How YOU TOO Can Benefit From the Foreclosure Bailout!

In his first two months as president, Obama has announced more federal government spending than was spent from the beginning of the country until now. A day after signing his first $787 billion stimulus bill bailout, Obama announced his next bailout, $75 billion for an estimated nine million homeowners. Under the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, which begins March 4, 2009, eligible homeowners can get their home loan interest rates lowered until their mortgage payments are no more than 31 percent of their income, and that new rate will then be good for five years. Additionally, after five years of making reduced payments, those homeowners will then receive up to an additional $5000 reduction in their payments. So how does the average American get in on this Democrat-legalized scam? No longer even making a pretense of helping the poor, Obama’s bailouts are going to corporations and the upper middle class who can afford to buy homes.

Obama said the bailout would apply to “families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly.” What exactly does this mean? This contradicts what the liberal San Francisco Chronicle admitted about the foreclosure bailout in an editorial, saying “some people who don’t ‘deserve’ to be helped” will be helped, and the “Housing plan must help the undeserving.” But if we’re to honor what Obama said, then any homeowner who qualifies in this time of economic downturn should also utilize the bailout.

According to a FAQ posted on the White House website, it is not necessary to be behind on mortgage payments in order to be eligible for the refi bailout, qualifying factors also include “a significant increase in expenses” or “an interest rate that will reset to an unaffordable level.” What the former means is that a family with a home mortgage could purchase a brand-new large, luxurious SUV, “significantly increasing” their expenses – and effectively get the brand-new SUV for free. For example, if a family bought a $200,000 home in 2005 at a 15% interest rate, and purchasing a new SUV added a new monthly payment that combined with their mortgage payment to equal significantly higher payments than 31% of their income, they could get their mortgage interest rate lowered to 2%, or whatever it took to get below the 31% threshold. If lowered to 2%, they would save $107,765.40 in interest payments over the next five years, enough to buy a fully loaded 2009 Cadillac Escalade.

Families that financed their homes with ARM loans, which begin with a low-interest rate that balloons in a few years into a high interest rate, are also entitled to a lower rate under Obama’s plan. Responsible homeowners who chose a fixed-rate mortgage from the beginning get no such relief – unless they go buy a pricey new SUV or otherwise “significantly increase” their expenses.

Homeowners who owe more on their house than it’s worth (up to 105%) and homeowners who have taken out a second mortgage on top of that are generally eligible for the bailout. The program is targeted at mortgagors whose loans are currently held with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but many lenders are open to providing this screaming good deal if you call and just ask.

Obama asserted that the bailout will not apply to speculative investors, but that’s not accurate, since homeowners who bought multiple duplexes which they do not live in are eligible for a bailout of all the units as long as they label one unit their residence.

The homeowners who will be helped out by the bill aren’t really poor people – poor people generally live in apartments, they do not own houses and condos. The bailout applies to home mortgages worth up to $417,000 and up to $625,500 in “high-risk areas.” (I live in “high-risk” Arizona, I could have bought 6 times as much house as I did and be entitled now to the same mortgage payments – all I can do now to benefit from it is buy a pricey SUV or “significantly increase” my living expenses like adding on a new wing to my home) It will help out homeowners who took on too much debt, or who “cashed out” thousands more than their original loan, putting them “underwater.” What Obama won’t tell you is that the vast majority of subprime loans went for refinancing, not initial home purchases. A lot of folks got too greedy and refinanced with an ARM loan or some other kind of loan too good to be true for their income and spending habits.

The fundamental problem with the foreclosure bailout is it encourages and perpetuates the type of behavior that contributed to the recession in the first place – enabling people to buy homes they cannot afford. Someone who bought a $400,000 home, refinanced it with a subprime loan in order to get cash back, putting them underwater, then bought a luxurious new SUV, should not be entitled to a free $100,000 bailout from the rest of us. What is going to happen to their $400,000 house in five years when the low interest rate provided by the bailout expires? South Carolina’s Republican Governor Mark Sanford says the bill rewards irresponsible behavior, since “95% of folks are playing by the rules and struggling, but are still paying their mortgages.” Minnesota’s Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty questioned the government’s involvement at all in private mortgage contracts.

Obama’s solution to give more money to those who spent beyond their means is irresponsible. It was government that helped trigger the foreclosure crisis by creating the government-run entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and having them provide loans to risky homebuyers. They were at the heart of the subprime loan crisis, behind half of the subprime loans that ended up in default.

Since government artificially created the glut of risky loans, it does not make any sense to have government continue to prop them up – they didn’t work and it’s better to write them off as a failed experiment. Both homeowners and lenders are at fault for the foreclosure crisis, and neither should be rewarded.

