HURRICANE FLORENCE CREATES PRICE GOUGING CRISIS IN NORTH CAROLINA

HURRICANE FLORENCE CREATES PRICE GOUGING CRISIS IN NORTH CAROLINA:

MORE THAN 500 REPORTED INCIDENTS OF BUSINESSES FINANCIALLY ABUSING HURRICANE VICTIMS, INCLUDING GAS STATIONS & HOTELS.

THIS IS UNTHINKABLE & GREEDY.

EACH BUSINESS PRACTICING PRICE GOUGING SHOULD BE HARSHLY PROSECUTED.


Post Sources: CBS News, CNN, NCDOJ, WRAL, Youtube


***** There have been more than 500 reports of price gouging in North Carolina after Florence


When North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency ahead of Hurricane Florence, the state's price gouging law went into effect.

The law mandates that businesses in the state aren't allowed to spike prices during any natural disaster for necessary items like food, water and hotel rooms.

But so far, the North Carolina Attorney General's office has received more than 500 complaints.
Residents have complained of exorbitant markups on such items as gas and water, Attorney General Josh Stein Stein said Sunday.

Stein said his office is also getting reports of hotels over-charging evacuees.
The price gouging law will be in place until Governor Roy Cooper lifts the state of emergency.
Stein also warned storm victims to be vigilant when repairing their homes after the storm and look out for price gouging and scams.

Businesses that charge too much may have to refund customers and pay up to $5,000 for every violation.

To report, potential price gouging in North Carolina, call 1-877-5-NO-SCAM or file a complaint at www.ncdoj.gov.
——————————————-


NORTH CAROLINA PRICE GOUGING LAW IN EFFECT

Release date: 9/10/2018

(RALEIGH) The price gouging law that protects consumers from scammers is now in effect in North Carolina after Governor Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency for the state as Hurricane Florence moves toward the coast. Attorney General Josh Stein notified businesses and consumers today to be on the lookout for any issues.

“My office is here to protect North Carolinians from scams and frauds,” said Attorney General Josh Stein. “That is true all the time – but especially during severe weather. It is against the law to charge an excessive price during a state of emergency. If you see a business taking advantage of this storm, either before or after it hits, please let my office know so we can hold them accountable.”

North Carolina has a strong statute against price gouging – charging too much during a time of crisis – that is tied directly to a declaration of a state of emergency. When Governor Cooper declared a state of emergency for North Carolina on Friday, September 7, the statute went into effect for the entire state and will remain so until the state of emergency is lifted.

Attorney General Stein and the North Carolina Department of Justice will be reviewing complaints from consumers closely over the next several weeks and are prepared to take action against any businesses engaging in price gouging activities. Please report potential price gouging by calling 1-877-5-NO-SCAM or file a complaint at www.ncdoj.gov.

Contact:
Laura Brewer (919) 716-6484

GOP's 2012 Jobs Strategy? Kill Jobs Via Fake Debt Crisis & Union Busting

White House explores options on FAA shutdown

The White House said on Wednesday it was looking at ways to end a partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration that has halted airport construction projects employing thousands of people and extended the summer's political battles.

But transportation experts said the Obama administration has little room to maneuver, and instead officials pressured Congress for emergency action to break a deadlock that has held up full funding of the FAA for 12 days so far.



Obama said he had called key congressional leaders and a White House official confirmed one call was to House Speaker John Boehner.

"I'm urging them to get this done," Obama said in remarks before a Cabinet meeting.

It was unclear whether Obama's discussions had any impact on the partisan standoff mainly over demands by the Republican-led House that Congress cut certain heavy subsidies for airlines that operate flights to under served rural areas.



Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that the White House was looking at steps that it could take to end the shutdown affecting more than 74,000 airport-related construction jobs and certain FAA personnel.

Lawmakers left town this week for their summer recess with the matter in limbo and are not due back until early September. The Obama administration said, however, that certain procedures would permit emergency action without bringing lawmakers back to Washington.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, said such action was not likely although he did not dismiss it entirely.

"They can still do it," LaHood said.

