What surprises me most about this quagmire, is that most of our working professionals in Washington and on Wall Street, whose opinions we value so dearly, insist on claiming that the breakdown of the housing market was essentially unforeseeable. We're hearing on a daily basis that this financial crisis is being called the "U.S.'s worst since the Great Depression." However today, it is not as though we are working with the limited technology of 1929. Even then anyone with half a brain could told you that money that doesn't exist is money that can't be collected. Yet, we continue to solely blame the banks rather than sharing the burden of responsibility amongst the unqualified loan applicants as well. Instead, foreclosures are refereed to as "woeful victims" of a shaky economy.

We have had warnings since 1988, 20 years ago, forecasting the risks of lending to those whom cannot afford to repay the loans in the first place. An article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 1988, community activists sought out banks to invest in blighted areas but were rejected. "We held up those lobbies for hours exchanging pennies for dollars and back again," said one community activist. "Later that afternoon we were met by the board who approved $4 million in loans." Simply so that the "community activists" would go away and the bank could continue operations.

March 14, 1992 NY Times, the article "Fading Red Line; A special report; New Hope in Inner Cities: Banks Offering Mortgages." The first paragraphs, "In blighted North Philadelphia, the banking industry is meeting the inner city. Prodded by Federal laws and an aggressive community-action group called Acorn, banks here and in other cities across the country have started making mortgage loans in neighborhoods they have traditionally avoided. So far, $60 million has been lent in a widely watched program. It matters little if an applicant has a small income, an irregular job pattern or collects welfare or food stamps." Acorn, one of Obama's preferred pet projects.

Another NY Times article, "Don't Let Banks Turn Their Backs on the Poor," December 4, 2004, which reads,"Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 as a response to the practice of redlining -- the refusal by banks to extend loans or banking services in poor, urban areas and distressed rural communities. Under the act, regulators consider reinvestment performance when a bank seeks permission to expand or merge. Since its inception, the law has prompted banks to channel more than $1 trillion into reinvestment projects -- without requiring a single dollar of Congressional spending ... Now (2004), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), one of four agencies responsible for enforcing the act, is proposing to relax enforcement of the law at almost 1,000 banks. The Federal Office of Thrift Supervision, another overseer of the law, has already finalized a similar proposal for savings and loans institutions. These new rules may be the first step in an effort -- long pursued by some in Congress -- to dismantle the act, piece by piece ... And communities will suffer if enforcement is curtailed, because the act has been working. A Treasury report presented in 2000 to the Congress concludes that mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers and areas rose substantially in the 1990's." It can be interpreted from these statements by the NY Times that additional cutbacks on regulations will encourage lenders to write loans to unbefitting (poor) borrowers at an exponential rate in the years to come.

Instead, Nancy Peloci just last week made the bold statement that, "Democrats hold no culpability for what is occurring in the current financial markets." Did we forget that the Democrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years? Congress: the law making body of the federal government. And what have they done to avoid this turmoil -- nothing. Americans don't care that July 2007 was made National Watermelon month or who the newest post office is named after. The Democratic revolution of 2006 was brought around by "change," and all we got were more tax burdens. Even John McCain, who had been muttering and puttering around Capitol Hill with Senate Bill 190: "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act" in 2005 was complaining about financial turmoil and warned about this scenario. But I guess no one was listening there either. Party line votes were more important.

The Bush Administration feels it has found the perfect solution to repair the crumbling housing market: A $700 billion purchase of devalued mortgage loans from overextended lenders. Basically, a reimbursement for unqualified home buyers who cosigned with an I.O.U.

Perusing one Bloomberg article in particular, "Dodd Proposes Giving U.S. Equity Stake for Bad Debt (Septet. 22, 2008)," today, I found myself agreeing with Senator Chris Dodd; odd since this is something that has never happened before. I had to pinch myself repeatedly when I reached a period, just to ensure I wasn't dreaming. Dodd's measure to create a 5-member oversight panel sounded pretty good, however by the third paragraph I remembered why I dislike him so.

Dodd's proposed oversight structure would seek to "limit the compensation of executives at the companies benefiting from the rescue and provide mortgage relief for struggling borrowers." Granted this sounds legitimate, but it is government tampering in the affairs of a private business and reminds me of Sen. Clinton insisting that we [the government] need to seize profits from oil companies. Over time, this plan would bleed over into every corner of the private sector.

