spokesman at Barclays, declined to comment.

Competition for top employees, a standard explanation for paying large bonuses, is less fierce this year. Hedge funds, which have poached top traders from securities firms in the past, may cut as many as 10,000 jobs this year after their biggest losses in more than 20 years, estimates Options Group.

``People don't have a whole lot of alternative places to go to, and it's pretty clear to everybody that they're lucky to have a job,'' said Roy Smith, a former Goldman partner who's now a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business. ``It has never been easy to find industries away from finance where you can make millions of dollars a year.''

Who Are Keepers?

Fewer employees means more bonus money will be available for those who remain, said Mercer's Orens.

``You determine these are keepers, and you've got to keep them, so they'll receive a disproportionate amount of the money that remains,'' she said. ``You want to make sure they're not there and angry.''

Joseph, the former Drexel CEO, recalled the time at Shearson Hammill & Co. in 1973 when he had to deliver some good news and some bad news to a young employee.

``The good news is we're firing half your class, but we love you and we want you to stay; the bad news is you're not going to get a bonus, and we're cutting salaries 10 percent,'' he said. ``He stayed and he built a whole career, and he's been a successful investment banker ever since.''

The following table compares compensation and estimated bonuses for the first nine months of 2008 with the first nine months of last year. Bonus estimates are 60 percent of total compensation. Bonus awards are typically determined at the end of the year, with payments made in December or January.


 

                    Goldman        Morgan Stanley      Merrill
Nine Months 2007
Total Compensation  $16.92         $13.37              $11.56
(in billions)
Estimated Bonus     $10.15         $8.02               $6.94
(in billions)
Employees*          29,905         47,713              64,200
Bonus Per Employee  $339,408       $168,067            $108,075
Nine Months 2008
Total Compensation  $11.42         $10.73              $11.17
(in billions)
Estimated Bonus     $6.85          $6.44               $6.70
(in billions)
Employees*          32,569         46,383              60,900
Bonus Per Employee  $210,322       $138,749            $110,049
*Employee numbers are figures in third-quarter earnings reports
and don't reflect any cuts or additions since then.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Christine Harper in New York at
charper@bloomberg.net;
Serena Saitto in New York at
ssaitto@bloomberg.net.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY DOESN'T BARACK OBAMA RELEASE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Article From WorldNetDaily:

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor who says that the Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document.

By Jerome R. Corsi© 2008 WorldNetDaily

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama."It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born."

Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

---------------------
Comment from John Wallace:

If Barack Obama has a valid birth certificate, why doesn't he just produce it and end the controversy? I guess only Barack Obama knows the answer to that question, but the American people also have a constitutional right to know that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and meets all of the contsitutional requirements to be President. We just want the truth.

John Wallace
www.NYCampaignForLiberty.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

Has anyone noticed that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama are talking about what they are going to do with the 15 to 20 million illegal aliens that are in this country?

Ever wonder why the members of our nation's media have not asked the candidates any questions on this subject during the debates? The answer is simple. The majority of American citizens would not like their answers.

Well, here's a brief summary of McCain's and Obama's positions for you:

John McCain:

Rather than throwing illegal aliens out of the country, John McCain has voted in the past to extend social security benefits to the illegals who illegally enter our country, take jobs from American citizens, bankrupt our state and local governments with welfare costs, overload our schools at the expense of local taxpayers, bankrupt our hospitals because they don't pay their medical bills, and overload our criminal justice system with criminals. McCain co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill that would have legalized millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. and still backs what he calls a "sensible" guest-worker program for workers who are in the country without legal documentation ( a nice way of saying illegal aliens), although he has recently called for strengthening penalties for those who hire undocumented immigrants.

Barack Obama:

He has voted to continue to provide federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities," voted for the Senate immigration overhaul bill was supposed to strengthen border controls, although the bill would also create an expanded guest-worker program and eventually legalize millions of undocumented foreign workers ( a nice way of saying illegal aliens) who are here now. He has sponsored a bill to allow states to offer illegal immigrants in-state tuition and has also supported giving driver licenses to illegal aliens who have no legal right to be in this country, never mind driving on our roads.

If we want to switch the subject to the economic crisis brought about by fraudelent mortgages, why aren't McCain and Obama asked to comment on the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fraudulent home mortgages that were given to illegal aliens that was spelled out in a recent report of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The problem began years ago when the federal government began their social engineering experiments in housing with the American taxpayers' money. In the name of political correctness, diversity and so-called fairness, congress and the executive branch began coercing the banks into giving mortgages to people who would normally never qualify for mortgages. The banks (with federal loan guarantees from Fannie Mae) became willing partners in this scam and gave mortgages to millions of people with bad credit histories, without confirming the borrowers' social security numbers, employment, true identification or even their legal status in the country. As a result, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were given home mortgages which they could not afford and to many who had no intention of ever making a payment.