The shutdown has added to acrimony that has defined Washington during the summer's political brawl over raising the U.S. debt ceiling.



Reid, in a letter to Boehner, said there was room for compromise on the FAA later but that it was "not honorable for the House" to attach the subsidy rider to what otherwise was a routine funding extension. Similar short-term budget extensions for the FAA had passed 20 times previously.

Boehner said in a statement that the House had "done its job" and the burden was on the Senate to act.

The administration's hands were mostly tied over the funding quagmire, and would find it difficult to take the kind of money at stake in the shutdown -- $360 million so far -- from one agency budget source and apply it to FAA airport construction.

Further angering Obama and his administration is the decision by airlines to capitalize on the congressional inaction to legally not collect ticket taxes, and raise fares by a commensurate amount.

The windfall totaled more than $360 million so far and could top $1.2 billion if the standoff lasts until Congress returns in September.

"And we don't anticipate it's going to be easy to get that money back," Obama said, "Even though the airlines are collecting it, they're keeping it."

The trade group representing Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), United Airlines (UAL.N), US Airways (LCC.N) and Southwest Airlines (LUV.N) say carriers are justified in boosting revenue to try to cover costs, which they cannot do now.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Fox News, MSNBC, Reuters, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Mainstream Media Switched Jobs Crisis To Debt Debate For GOP (2012 Conspiracy)

The Invisible Unemployed: Major Media Ignore Jobless Americans And Obsess Over U.S. Debt

As Think Progress’s Lee Fang has reported, a handful of right-wing front groups and billionaires have engineered a political consensus that trumpets reducing U.S. debt rather than tackling unemployment.

But unfortunately, these front groups have had some assistance from the mainstream media outlets who seem obsessed with covering deficit reduction and debt debates in Washington, while ignoring the other problems plaguing the economy as it recovers from the Great Recession.

For instance, a Think Progress media analysis of the coverage of three major cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, and Fox — over the last week finds that these outlets gave a much larger portion of their coverage to U.S. debt rather than the unemployed. Think Progress scanned media coverage at these outlets for the words “unemployed,” “unemployment,” and “debt.” The first two phrases put together still got 15 times less coverage than the debt.

Of course, it makes sense that the media dedicated time to the debt ceiling debate last week, as the U.S. was inching closer and closer to an unprecedented default on its obligations. However, by failing to cover the other problems in the economy — continued high unemployment, mounting foreclosures, and record corporate profits that are not translating into job creation — the media does a disservice to those who are struggling with a slew of economic problems that have nothing to do with the federal budget or congressional negotiations.

And while the mainstream press has obsessed over U.S. debt, the American people appear to have different priorities. A Gallup poll taken last month finds that only 16 percent of Americans see the federal budget deficit as the “most important problem facing the country.” Meanwhile, 27 percent of American see “unemployment/jobs” as that problem, while 31 percent name the “economy in general” as that concern.

Sources: Fox News, MSNBC, Think Progress, Youtube

Geithner Joins Senate Dems To Warn Stubborn House GOP Leaders: "It's Time!"

"Hurry Up Please! It's Time!"
T.S. Eliot










Timothy Geithner on debt ceiling: 'We're running out of time'

During a visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner implored Congress to raise the debt ceiling and to send a “definitive signal” to the world that America will avoid default, warning that “we’re running out of time.”

“We’ve looked at all available options and we have no way to give Congress more time to solve this problem. We’re running out of time,” Geithner said at a news conference after meeting with Senate Democrats.

“The eyes of the country are on us. The eyes of the world are on us, and we need to make sure we stand together and send a definitive signal that we’re going to take the steps necessary to avoid default and also take advantage of this opportunity to make some progress in dealing with our long-term fiscal problems,” he added. “We don’t have much time; it’s time we move.”

Geithner made a brief presentation and fielded questions at a Democratic caucus lunch, walking senators through what would happen if Congress fails to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit by the Aug. 2 deadline.

The nation’s credit rating would be downgraded within days, the government would be restricted from borrowing money, and the Treasury would not be able to meet its financial obligations at the end of the month, causing some agencies and programs to lose funding, Geithner told senators.