When experiencing the result of your own foolish actions, this administration's policy is registering that the federal government will always be there to hold your hand and wipe your tears when times are rough.

Whereas, if you worked all your life for Enron, Adelphia or Global Crossing; investing in your retirement account and lost everything in their accounting scandals -- the federal government can't be bothered to save your nest-egg.

Double standards galore.

"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has urged Congress to pass (bailout) legislation without delay and without linking it to new programs." Jump to a direct quote from Section 8 of the "Treasury’s Financial-Bailout Proposal to Congress" legislation: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." A bit authoritarian and unconstitutional, yes? While speaking with ABC News, Paulson adds that, "We need this (the legislative process) to be clean and quick, and we need to get it in place."

Dodd is also proposing to "penalize" executives who take "inappropriate or excessive" risks. The executive compensation and severance packages could be reduced if that is "in the public interest," the proposal says. Further government tampering. Why should the government be making determinations as to the appropriateness of risks made by a private company? "Risk" is a given in the business world.

Dodd's proposal would also "force executives to give back profits they earned that were based on company accounting measures that are later found to be inaccurate." The Clinton administration’s White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Department Official, worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Will they be giving back their profits?

McCain made a valid point in saying that, "The senior executives of any firm that is bailed out by [the] Treasury should not be making more than the highest paid government official." The highest paid government official would be the President at $400,000. McCain's plan is to employ oversight over those who have declared bankruptcy, whereas Dodd's plan is to employ oversight over healthy companies. Unfortunately, even Republican Congressmen like John Campbell (CA) are in favor of Dodd's oversight board and executive-pay limitations. "I don't think we have a lot of choice," Campbell said. As a U.S. Representative, you can choose not to go along with a foolish plan Mr. Campbell.

Switching gears -- Senator Obama may talk a tough game when addressing issues concerning the markets, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, this doesn't deny the fact that Obama received $12,349 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; second only to our Senate Banking Committee Chairman: Chris Dodd. On the same note, Obama put Fannie Mae’s CEO Jim Johnson in charge of his VP search committee, who also collected millions during his executive role. Obama has also selected Fannie’s former General Counsel as a senior advisor to his campaign.

Dodd caps his comments with, "We cannot just turn over $700 billion in taxpayer money and not insist that that taxpayer is going to be protected in this,'' Dodd told reporters yesterday.

No matter who's elected president in November, Democrats are poised to expand their congressional majority. And that means they will have a leading role in pushing through tough new regulation of U.S. financial markets. That would put the Democrats in the driver's seat next year, as the U.S. carries out the biggest expansion of federal power over the financial system since the Great Depression. For instance, ensuring the employment of lawmakers such as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (MA), who last week proposed the creation of a new federal agency to buy bad debt from private institutions.

So answer me this, do Dodd and Frank understand where this magical piggy bank of $700 billion in bailout funds are coming from? Do you now understand why Obama and the other Democrats want to raise your taxes?

They are counting on you to just play along even though you won't benefit a dime.

# # #

(alexander koby. kreport.org. 09.22.08)

In the days leading up to Hurricane Ike's arrival, we were shown images from meteorological professionals "predicting" where the storm would hit. Not only did Ike cover the entire Gulf of Mexico, but it was said to be on a path for Corpus Christie, then it was going to slide past Houston and make a U-turn and strike south Houston, then we were told Ike was going to make a 90 degree right turn and hit Houston directly. To get a clearer picture of what we can expect, they cut to another satellite view... And I don't know what these silly maps mean or how to interpret them. There are 32 different colors swirling around like an acid-tripped watercolor from a 2-year-old and no one gave me 3-D glasses during the commercial break. The weatherman motions claiming, "This is where the heaviest rains are falling." Which? The blue squiggle or that yellow blob? What's the pink and orange carnation looking scribble mean? Is this system like the terrorist threat level chart? Reluctantly, I heed the soothsayers’ words and flee to the prairies of rural Dallas. Incidentally, The Weather Channel is the most watched cable network. Meaning that while 9/11 was being carried out, a portion of our fellow countrymen were watching "the weather."