Tom Jenney of Americans for Prosperity describes government stimulus plans as the economic equivalent of crystal meth. Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute describes Obamanomics this way: “I buy a yacht that I can’t afford. I default on the loan. The bill is sent to my children and future grandchildren (and to yours). The best part: I get to keep sailing.”

Obama isn’t doing anyone any good by glossing over the fact that certain homeowners bought homes they could not afford, and lenders provided mortgages to people they knew were highly risky. The notion that Americans are entitled to own their own homes sounds good in theory, but it is not a constitutional right. Americans enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world. Running water, electricity, air conditioning, heat, and multiple bedrooms come standard in the crummiest of American apartments. Relative to other nations, Americans live high on the hog in an average apartment.

Abraham Lincoln could only have dreamed of the modern conveniences we enjoy today. Obama may claim Lincoln is his role model, but Lincoln was a rugged individual who would have never praised dependency on the government. Lincoln once said, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” Some are warning today that the bailouts could lead to massive protests and violence. They already have provoked phenomenal nationwide teaparty protests across the nation. Let’s hope Lincoln isn’t right.

URGENT! Tell Gov. Brewer – NO NEW TAXES!

Gov. Jan Brewer is trying to get the Arizona Legislature to send a tax increase proposal to the ballot.

The proposal would increase state taxes by a billion dollars a year for three years.

In the middle of a recession.

At a time when many families are already struggling financially and when many businesses are already laying off workers and cutting back on production.

PLEASE CONTACT GOV. BREWER TODAY and tell her you think raising taxes on families and businesses during a recession is a BAD IDEA.

Please send Gov. Brewer a quick email, or better still, leave her a phone message, and ask her to start listening to taxpayers, and to stop listening to the political consultants and fixers who have given her such bad advice.

Contacts for Gov. Brewer’s communications office are:

Email: psenseman@az.gov Phone: (602) 542-1342

Also, use the comment form at http://azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS!

–Tom

More info about Gov. Brewer’s tax increase proposal:

Gov. Brewer’s tax increase proposal is part of a pair of ballot proposals that would go to the ballot a few months from now. The other proposal would ask voters to let the Legislature make cuts to areas of the budget that have been protected from cuts by past voter mandates.

The obvious danger is that if the two proposals go to the ballot separately, the spending lobbies and tax-takers (who are much more well-funded and well-organized than groups representing taxpayers) will pass the tax increase and shoot down the authorization for spending cuts.

Even if the Legislature is able to evade the single-subject rule and legally bind the two proposals together (though conditional enactment clauses in both referenda), here is the result:

The spending lobbies get a guaranteed tax increase, but taxpayers only get the possibility of spending reductions in formerly protected budget areas.

Some have described the double referenda as a “win-win” scenario. It is definitely a win for the spending lobbies and the tax-takers, because they will get to raise taxes. And it is something of a win for Legislators, who will be able to spread budget cuts more evenly.

But it is NOT a win for taxpayers. There is nothing in the package to keep the state from resuming its pattern of rollercoaster budgeting as soon as the recession is over. Even if the tax increases really are temporary, and really do expire in three years, the state will soon be wracked by an uncontrolled spending binge, just as it was during the past six years.

When the tax money comes pouring in again, the politicians will spend every penny that comes in, and leverage that money to spend yet more. They will raise spending to unsustainable levels in order to please the tax-takers and the spending lobbies, just as they did during the last six years. They will create yet another gigantic budget deficit crisis during the next economic downturn, when the revenue falls off. Once again, the politicians will come at us with tax increase proposals. And next time, the “fix” may be a permanent tax increase, rather than a temporary one.

If Arizona taxpayers and fiscal conservatives are even going to begin to consider a ballot bargain package that includes a temporary tax increase, it will have to include the Taxpayer Bill of Rights—the only reform that can stop the spending rollercoaster. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) would create a sustainable upper limit to state spending growth, by limiting the growth in state government to the rate of growth of population plus inflation, with immediate refunds to taxpayers of excess monies.

See this chart for a visual of how TABOR would have worked, had it been in effect since 1993:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/files/AzGenFund2003-2012–01-31-09.pdf

Bob Robb had a similar take in his column in the Sunday Republic:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/RobertRobb/47866

If TABOR is not attached to the ballot package in a bomb-proof manner, Arizona is better off balancing the budget with the tools currently at the disposal of the Legislature and Governor. They should start with the $2.2 billion in spending reductions suggested by the appropriations chairmen in their January 15 budget, and find creative ways to save the other $1.5 billion by selling state assets, privatizing state functions, and eliminating entitlement fraud.

Unprecedented Level of Tax Evasion Among Obama Appointees

One of the most interesting phenomenons of the Obama administration so far is the difficulty he has had finding honest people to fill top-level positions. Every few days since he has been in office, another potential cabinet appointee is in the news for tax evasion or other financial corruption.

Let’s rehash the list so far.