There was also discussion of calling on former GOP treasury secretaries to explain the consequences of a default, said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who attended the meeting.

“This isn’t ginned up. This is real,” she said.

Geithner has warned that a failure to lift the debt ceiling would be “catastrophic” for the economy. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) lashed out against what he called a small group of Republican “ideologues” who are ignoring the secretary’s warnings and objecting to a debt hike.

“Secretary Geithner made one thing very clear: Aug. 2 is the deadline. There is no waffling from that. There’s no room to squeeze into another area – that’s it, Aug. 2. …” said Reid, with Geithner at his side. “There is no wiggle room.”

To illustrate his point, Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois recounted memories of taking his children into a store and looking for the sign reading: “You break it, you own it.”

“My message to the Republicans who are stopping us from extending the debt ceiling is: If they bring this economy down, they’ve broken it and they own it,” said Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “America can’t stand for that kind of political strategy.”

Sources: AP, Politico, USA Today, Youtube

Bachmann: "Poor Minorities Responsible For Economic Crisis" (Videos)

Sources: C-Span, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube

Spending Cuts Bad For Economy During Recovery (GOP 2012 Tactic)

Doh! A bad time for spending cuts?

Big Federal spending cuts are on the way. That's pretty clear. Whether they total $1 trillion, $2 trillion or $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But make no mistake -- they are coming.

The cuts -- tied to an increase in the debt ceiling -- are virtually guaranteed to be some of the biggest in history. But will they hit the economy at a particularly bad time?

The unemployment rate stands at 9.2%. The government's jobs reports for May and June were dismal. The housing market is not exactly vibrant. In fact, it's terrible.

The spending cuts will be phased in over the next decade or so. What remains unclear is how quickly.

There is a danger in cutting too much too soon, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who favors big spending cuts so long as they don't take effect for a few years.

"I wouldn't add to cuts this year or next, given the fragile economy," Zandi said. "There is already plenty of restraint on the books."

Obama to Congress: Do your job

Martin Baily, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration, said the United States needs to get long-term costs under control, but not all at once.

"If we did make significant cuts over the next few years, it would put a drag on the recovery," Baily said.

The cuts are likely to be focused on non-security discretionary spending, a small section of the budget that includes funding for food inspectors, the FBI and education grants, among many other programs and services people associate with government.

Obama said Monday that the expiring 2009 Recovery Act has already provided a glimpse into a future filled with spending cuts.

"We've seen that federal support for states diminish, you've seen the biggest jobs losses in the public sector -- teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs," Obama said during a press conference.

Debt deal: Brace for spending cuts

To counter the spending cuts in any debt ceiling deal, Obama said he would push for a series of measures that would boost job creation in the short-term. Another payroll tax holiday, an infrastructure bank and free trade deals are all on the table, he said.

There are ways to structure the cuts that will mitigate their impact on the larger economy, according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Holtz-Eakin said that just like the budget plan passed earlier this year by House Republicans, legislation could be written in a way that would keep direct government purchases at a relatively high level.

"I quite frankly live for the day we would have a Congress that would cut spending so quickly it would endanger the recovery," Holtz-Eakin said. "I've never seen one of those."

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, The Young Turks, Youtube

Economists Urge Obama To Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Jobs & Growth

Economists: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Everyone


With Income Tax rates set to go up on Dec. 31, Congress is hotly debating what to do next. But most economists agree: Keep them where they are.

One option, to let the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration expire for only the richest 3% of taxpayers while renewing them for everyone else, is popular among Democrats and the choice of the Obama administration.

But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.

The first in a series of economic surveys revealed that extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers is the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy. Of the 31 economists surveyed, 18 chose that from a list of options now being debated on Capitol Hill.

"Extend tax cuts for all income levels and do nothing else," said Sean Snaith, economics professor at the University of Central Florida. "More of the same piecemeal, patchwork policies put forth by this administration will undermine confidence and do little to change the path the economy is on."