"When is the last time you applied for a car loan, a personal loan or a mortgage and did not have to provide valid identification or a social security number? The answer is never.

I believe there is no fundamental difference between the McCain and the Obama approaches to dealing with illegal immigration. No matter which candidate wins the election, it will be up to the American people (again) to keep them from giving the illegal aliens amnesty.

John Wallace
NY Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION IS ON THE HORIZON

The words "No Taxation without Representation" began as a slogan in the period 1763-1776 just before the first American Revolution. The slogan summarized the primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who believed the lack of representation in the British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as English citizens. The colonists believed that the laws excessively taxing them for services they did not receive were illegal.

It has become apparent to most Americans that both houses of our Congress, just like the British Parliament of the 1760's and 1770's, no longer represents the interests of the American people. Our congress routinely passes legislation that benefits a wide variety of special interest groups at the expense of the average American citizen and taxpayer. Through the use of special interest bribes (I mean campaign contributions), it can now be said that America has the best congress that money can buy.

American taxpayers are seeing their taxes go up at every level of government, oftentimes for services and programs that they do not benefit from, nor approve of. Our local and school taxes are rising at a rate far exceeding any increases in our incomes. The U.S. congress and the Federal Reserve are printing fiat money (backed by nothing) as fast as the printing presses can print it and the American taxpayers are starting to get angry about the increasing burden of taxation placed upon them and they have every right to be angry.

The American taxpayers who live up to their responsibilities and who work hard (often holding two jobs) to pay their bills with less take-home money are:

1. paying for ongoing failed social engineering experiments in housing and education,
2. paying for the funding of anti-American. socialist organizations like LaRaza and ACORN,
3. paying for a variety of services provided to 15 million +/- illegal aliens,
4. paying for the bailout of large international banks,
5. paying for the bailout of Wall Street firms,
6. paying for the bailout of real estate investors and
7. paying for the bailout of people who are unable or unwilling to be responsible adults and who fail to pay their own bills, including their mortgages.

Many American citizens, particularly those who pay taxes, are frustrated by a government that no longer represents them, but rather represents the interests of an oligarchy of about one thousand political and financial elites who exert unconstitutional and illegal control over our government and economy for their personal gain.

The members of this oligarchy are not loyal Americans who have the best interests of the county in mind, but rather they are people who benefit financially or politically by keeping our country in a constant state of war, by dumbing down our education system, by devaluating our currency, by separating us into categories by race and ethnic origin, by drugging 6 million of children with mind altering drugs, by flooding our country with illegal aliens, and by chipping away at our nation's sovereignty, freedoms and liberties.

I believe that Americans are fast approaching a point of frustration and anger with their own government similar to what the American colonists reached in 1776. They want to take their country and government back from the corrupt political and financial elites who control it. Let's hope that the second American Revolution that we see on the horizon, is accomplished via the ballot box.

John Wallace
New York Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GREAT MORTGAGE SWINDLE - THE TAXPAYERS LOSE AGAIN!

In 1938, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created to help Americans get mortgages. Fannie Mae is a private GSE (Govt. Sponsored Entity) regulated by Congress and it was created to help the country get out of the depression by making it easier for American to buy homes. Although Fannie Mae was established as a private company with shareholders and was supposed to make a profit, the American taxpayers would still be stuck for the bill if Fannie Mae suffered any losses.

A similar private organization, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac), was established in 1970 and charged with creating a national secondary market for conventional home mortgages. By doing so, Congress hoped to level out the disparity among regions of the nation in regard to availability of and interest rates on home mortgages.

In 1977, however, Congress decided that it was time for the federal government to intrude into the free-market mortgage business through the introduction of welfare state type legislation. It passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which required banks and other lending institutions to make extraordinary efforts to give loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines that were so successful in the past.In the name of ending alleged discrimination, members of these “communities of color” were no longer required to provide all of the standard mortgage documents such as verification of income, proof of employment, credit history, or even provide a down payment.

Because of the federal loan guarantees that came with the legislation, many banks and mortgage companies bundled billions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors both in the USA and in foreign countries. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act type mortgages, that were doomed to fail, that would eventually cause the near collapse of U.S. and global financial markets in 2008.

In 1997, The Clinton administration, pushing the socialist idea that home ownership is a right of all Americans, placed even more pressure on banks to grant even more mortgages to the poor, minorities and people with bad credit. Reacting to the pressure applied by the Clinton Administration and the threat of federal lawsuits by Janet Reno, American banks began making thousands of bad loans, many with no money down, no documentation and even loans for up to 120% of actual values. Executives at Fannie Mae started to receive huge bonuses when mortgage loans targets were met. To help push the program, Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick, from the Clinton Administration, were given top positions in Fannie Mae.

In 1998, Fannie Mae reported the following bonuses to some of their executives: chairman and chief executive James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines, chairman-designate, received $1.11 million; Chief Operating Officer Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Vice Chairman Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Chief Financial Officer J. Timothy Howard received $493,750; and Robert J. Levin, an executive vice president, received $493,750. These bonuses increased in future years as fraudelent entries were made in the financial records.