New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson, nominated for Commerce Department Secretary. He withdrew on January 4 after it emerged that he was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation for influence peddling, due to his awarding of a $1.5 million state contract to political contributors.

Former South Dakota Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. He withdrew on February 3, admitting that he had failed to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate.

Nancy Killefer, former Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, nominated for Deputy Director at the Office of Management and Budget and Chief Performance Officer. Obama said in announcing her nomination, “We can no longer afford to sustain the old ways when we know there are new and more efficient ways of getting the job done.” Killefer withdrew on February 3 because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help. Ironic that she can afford household help – something most of us Americans can’t – and then doesn’t pay the taxes her party trumpets. Certainly not anyone you want in charge of managing the public’s money.

Hilda Solis, nominated for Labor Secretary, was confirmed on February 11 even though her husband had liens against his business going back 16 years. He paid the full $6,400 owed a day before her confirmation hearing. Wouldn’t that be nice if the average American could pretend to have nothing to do with their spouse’s finances?

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, Obama’s second nomination for Commerce Department secretary. Apparently the only Republican nominated to a high-level position by Obama, he withdrew on February 11 because of philosophical differences with the Obama administration over its advocacy of a massive stimulus plan. Judd had once called for elimination of the Department of Commerce. Judd was one of very few Obama nominees who withdrew due to legitimate reasons.
Timothy Geithner, nominated and confirmed on February 24 for Treasury Secretary. Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he worked at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. Yet he was still confirmed because Democrats said his position was too important to be left unfilled any longer.

Kansas Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius was nominated on March 2 as Obama’s second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So far, no back tax problem has emerged, but she does have one of the most extreme partisan positions on abortion of any politician in the country; which may cause trouble with her confirmation.

Former Obama campaign worker Susan Tierney, the leading candidate for Deputy Secretary of Energy, dropped out on March 3 without citing a reason. Is she afraid to cite back taxes?

Jane Garvey, reportedly Obama’s top choice for Deputy Secretary of Transportation, also dropped out on March 3, reportedly for financial reasons. Did those reasons include owing back taxes?

Former Washington Democratic Governor Gary Locke. Nominated on March 5, for Secretary of Commerce after Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg withdrew. So far he appears to be sailing through to confirmation, but Frontpage Mag points out he was involved in Chinagate with former Clinton Commerce employee John Huang. Huang wrote a $1,000 check to Locke and co-sponsored fundraising events that netted $30,000 in 1996 alone.

Annette Nazareth, who was to be nominated for Treasury Deputy Secretary, abruptly announced on March 5 she was stepping aside for “personal reasons.”

Caroline Atkinson, nominated for Undersecretary of International Affairs, withdrew on March 5 as well. Did these two prospects withdraw because of failure to pay back taxes? “Personal reasons” sounds like someone wants to spend more time with their family, or something along those lines. If that was the case, why didn’t the candidates indicate so? Because of the long list of nominees who withdrew for tax problems, their withdrawals are forever tainted with a cloud of suspicion.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Obama’s first pick for Surgeon General, withdrew on March 5 without citing a reason. What were his secret reasons?

Former Dallas Democratic Mayor Ron Kirk, nominated for Trade Representative, failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years. He faced Senate questioning on March 9 over it, but is expected to win confirmation. $2,600 of the back taxes was due to deducting $17,382 worth of basketball tickets; he was unable to provide proof of business purposes for those tickets. Most Americans can’t afford $17,382 in baseball tickets, much less have a business to deduct the cost from. Kirk also took overly large deductions for a used TV he gave to charity, and inflated accounting and tax preparation fees. He has agreed to pay $9,975 in back taxes from 2005-2007.

The length of time it is taking to fill key Treasury posts during this economic crisis is “shameful,” characterized by liberal former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and economic advisor to Obama. Geithner has been Treasury Secretary for over five weeks and has yet to name a single top deputy or assistant secretary. Although Obama has pushed through appointments generally faster than previous presidents, other administrations weren’t facing the economic crisis we are today. The delay in approving top Treasury positions is detrimental to the country.

There have been a few nominees who appeared to have withdrawn for legitimate reasons. But due to the large number of other nominees withdrawing for failure to pay back taxes, some will wonder if that was the real reason – which is an unfair stigma to put on the honest nominees who withdrew.

What we are seeing is the results of a generation that has grown up without strict morals. Years of 1960’s “progressive morality” has spawned a generation of Baby Boomers who have grown up without church and Judeao-Christian morals, not knowing the difference between right and wrong. And it has affected the Democratic Party the most, since they have rejected Biblical morality in favor of secular humanism with its acceptance of all viewpoints, no matter how flawed. This has left them with few political candidates to choose from who have maintained moral requisites. At some point, it will lead to the downfall of the Democratic Party – unless society’s morals progressively change with them.