Three economists surveyed endorsed the Obama administration's plan to extend the tax cuts only for the lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but allow it to go up on those in the top two brackets -- individuals making more than $200,000 a year or couples earning $250,000 or more. That limited increase in taxes would raise an estimated $700 billion over the next 10 years.

See the full survey results.

Some experts, such as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that with the size of U.S. budget deficit, the government can't afford to extend anyone's tax break.

But economists surveyed were in broad agreement that the recovery is still too fragile to allow taxes to go up for the 97% of taxpayers not in the top brackets.

"If those tax cuts expire for everybody, we go into a double-dip recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.

Zandi and some of the economists calling for an extension of cuts for the wealthy want to phase out the lower rates for those taxpayers after a couple of years to limit the cost to the Treasury.

Higher taxes are generally believed to be a drag on the economy since it leaves consumers and businesses with less money to spend. Those who argue for extending the tax cuts for the wealthy say that raising those tax rates would hit many small businesses and could put a crimp in hiring.

Those who want to allow the rates to rise for the top earners argue they are more likely to save the money rather than spend it, and thus the tax cut would have less of an economic impact than would lowering the taxes for most other taxpayers.

"I would prefer that the tax cuts for the two upper brackets would also be extended, but there is much more spending [that needs to be done] and much more of an economic impact from extending the tax cuts for everybody else," said Dana Johnson of Comerica Bank, one of those who endorsed the Obama plan to let taxes rise on the top earners.

Four of the economists surveyed backed the plan that passed the Senate Thursday to provide funding and other incentives to spur more lending to small businesses.

Another five suggested other choices of their own, including taking more steps to stop home foreclosures, reforming the overall tax system, resuming drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and having the Federal Reserve do more to provide credit directly to businesses and consumers.

Only two cited additional help for long-term unemployed and more help to cash-strapped state and local governments as their top priorities.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Obama's New Mortgage Relief Plan Prevents Deeper Recession

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's Latest Housing Plan Likely To Help Prevent Deeper Recession


Three years after the housing bust sent foreclosures rates soaring, the White House has gone back to the drawing board to try to keep another 8 million homeowners in their homes.

But a series of enhancements to the Obama administration's year-old foreclosure relief plan announced Friday does little to attack the fundamental logjams that have plagued a program designed to modify loans to create more affordable payments.

As a result, the latest changes likely will help relatively few borrowers, according to those briefed on the program.

“We continue to tinker around the edges of foreclosure prevention,” said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, who testified Thursday on Capitol Hill about the program’s failings.

“We rush to give banks tax breaks, but we dawdle to help homeowners who through no fault of their own lost their jobs because of the economic crisis or bought defective loans that caused the economic crisis.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When the pace of U.S. foreclosures began rising in 2007, the hardest hit were borrowers who had been sold subprime loans that reset to unaffordable levels. As the housing market cratered and the recession deepened, the problem spread to other groups, including those who lost their jobs or saw the value of their homes fall below what they owed on their mortgage.

The changes announced Friday are intended to help those groups. Lenders and mortgage servicers will be required to offer three to six months of temporary relief for borrowers who have lost their jobs.

Mortgage companies participating in the existing Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), also will be required to consider cutting the amount borrowers owe, for which they would be paid an incentive from the $75 billion set aside to fund the HAMP program. "They’re trying,” said Helen Raynaud, vice president of national grants for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. “But a lot of the aspects are still voluntary for the servicers to participate."

Additional incentives are being offered to lenders and servicers that cut payments or eliminate second mortgages — a key roadblock in many loan modifications. But unless lenders and servicers suddenly increase the pace of loan modifications, the cost of those incentives will likely remain small. So far, the government has paid out only about $50 million under the HAMP program.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

After the Bush administration’s first foreclosure relief plan, Hope Now, failed to make a dent in the rising foreclosure rate, the Obama administration a year ago announced the HAMP program to try to head off the widening crisis. The plan originally was expected to save between 3 million and 4 million homes. So far, of 1.1 million homeowners who have signed up, only 170,000 have won permanent loan modifications.

To be sure, the latest changes will help boost that number. But those who have looked at the new guidelines say the numbers helped likely will still be counted in the hundreds of thousands. As many as 8 million homeowners are at risk of losing their homes in the next two years.