Aside from the smattering of mind-numbing dribble, there is only one other aspect of hurricane coverage that I find entertaining. The time when our sturdy anchors (from either back at the station or nestled safely within a bunker) touch base with Fred; and there is a "Fred" in every major disaster. Fred has the lowliest job in the studio, because Fred is always the one sent out, most certainly against his better judgment, to "experience" the storm from the front lines. All so that we at home may visualize the effects of being in the "splash zone" without soiling our ponchos. Decked out in his signature yellow raincoat and Nor’easter cap, Fred is easy to spot in the most inclement weather. His typical broadcast is given while being blown sideways clutching a stop sign; further proof that this is a genuine "Fred." "How are things out there?," our anchor prompts with a smile. You and your friends can make a game out of this interview by betting on when Fred will lose his hat, fall down, let go of the stop sign and become airborne, guesstimate the velocity to altitude ratio, or is left stranded by the camera man. Or, my other favorite is predicting when our well-groomed anchor will inform us that, "It seems we have lost contact with Fred." An unfortunate, yet foreseeable, occurrence that will undoubtedly happen at least once during every segment. But don't you worry, they have another "Fred" on standby.

I have always been under the impression that a Super 8 Hotel is capable of withstanding any sort of abuse imaginable; from unruly teenagers to chain smokers, the homeless to hookers, and all conditions of wind, rain & wild animals. As of Saturday morning, in the small town of Buffalo Beau, my theory was shattered as a news crew was live on the scene to oversee damage at the Super 8. An authentic windswept reporter interviewed a Mr. John Morrison who, with his family, felt the brunt of the storm overnight. The reporter mentions that Mr. Morrison was in room 216, and to visualize, the camera zooms in, there, the room with the beam through the front window and the roof pulled back like the lid of a tin can. Our next image is of Mr. Morrison, grinning ear to ear. "What were you thinking as it happened? When did the roof open up? What did you do?" I think it's obvious, Mr. Morrison is wondering if there will still be a complimentary continental breakfast across the street at Motel 6.

Next, we move southward, to the east-end of downtown Houston. The camera pans across the streets of this urban historic district, where every building's name includes "The Old" or "The former." We focus on The Old Ponderosa, a lavish hotel known for its large decorative windows and grand ball room. Over the muffling of the wind, our man on the street ponders who does or does not have electricity. We can see through the blown out windows of the grand ball room that the ceiling fans are still turning at full speed. Apparently the 90 mile an hour winds from the night before were not creating enough of a breeze to stir up the musty patrons of The Old Ponderosa.

One block over, surveying the dangling traffic lights, twisted trees and lamp posts, and the sea of crushed glass that glistens like melting ice in the morning sun; we see onlookers searching for direction. We catch up with Rebecca Garrison who is visiting from North Carolina. Like clockwork, our guy asks Ms. Garrison what the night was like for her. This question is too generic and fails to meet my journalistic standards. For example, I would ask, "Ms. Garrison, we and the viewers at home are happy to see that you rode out the storm unscathed. Now that the storm has passed, when you walked outside this morning to evaluate the destruction; What were the first 2 words that came to your mind? And, was the first word 'oh' or 'holy?'"

By this point, I haven't left my couch in three days. Rendered immobile by my own sense of self-inflicted panic. The constant barrage of "information" has done me in, leaving me severely traumatized. The worst of Ike has passed, however awestricken waves continue to wash over me. I breathe again and we go live to Sam Strickland of the Emergency Management Center to explain the clean-up process -- I think. Mr. Strickland runs through a laundry list of talking points for the press to nibble on: road closures, downed power lines, EMS Services, water, fire, flooding, feed the elderly, boiled children, dogs in a tree, low flow shower heads, a stuck pick-em-up truck... Wait, what? Wow...

From all of this, there were only 2 statements that I caught intact. First: If you do not have power, your electric can opener will not work. News to me. Second: Mr. Strickland explained that due to a loss in water pressure at one of the pumping stations, if you still have running tap water, do not drink it. Or if you must, boil it beforehand. Officials believe that the water supply is not contaminated; however residents should continue to take proper precautions. This statement was immediately met by the question, "Is the water supply contaminated?" I equated this to being able to ask God one question that you would get a clear and unwavering answer to. One that He had to answer. So you think and think and think; and you are convinced you have the best question possible. So, you make an appointment with God, eventually He calls you in and you ask, "Umm, excuse me? I've been searching long and hard..." Yes, my child... "Where's the bathroom in this place?"

