BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO HELP NEARLY ONE-QUARTER OF A MILLION HOMEOWNERS REFINANCE, KEEP THEIR HOMES

FHA to implement new “FHASecure” refinancing product
President George W. Bush today (08/31/07) announced that HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will help an estimated 240,000 families avoid foreclosure by enhancing its refinancing program effective immediately. Under the new FHASecure plan, FHA will allow families with strong credit histories who had been making timely mortgage payments before their loans reset-but are now in default-to qualify for refinancing.
(To read the entire press release: Keep Their Homes )

Welcome News
This is welcome news and is the correct measured response to the crisis. I applaud Bush for this initiative. As a Housing Counselor who tries to help people avoid foreclosure I daily see the problem. (To read my article recently published in the Tennessean click here: Tennessee Voices.)

There must be consequences to making poor decisions, both on the part of borrowers and lenders. While I hate to see anyone lose their home, those borrowers who were reckless and who simply let greed lead them to buy more house than they could afford should not be rescued from their mistake. Those mortgage companies that made risky loans that were bound to foreclose should not be rescued from their poor lending decisions. Unfortunately, almost any program that bails out a homeowner also bails out the lender.

Not all homeowners who got bad loans were poor credit risk. Purchasing a home and getting a mortgage can be a complicated transaction. I think HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson summed it up well when he said, "Many hard-working American families who were able to make their mortgage payments under the initial teaser terms of the exotic loan are now struggling to make ends meet because their rates have doubled or tripled". This new program allows those homeowners to refinance out of these bad loans into fixed FHA products.

While helping the homeowner, this is not a bail out for the bad lenders. It is true that some loans on which the mortgage company would have lost money due to the customer foreclosing will be paid off. In that sense, it does help the lender who made a bad loan. On the other hand, some who would have kept their high interest rate loan and not foreclosed will be refinanced out of the bad loan, causing the lender to loose the earnings they would otherwise have gained from the loan. Also, the most credit-worthy of the borrowers are the ones who will refinance, leaving the lenders with a portfolio of more riskier loans. On balance, this is a rescue for the deserving borrower and not a bail-out for the undeserving lenders.

There is more that could be done on a local level and state level to slow the rate of foreclouse but this is the correct Federal responce.

Top Stories

Congress Trashes your Privacy

By Bob Barr
For the Journal-Constitution Published on: 08/22/07

It's been a little over two weeks since Congress, rushing to get out of town for its August recess, greatly expanded the power of the Bush administration to conduct surreptitious surveillance of Americans' international calls and e-mails.

While we have no idea how many such transmissions have in fact been monitored, the universe of such communications is vast, as is the government's ability —- and now its legal authority —- to intercept, gather and retain such data. Given the administration's propensity to gather as much information on as many people as possible and sort it out later, it is reasonable and prudent to conclude the number of communications already gathered and retained is extremely large.

It therefore appears timely for Americans to understand just a little bit about how extensive this new power granted the administration really is. (To continue: Congress Trashes ...)

Bob Barr Gets it. Where is the Democrat Majority?
Bob Barr explains in this article that the old law did indeed need to be updated due to changing technology, but this new law goes way beyond what was necessary and gives the President broad new powers to spy on Americans. This new law makes virtually all international calls and emails subject to monitoring without any court oversight. This is a shedding of the 4th Amendment! The good news is that the law must be reviewed again in six months.

I am proud of those handful of "movement conservatives" such as Barr who are standing by conservative principals of distrust of government and standing for Constitutional governance. Bob Barr is one of the four conservative founders of the American Freedom Agenda, which is described as "a coalition established to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the executive branch."

While I do not approve of those Republicans who supported this bill and think one should always put country above party, I can understand party loyalty and understand why the majority of Republican sided with the President and gave him the benefit of the doubt. I do not understand, however, why the Democratic majority are rolling over and playing dead. Is not one of the benefits of divided government, that the "loyal opposition" will provide greater scrutiny of the administration than when the administration and legislative are of the same party? The bill passed the house with a forty vote margin and passed the Senate by a whopping 60 to 28. While the President has a job approval rating of about 30% the Congress has an even lower approval rating of 24%. They have earned it.

Top Stories

Iraq fraud whistleblowers vilified

Cases show fraud exposers have been vilified, fired, or detained for weeks
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:57 p.m. CT Aug 25, 2007

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers — all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees. (To continue: Iraq fraud

This is an outrage!
This is shameful. Why is the Congress not investigating? Why is this not more widely reported? Why are the editorialist not editoralizing? This is not some obscure left-wing rag making these claims, but The Associated Press. These are not vague accusations, but name names of the victims. Why is no Presidential contender making this an issue? It is unbelievable: An American Navy man is imprisoned for reporting illegal arm sales! Are those arms arming the insurgents? Are we selling the insurgents arms to kill American soldiers? I would like answers. I would think everyone in Congress should want answers. It should not matter whether one is Democrat or Republican, supported or opposed the going to war, supported or opposed the surge, this is something everyone should be outraged about. Where is the outrage! Rod

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

This is John Paul.

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

This is Rupaul.

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

This is Ron Paul.

Top Stories

Who is Ron Paul?

It is "Ron Paul"; not Ron, Paul, Ringo and George

Top Stories

In a Nutshell, Ron Paul is a Nut. Too Bad

I Would like to like Ron Paul. Like many Republicans, I am not excited by any of the Republican candidates running for President. I am looking for a true conservative (whatever that means). I want someone whose foreign policy is principled, realist, and pragmatic and rejects the neocon idealism of the Bush administration. I want a candidate who is socially conservative but not too tied to the religious right agenda. I want an advocate of economic liberty, individualism, free trade, and small government. I guess I am looking for the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

I would settle for less. But, I see no one who remotely excites me. There is no one I want to send a contribution to or volunteer to help get elected.

There is a lot I like about Ron Paul. Many of his principles I agree with. He supports lower taxes, free trade, and smaller government. I agree with him that we should lift the embargo on Cuba. I like it that he receives almost all of his political contributions from small contributors and is not in the pocket of large donors. He seems sincere, honest, modest and principled. He appears to be a real good person.

Having a libertarian streak myself, I like his position on drug laws and states rights and his opposition to Real ID. I agree with his position that the rest of us should not subsidize the flood insurance of those who choose to live in flood plains, and that we should not subsidize farmers.

I admire him for being one of the few members to oppose the Iraq war. And, when he says the war was sold to us with false information, I think he is right. I admire him for his criticism of the Bush civil liberties record and constitutional abuses.

But, I fear Ron Paul is too extreme, naive, and ideological to be president. He opposes US membership in the UN, NATO, The World Trade Organization, and would repeal NAFTA. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and return the US to the Gold Standard. That is radical!

In my opinion, he was correct to oppose the war in Iraq, but he also opposed the first gulf war, the authorization to use military force following 9/11 and the war in Kosovo. He advocates an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which I fear would have terrible humanitarian consequences and lead to a much wider regional conflict. We just can’t “get out”, we need to use care in how we get out. Ron Paul appears to wish the US to withdraw from the world. In a complex dangerous world we do not need an isolationist president.

Ron Paul is no doubt a good man. I agree with many of his principles. But in a nutshell, Ron Paul is a nut. Too bad.

Top Stories