"We remain dubious about government mortgage modification efforts," wrote Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with Concept Capital's Washington Research Group. "So far none have lived up to expectations, and we see little reason to believe the latest effort will turn out any different."

Part of the problem lies with the scope of the crisis. Three years after the housing bubble burst, the number of homeowners falling behind on their mortgages continues to rise. On Thursday, U.S. banking regulators reported that the number of seriously delinquent mortgages jumped in the fourth quarter, led by a sharp increase among the most creditworthy borrowers.

Some 13.6 percent of all homeowners with mortgages — more than one in seven — are behind in their payments, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It was the seventh consecutive quarterly rise.

Meanwhile, millions of homeowners who were sold “pay-option” adjustable mortgages during the housing boom face the prospect of big jumps in monthly payments this year and next. Millions more are “underwater,” owing more than their home is worth.

The mortgage mess remains mired in the complex financial innovation that created the hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage-backed bonds that financed the housing bubble. That has created an equally complex quagmire of multiple investors holding pieces of an individual homeowner's mortgage. Disagreements over how to value those investments, and how and when to book losses, have stymied the process from the beginning.

“We have to do a real reality check,” said David Berenbaum, chief program officer at the NCRC. “Until we address the underlying problems with this paper — who holds it, how it was originated, how people are accountable and how we can correct this epidemic of foreclosures — our communities' tax base, as well as the economic climate of the nation, is at risk.”

Rising unemployment has also expanded the crisis to a pool of borrowers who were once among the most creditworthy. But one of the nasty side effects of the loan modification has been that homeowners who see their payments reduced below the original amount can see their credit scores lowered.

“That can hurt them when they go looking for a job,” said Raynaud. “When you get a job offer, employers are looking at credit scores.”

It’s not clear whether Friday’s announcement addresses that problem, said Raynaud.

Homeowners who have applied for help with their mortgages report a blizzard of red tape when trying to deal with lenders and servicers. Many servicers have acknowledged the problem, but argue that they were never set up to deal with the historic wave of defaults and foreclosures.

But three years after the housing bust began, homeowners and housing counselors report that the process involves endless delays on hold, repeated redirection from one department to another, delayed or no response, lost paperwork and little or no explanations when applications are denied.

“These problems have not really been addressed yet,” said Raynaud “I have not heard from any counselors that it’s getting better.”


View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, CNBC, Google Maps

Mort Zuckerman Slams Obama's Policies Just Like Warren Buffet

Mort Zuckerman: Obama's Done Everything Wrong!


Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.





Warren Buffett Would Scrap Current Health Care Bill


Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.

In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system. He added that while he does not like the Senate bill, he’d vote for it in preference to doing nothing.

“What we have now is untenable over time,” said Buffett, an early supporter of Obama’s candidacy. “That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.”

“We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,” he added. “And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.”

But while Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, applauded Obama for taking up the reform effort, he said that “unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much.”

Asked if he would be in favor of scrapping the Senate health care bill, Buffett responded: “I would be.”

If the president were to start over, Buffett would advise him to “just show this chart of what's been happening and say this is the tapeworm that's eating at American competitiveness. And I would say that one way or another, we're going to attack costs, costs, costs, just like they talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Buffett urged Obama to say that “we're going to cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in Florida or the Cornhusker kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and we're going to — we're going to get rid of the nonsense. We're just going to focus on costs and we're not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things. And I would say, as president, `I'm going to come back to you with something that's going to do something about this, because we have to do it.’”

Like Democrats in Congress, Buffett would like to expand access to health insurance, but he said he does not “believe in insuring more people till you attack the cost aspect of this.”

“If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B, what is in front of — the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill,” Buffett said. “But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it's going to have to do some tough things.”

Sources: The Daily Beast, Fox News, Politico, CNBC, Youtube

Rahm Emanuel's PR Challenge: "Never Waste A Good Crisis"

Hotheaded Emanuel May Be White House Voice Of Reason



Rahm Emanuel is officially a Washington caricature. He's the town's resident leviathan, a bullying, bruising White House chief of staff who is a prime target for the failings of the Obama administration.

But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It is a view propounded by lawmakers and early supporters of President Obama who are frustrated because they think the administration has gone for the perfect at the expense of the plausible. They believe Emanuel, the town's leading purveyor of four-letter words, a former Israeli army volunteer and a product of a famously argumentative family, was not aggressive enough in trying to persuade a singularly self-assured president and a coterie of true-believer advisers that "change you can believe in" is best pursued through accomplishments you can pass.

By all accounts, Obama selected Emanuel for his experience in the Clinton White House, his long relationships with the media and Democratic donors, and his well-established -- and well-earned -- reputation as a political enforcer, all of which neatly counterbalanced Obama's detached, professorial manner. A president who would need the deft navigation of Congress to pass his ambitious legislation turned to the Illinois congressman and former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee because he possessed a unique understanding of the legislative mind.

The pairing made sense, but things haven't worked out as expected. And in the search for what has gone wrong, influential Democrats are -- in unusually frank terms -- blaming Obama and his closest campaign aides for not listening to Emanuel. And this puts the 50-year-old chief of staff in a very uncomfortable position.

Listening to Emanuel would serve "all our overall goals," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). "I think that Rahm's considerable legislative experience translates into advice that the president should heed."

Instead, Obama went for the historically far-reaching, but more legislatively difficult, achievements that he and his campaign-forged inner circle believe they were sent to Washington to deliver.



'Gut Instincts'

In December 2008, Obama, Emanuel and Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) met in Obama's transition headquarters in Chicago to discuss detainee policy. According to Graham, Obama turned to him at one point and said, " 'I'm going to need your help closing Guantanamo Bay. . . . I want you and Rahm to start talking.' " They did, and as the discussions progressed, Emanuel grew wary that closing the U.S. military prison in Cuba was possible without opening a slew of other politically sensitive national security problems " 'This stuff is like flypaper,' " Graham recalled Emanuel saying. " 'It will stick to you.' "

Graham said Emanuel was well aware that his and any other Republican support for closing Guantanamo Bay hinged on keeping alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed out of civilian court.

According to a person familiar with the conversations, who discussed the confidential deliberation on the condition of anonymity, Emanuel made his case to Obama, articulating the political dangers of a civilian trial to congressional Democrats. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. presented a counterargument rooted in principle, for civilian trials.

David Axelrod, senior adviser to Obama, supported Holder, the source said. The president agreed that letting the Justice Department take the lead was the right thing to do.

"Axelrod has a strong view of the historic character Obama is supposed to be," said an early Obama supporter who is close to the president and spoke on the condition of anonymity to give a frank assessment of frustration with the White House. The source blamed Obama's charmed political life for creating a self-confidence and trust in principle that led to an "indifference to doing the small, marginal things a White House could do to mitigate the problems on the Hill. Rahm knows the geography better."

Emanuel and Axelrod declined to comment for this article.

"During this whole civilian-trial debate, Rahm's gut instincts knew that taking KSM to New York for civilian trials was going to be a misstep," Graham said. "He has a better ear for domestic politics on this issue than anybody in the administration, quite frankly."

With the Justice Department in charge, Emanuel tried to keep tabs on the process through Graham. "He'd say: 'How's it going? Did you tell them they were going to lose you?' And in terms a sailor could understand."

One administration official close to Emanuel did not dispute that Obama had overruled Emanuel on some key policy issues. "It's not germane what the discussion was beforehand, what his idea was, because once a decision is made, he puts himself whole-hog behind it," the official said of Emanuel. "It would be difficult for people to discern what his [original] position was."

'Taking flak'

Emanuel's allies say there is no such thing as Rahm at rest. According to almost everyone who has ever worked with him, he has an insatiable need to be in the mix, and he is deeply concerned with the news of the day. His office is the White House nerve center. "In order to get a final decision, everything needs to go through Rahm's office," said a former administration official who thinks Emanuel should delegate more.

Every morning, Emanuel leads a 7:30 meeting with about 10 senior administration aides, pushing through the president's priorities, all listed on index cards embossed with the title "Chief of Staff." Throughout the day, one senior administration official said, Emanuel might call six times to determine whether he can cross off an item. If not, it is on the list the next day.

The official said Emanuel surveys colleagues' opinions "more than people think." Emanuel's initial reaction to criticism is likely to be slamming down the phone. But usually, he calls back after a few minutes, the official said, and says, " 'Okay, let's talk.' "

His weighing in on a mind-boggling swath of governmental and political activity adds to his outsize image as chief of staff of everything. As a result, he can be blamed for almost everything, especially as health-care legislation became stuck, the president's approval ratings dipped and widespread angst about the economy fueled a GOP resurgence.

"When the going gets rough, the chiefs of staff are always on the firing line," Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said last week.

Emanuel's aversion to distractions from the president's agenda has caused conflict, and disappointment, on the Hill.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who wrote Obama a letter of support for Emanuel's appointment, now says it was "a mistake."

"For Rahm, power and preservation of power is always the number one priority," Gutierrez said. He said Emanuel corroded Obama's commitment to immigration reform, and he gleefully compared the renewed scrutiny on Emanuel, and the popular Washington parlor game of when he'd return to pursue other opportunities in Chicago, to "vultures circling."

Suffering that sort of opprobrium -- what Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Emanuel's friend of three decades, described as "taking flak" for the president -- hasn't visibly bothered the chief of staff. He has always showed a brash side. As a young operative in Illinois, he sent a dead fish to a pollster. As an aide to Bill Clinton, he stabbed a knife into a table while screaming the names of the president's enemies.

But the Rahm-knows-better-than-the-president notion, increasingly spread by his allies and articulated in a Washington Post column by Dana Milbank last month, is, regardless of its relation to reality, creating more tension for the chief of staff inside the White House and drawing more scrutiny from outside.

Emanuel, ever attuned to the politics of self-preservation, has assumed a lower profile. His on-the-record output has reduced to a trickle. The other day, he made an unusual visit to the movies ("We saw 'Ajami,' " a film about social divisions in Israel, said his friend Joel Johnson, a former Capitol Hill official.) He's taking on help in a new senior adviser, Robert Nabors, currently deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

"Rahm can appear to correct course better than anybody," said one senior administration official. "When the heat is on, he shows a spirit of camaraderie and working well with the team. In the last few days, he's been a little bit more solicitous about opinions on the health-care summit, about inviting people into the conversation about how things get shaped."

Obama's key campaign advisers, even those with whom Emanuel has clashed, are as eager as he is to make the civil war of the Chicago consiglieri story go away.

"Rahm has been a tremendous chief of staff," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president. "We have all the good fortune of working for President Obama. We're a good collegial team."

'Ally in the effort'

What makes Emanuel's position so difficult is that his job requires him to bridge the competing interests of the White House and Congress.

"All our members are up for election this year, and the president is not up for election until 2012," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "Sometimes there are tensions because of the different timetables."

Van Hollen, who is Emanuel's successor as DCCC chairman and is charged with protecting the House majority Emanuel helped win, said: "There has been some frustration with the administration," especially in the slow pace of tackling unemployment. "From my discussions with Rahm, he has been an ally in the effort to get these things moving quickly and understands it's important that there be progress."

Asked about that tension, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said: "I'm sure there were discussions back and forth, and Rahm, being the operational guy in the room, said, 'Look, this is what we can get, let's get this now, we can pare it down, et cetera.' And I'm sure there were those in the room who said, "Look, we said during the campaign we were going to do this; we need to get the whole ball of wax."

Another senior member of the House Democratic caucus put it more bluntly. "I don't think the White House has listened to him enough," said the member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss frustration with the White House. "There is this growing sense in the House that this White House is tone-deaf and doesn't care about 2010, that it is sacrificing members for 2012 and that the president thinks he doesn't need to get engaged, or that he thinks politics don't matter and that he could care less about what is happening on the streets of our districts. That's not Rahm."

One early supporter of Obama, who has known Emanuel for years, did not give the chief of staff a pass. "The House members recruited by Rahm say to me, 'He is supposed to know our needs; how come we are being cut off at the knees on so many issues?' They don't understand why Rahm is not being more aggressive."

Emanuel has maneuvered where possible. He has dispatched Vice President Biden to appear at 25 fundraisers and rallies to assist the "frontline members" of the House, those most in danger of being bounced out of office. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who negotiated with Emanuel during the shaping of the president's budget, said he helped secure assistance for projects "related to my state," including getting the delayed construction of a dormitory back on track. "Not sexy stuff," he said.

That seemingly small, unsexy stuff is, however, key to Emanuel's strategy of keeping the congressional majorities happy and building up small achievements into a substantial body of legislation.

Early in the administration, Obama signed into law equal-pay legislation and expanded health care for children and credit-card protections. When it came time for the economic stimulus plan, Emanuel -- arguing that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste" -- was the White House's point man in the Senate. There, too, he valued the plausible over the perfect.

Snowe said he was "responsive" to her interest in removing $100 billion in spending from the stimulus bill. "He understood it operationally and legislatively, what needed to be accomplished, and was very straightforward," she said.

When health-care reform became the administration's focus, Emanuel's public persona was that of a partisan field marshal. But before Obama and his advisers settled on a policy of expansive scope, Emanuel back in August suggested a smaller bill that would be easier to pass, according to another administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

When the larger measure stalled, Emanuel harangued Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and later argued to Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to strike the public option from the legislation to expedite passage, the source said. Reid insisted on putting it in.

"One thing that has frustrated Rahm," said Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), "is how the Senate works."

As health-care negotiations inched along at the end of last year, Emanuel grew impatient about addressing national joblessness concerns. One Democratic senator who wanted to pivot to unemployment said Emanuel shared his thinking. " 'I understand, I understand. We have to get to jobs,' " the senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, recalled Emanuel commiserating. In a meeting with the president and chief of staff, the senator stated his case, but Obama decided the priority was seeing health-care reform through.

"It was the president's call," said the senator, who added that Emanuel showed no trace of objection. "A play was called, and he was running the play."

Sources: Washington Post, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Youtube

Democrats Covered Up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Crisis?...Shocking!

How Democrats Created the Financial Crisis With Fannie Mac & Freddie Mac



The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.





Bail-Out Policy Killing FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac


One of the key aspects of the futile effort to "rescue" the global monetary system, has been the effort to prop up the values of U.S. real estate by having the Federal government guarantee mortgages and mortgage-related securities. We warned, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government last year, that they would be turned into bail-out facilities, and that the move would ultimately destroy them. Together, the two companies have already been given $96 billion in Federal funds, and now they need more.

Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee Thursday, Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "likely will require additional draws" of Federal funds, and described their outlook as "troubled." The FHFA regulates Fannie and Freddie, which own or guarantee half of all U.S. residential mortgages.

Another victim of the bail-out scam is the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), an agency that insures mortgages. The FHA's loan-insurance volume has soared since the crisis began, with the agency insuring a fifth of all new mortgages issued in the first half of the year. In testimony prepared to be delivered to Congress tomorrow, former Fannie Mae executive Edward Pinto said that the FHA "appears destined for a taxpayer bail-out in the next 24 to 36 months," noting that it faced $54 billion more in losses than it had the funds to cover.

Reality is even worse than these dire statements suggest. The Federal government is desperately trying to prop up the value of real estate in the hope of saving the value of trillions of dollars of mortgage-related securities held by banks and other financial institutions, and has turned the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac into insurance mills which guarantee the inflated values of properties even as the market values of those properties continue to fall.

This is a scheme which is guaranteed to produce huge losses for the Federal government, and the taxpayers. On top of that, it will fail to save the fictitious values of all the mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, and related toxic waste, and thus fail to save the zombie financial institutions which hold that waste. It would be far better to put the whole mess through bankruptcy reorganization and turn our attention to rebuilding our productive base. Let the zombies die, so that we may save the living.

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech".
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790...



View Larger Map


Sources: C-Span, Fox News, Politico, Bloomberg, AP, Youtube, Google Maps