Just before I blacked out, thinking that things couldn't possibly get any worse; what with flooding and power outages... I was sadly mistaken as the weekend weather guy said with gusto and in his best baritone of a movie trailer voice: "The worst is not over yet, there is more trouble on the way as a massive cold front moves in, where the H-I-G-H will "only" be in the low 80's.

I wish I had the energy to make all of this stuff up.

# # #

(a.k. 09.13.08)

In the last 14 months, my medical costs have accrued to more than $1.2 million. Granted, I have insurance, but I grow wary of receiving those notices in the mail. It would be so much easier if someone, like you, could pick up the slack. After all this is what so many Americans are begging for.

Before World War II, no one expected their employer to handle health care concerns. As battles raged in Europe and domestic resources were running thin, companies offered to compensate worker with medical benefits rather than additional wages. However as tensions abroad simmered, the dependency for passing the buck has increased generation after generation. With the modern medical age, the old system is woefully outdated. Folks are expecting more and more benefits without accounting for neither inflation nor scarcity of resources.

Having a unique knowledge of medical affairs, I feel fully prepared to give you a more than adequate proposal as to why you should accommodate my health care needs. The only thing is, I don't have the gumption to ask you directly for this favor, because it's not like I'm asking to borrow a few bucks for lunch. No, I was thinking more in the thousands, of your earnings. Thus, I will employ a bully, who will use the threat of force, to collect this debt. Though, Uncle Sam considers it more of a donation, since these are monies that you will never see again anyway. Why should you sit in luxury while I struggle to make ends meet? You will see Sam at work, he will visit your house, and he will follow you to a department store. Like I said, I am too passive-aggressive to tell you this outright, but I want you to give until it hurts, because I need it more than you. Only then will it be fair.

I also demand to continue treatment at the best facility in the world. I demand preferential treatment for tests and therapies over those who are older and/or sicklier than I; after all, I am a better investment for long-term survival. I was also born on American soil, and must receive priority over foreigners or illegals with life threatening injuries. However, in 2007 The AMA reported $96 billion in lost revenue for services that went to treat illegal aliens. You should pay that too. Even better, in all likelihood, they will be in line ahead of you; but I don't have to worry. Remember, that under the umbrella of socialized medicine, there is only one health care provider who decides all treatment requests. The government. Simple, right?

Recalling Hillary Clinton's health "security" plan, which Obama has taken a shine to, the fine print was ignored my many of the anchor chair analysts. For instance, if you, a private citizen, needed to have a procedure done, that did not receive financial approval from the government, and you offered to pay a private physician (perhaps an acquaintance) out of your own pocket to perform the operation, both of you could be held liable and be facing criminal charges.

Day after day, Barack Obama says that "we," as Americans, who are struggling, who rise and fall together -- that "we" should embrace personal responsibility in assisting our fellow man, instead of always focusing on "your" needs first. Shane on you. He is also making promises that he would like to rebuild Africa, Haiti and New Orleans. I am confused. Besides, the ladder portion of your strategy doesn't interest me in the least, Senator. I don't care if 47 million people are "living" in the United States lack health insurance. I don't know them, it's not my problem is their kid needs braces or grandmother needs a new hip. As a victim, I am concerned about me, first and foremost. My own skin, my vitality. I don't care if you run a small business and have to cut employment. I don't care if you can't afford air conditioning, gasoline, cell phones and cable. You should be prepared to make sacrifices.

On the other hand, John McCain says those living in the United States should be responsible for their own health care. Plus, he neglects to mention whether or not you need to be a citizen to qualify. McCain also says that, "Americans Are Worried About Health Care Costs." With the democrat's plan, "I" wouldn't be worried about any costs, because I wouldn't be receiving the bills. "McCain will also reform The Tax Code (really, all 30,000 pages?) to offer more choices beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance." An actual quote. Distribute cash cards? Just like after Hurricane Katrina? You seriously expect people to put this money toward health care? That "direct rebate" is going to Best Buy for a 62" Plasma TV. Tell me I'm wrong.

With all of this in mind, I know you are more than eager to break out your cheque books and take care of this little favor for me. In fact, your voter identification cards are a better alternative. After all, I know you're good for it.

# # #

(a.k. 09.11.08)