Final Bar Investigations Dismissed Against County Attorney Thomas: Freedom of Speech Wins

County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced today that the final two State Bar investigations involving him have been dismissed.

In October 2007, the State Bar launched an unprecedented series of investigations of the County Attorney’s Office after Thomas criticized members of the Maricopa County judiciary for on enforcement of Proposition 100. This measure, approved by 78 percent of Arizona voters in 2006 and drafted by Thomas’ office, prohibited bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious felonies. In response to this criticism, the State Bar, an arm of the judiciary, began a wave of investigations against Thomas, Special Assistant Barnett Lotstein, and other prosecutors. All of them now have been dismissed. County taxpayers were forced to pay approximately $573,000 in legal fees to defend against these actions.

Five esteemed experts in legal ethics, including a former Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and former presidents of the Arizona State Bar, signed sworn affidavits in which they concluded the investigations of Thomas were without merit. One nationally recognized expert in legal ethics, Geoffrey Hazard, went so far as to describe the actions of Arizona Chief Bar Counsel Robert Van Wyck as “unprofessional.” Van Wyck resigned shortly after Thomas went public with these complaints.

In May 2008, Thomas took the unprecedented step of asking the Arizona Supreme Court to remove the investigations from the State Bar. To avoid adverse action by the Supreme Court, the Bar appointed an independent investigator for the first time in its 75-year history as a regulatory agency. Last week, the investigator appointed for the remaining Thomas matters, retired Judge Rebecca Albrecht, closed them.

These involved Thomas’ criticism of county judges related to Proposition 100 and the 2007 investigation of the New Times. Last year, a federal judge similarly dismissed Thomas from a federal lawsuit brought by the New Times.

Thomas stated, “As I said all along, supporters of criminals and illegal immigrants at the State Bar brought these politically motivated investigations in an attempt to intimidate our prosecutors. In this they were unsuccessful and have now been discredited-but unfortunately, at great cost to county taxpayers. I sincerely hope that the State Bar will no longer be misused to promote political agendas or the self interests of lawyers for Valley criminals.”

Keeping the Gitmo Killers Out of America

John Shadegg
Monday, March 02, 2009

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay within the year. He just had one small little detail to work out – how to find the world’s most dangerous terrorists a new home.

Unfortunately, that new home might end up being our backyard.

Most other countries have no interest in housing a bunch of crazed Islamic killers (there’s a shock), and recent Supreme Court decisions, along with pressure from left wing groups, make it very possible that detainees’ cases could be adjudicated in the United States.

That is why I introduced a bill which can be summarized in one word – NO.

We will not allow, under any circumstances, the Gitmo detainees to set foot on American soil.

Our brave soldiers have valiantly sacrificed to keep these radicals away from their loved ones and ours – now we may bring them here ourselves? I don’t think so.

Gitmo currently houses nearly 250 enemy combatants from the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other terror groups – including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, implicated in the U.S.S. Cole Bombing, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the 9/11 attacks . They are the worst of the worst. Even many of the ones deemed safe for release have returned to the battlefield – 61 in all, according to Pentagon estimates.

Consider one illuminating example:

Abdullah Massoud was a Taliban terrorist captured shortly after 9/11 and transferred to Gitmo. One thing that made Massoud unique was that he had only one leg. And consistent with the world-class medical care provided to detainees at Gitmo, he was outfitted with a state-of-the-art prosthetic.

In addition to world-class medical care, Massoud also received top-flight legal treatment as well. According to the Heritage Foundation, Gitmo detainees “have received more procedural protections ensuring the fairness of their detention than any foreign enemy combatant in any armed conflict in the history of warfare.”

Indeed, America has arguably treated the Gitmo detainees with more respect than the fringe left ever gave President Bush.

Thus it is not a surprise that a short time after being outfitted with a new leg, Massoud was released. And how did he repay America for his freedom and newfound mobility? By waging more Jihad, of course.

The point is this: There’s no rehabilitation program for terrorists. Should even one Gitmo combatant someday become a free man on American soil the costs could be catastrophic. We have to shut the door now.

And even if Gitmo detainees brought to the US are convicted – by military or judicial proceeding – their very presence here is a magnet for terrorist activity.

Not to mention the enormous strain on the legal system. The trial of the 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui, took nearly 5 years. And it’s possible critical evidence obtained at Gitmo would not be admitted into a court of law.

There’s also no guarantee that Gitmo detainees, if convicted, would spend their lives in prison. Just days ago an Islamic terrorist who planned an ambitious bomb plot in New York City, Khalid Al-Jawary, is being released after serving only half of a thirty year sentence.

How many more terrorists do we want to set free in America?

The best and surest way to keep our families safe – and to keep Gitmo detainees from completing their unfinished mission of shedding American blood – is to keep them off of our soil. Period.

So call your representative today and tell them to sign onto my bill and to help keep Gitmo killers out of America.

« Previous Page