In 2001, Enron Corporation collapses and congress the SEC and the FBI investigates. In the ensuing years, many of the Enron executives were charged with various federal crimes and many of them were sentenced to years in federal prison. The chielf executives of the company were found guilty of cooking the books. As a result of this business failure, in 2002 congress passed the Sorbanes-Oxley Act, which introduced major changes to the regulation of financial practice and corporate governance. Named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley, who were its main architects, it set deadlines for the record keeping compliance by the nation's corporations.

In 2003, President George Bush called for legislation to give the government more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but his proposal fell on deaf congressional ears, many of whose members were receiving substantial bribes (I mean campaign contributions) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget, found that massive fraudulent bookkeeping practices were occurring at Fannie Mae and that these practices were very similar to the fraudelent practices in the Enron Corp case. The OMB determined that these annual false mortgage statistics were used to justify the top executives getting excessive bonuses every year. Unlike the Enron case, however, congress decided not to hold any hearings and the FBI did not launch any criminal investigations. As a result of the OMB report, Franklin Raines & other top execs were forced to resign from Fannie Mae for doing the same thing that Enron executives did (cookin the books), but unlike the Enron case, the Fannie Mae executives only had to give back $31.4 million dollars in fines after a civil proceeding.

In 2005, Senators Chuck Hagel (NE), Elizabeth Dole (NC), John Sununu (NH) and John McCain (AZ) proposed legislation entitled, " The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act" (S-190) that was designed to give the federal government increased federal oversight over Fannie Mae, Freedie Mac and other institutions, but the legislation was met with fierce Democratic partisan opposition and it went nowhere. In support of this legislation, Sen McCain stated: "if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

TWO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS THAT CONTIBUTED FOR THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY FAILURES:

1 - The National Council of LaRaza, a racist and pro-illegal alien amnesty group, along with its Development Fund, have received millions of dollars in federal funds to "counsel" their constituents (including illegal aliens) on how to obtain mortgages with little to no money down. For years, there has been a rapidly expanding illegal alien home loan racket that the media and the federal government still are unwilling to talk about. Many banks looking for more federal guaranteed loan handouts, led by Wachovia and Bank of America, launched aggressive campaigns designed to attract more illegal alien homebuyers, subsidized by the American taxpayers of course.

2 - Another socialist Racist group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) demanded “affirmative action” in all lending practices and programs. They pressured banks to make subprime loans to poor people of color with bad credit. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, has even boasted of “dragging banks kicking and screaming” into these dubious loans. As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, “The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also pay ransom to ACORN.” The ACORN organization actively supports candidates of the Democratic Party and many ACORN people have also been arrested on various charges involving voter fraud.

To make matters worse, The most recent House and Senate Democratic bail-out legislation contained a well-hidden provision that would forward some of the profits, indirectly, to help fund organizations like LaRaza and ACORN. If this provision is included in the final versions, the American taxpayer will be giving more cash to the very groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.

By 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had loaned or underwritten about $5.3 trillion of the total $12 trillion of outstanding mortgage debt in the United States. Because of the shear magnitude of mortgages held, many in government and in the private sector believed that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were too big to be allowed to fail and the government had to take them over completely with taxpayers money.

Because of this philosophy, American Taxpayers either have or shortly will have shelled out close to $1.4 Trillion in bailout money for various reasons in the last 14 months alone.Here’s a list of some of the more recent Federal government's actions in the financial markets recently published by Reuters:

Cost to taxpayers and the Bailout Type

$ 700 billion+ - Proposed current Treasury Department legislation
$ 29 billion - Bear Stearns financing
$ 200 bilion - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization
$ 85 billion - AIG loan and nationalization
$ 300 billion - Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill
$4 billion - Mortgage community grants
$87 billion - JPMorgan Chase repayments
$200 billion+ - Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility
$ 50 billion - Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund
$144 billion - Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

TOTAL: $1.8 trillion+
COST PER US HOUSHOLD: $17,064+

I believe that the solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the free market. It is time this process is put to an end, or at the very least, reigned in. The government should sell off the assets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quickly and close down these corrupt organizations. Government must stop pandering to special interest groups, reduce the volume and complexity of regulations it imposes on lending institutions and stop passing social engineering legislation, like the Community Reinvestment Act, that interferes in the free market economy and which has ultimately led to this financial crisis.

It's a tough battle for those Senators and Members of Congress who have stood tall and who have voted against this massive fleecing of the American taxpayers for the benefit of Wall Street investors and big commercial banks. Unfortunately, if congress can be judged by its past practices, any proposed bailout legislation that comes to a vote will undoubtedly be loaded with riders, earmarks and all forms of other "pork" so that the special interests that are looking for us to bail them out will win and the American taxpayers will lose again.

John Wallace
NY Campaign for Liberty
http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »