The Romney Files

 

Willard  Milton "Mitt" Romney  is the former governor of Massachusetts and a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. The son of former Michigan Gov. George Romney, who also sought the GOP presidential nod in 1968, Romney was raised in the suburbs of Detroit and served on a Mormon mission in France before going on to earn his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University and a J.D./M.B.A. from Harvard University. Romney co-founded Bain Capital, ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 1994, and headed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He served one term as governor, from 2003-2007, and sought the GOP presidential nomination unsuccessfully in 2008.

By Felicity Blaze Noodleman

 

Has Mitt Romney had his eye on the Presidency since he left office as the Governor of Massachusetts?  One would think that holding the highest office in the nation has been the motivation behind his political aspirations from the beginning of his political career.  Mitt’s father was the Governor from the state of Michigan (1962 – 1969); and was a moderate Republican.  It should be noted that during the time his father was in office the country was advancing the causes of human rights under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and he was reelected to his office by larger majorities each successive time. 

 

It would appear Mitt’s father is his inspiration in politics.  To say that Mitt is a “Chip off the old block” is a fair evaluation and would be the classic example.  I lived in Michigan as a child during Governor George Romney’s administrations back in the 1960’s, so I feel as though I know something about the candidate and can say the similarities between father and son are very, very close.  What ever the case, there seems to be a sense of civic duty in the Romney family.  If you want to know the candidate better you can read his books.

Mitt has written two books seen above, Amazon.com reviews:

NO APOLOGY

In No Apology, Mitt Romney asserts that American strength is essential—not just for our own well-being, but for the world’s. Nations such as China and a resurgent Russia threaten to overtake us on many fronts, and violent Islamism continues its dangerous rise. In the face of such challenges, America need not apologize for its liberties, but must use them wisely.
We need renewal: fresh ideas to cut through complicated problems and restore our strength. Creative and bold, Romney proposes solutions to restore economic vitality, create good jobs, reduce out-of-control spending on entitlements and health care, dramatically improve education, and rebuild a military battered by years of war. Most important, he calls for a new commitment to citizenship, a common cause we all share, rather than a laundry list of individual demands. Many of his solutions oppose President Obama’s policies, many also run counter to Republican thinking, but all have one strategic aim: to strengthen America and preserve our global leadership.
Personal and dynamically argued, No Apology is a call to action by a man who cares deeply about America’s history, its promise, and its future.


TURNAROUND

From Publishers Weekly

It's not well remembered, but the planned 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics were scandal-ridden and in complete disarray until Romney took over as CEO in early 1999. In this management primer, he makes his rescue job seem very simple: he came in, displayed a positive attitude and hired competent, committed people, and the result was a successful Olympics that few had thought possible. That same attitude is displayed throughout this book, as Romney is quick to credit those around him for the games' success. He's thorough as he details how he revamped the budget, kept costs down and marketed the games to sponsors. His self-deprecating honesty is refreshing and appealing. As he writes after emphasizing the importance of selling the games: "I know there are people out there who love to sell, but it is far from my favorite thing." He's also honest about his criticism of the Salt Lake City leaders who were tainted by their efforts to buy votes from International Olympic Committee members to get the city the games. The same traits that make Romney, now the governor of Massachusetts, an unobtrusive leader don't always serve the book; some readers will want to see more sparks fly. But those looking for a training manual in how to run a high-profile organization will be rewarded.
 

 

Show More

Show Less

So how well did Mitt Romney do in his one term as the Governor of Massachusetts?  This article from the "Boston Globe" below appraises his tenure:

By Scot Lehigh

     Globe Columnist       June 01, 2012

 

 

What Mitt Romney did and didn’t do for the state

 

 

the boston globe/file   Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007.

The State House was ground zero in the duel between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Thursday, with each camp taking to the storied front steps to critique and tweak the rival candidate.

To hear Team Obama tell it, Romney was a complete flop during his four years as governor; to listen to the pre-buttal Team Romney cobbled together in anticipation, Romney was a job-creating wonder compared to the Jimmy Carter-esque incumbent president.

So what to make of it all? First, a couple of event observations. Conspicuous by his absence was Deval L. Patrick, our state’s popular incumbent governor and favorite Obama surrogate. Instead, the local headliner was Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, who has roamed the state as a badly dented denizen of the land of the undead since news broke that he had been bitten by notorious public-sector vampire Michael McLaughlin. Add to the mix a long, rambling filibuster from former North Adams Mayor-for-Life John Barrett, and this observer found himself wondering: Who, exactly, picked this lineup?

The catalogue of criticisms directed Romney-ward were about what you’d expect: He didn’t pay sufficient attention to Barrett and other Democratic mayors, he cut funds for local aid and education, and his jobs record trailed most other states.

If, however, you prefer context to overkill, here are some things to consider. Yes, Romney made some budget reductions that hurt, but he was governing in a time of a sluggish economy and fiscal problems. And so, like governors of all ideological stripes, he cut spending.

But here’s the more instructive point, given the no-new-net-revenues stance Romney and the national GOP have taken regarding our national fiscal problems: Romney did about a third of his first-year budget balancing through new revenues. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, he raised around $750 million in new revenue for his first budget, half through a long list of fee increases, half through what he called corporate-loophole closings — but which someone more committed to linguistic precision would label business tax hikes.

“By and large they were changes in tax policy,” says Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “One can argue the merits, but they were overall tax increases.”

The two sides also battled over respective jobs records. Romney’s surrogates claimed, as Romney himself has bragged, that he created more jobs as Bay State governor than Obama has nationally. This is an area where it’s easy to fit facts to one’s favored storyline, so here are the most relevant data: According to the Taxpayers Foundation, the state added about 20,000 private-sector jobs during Romney’s four years; as of April, there were 35,000 net new private sector jobs since Obama took office. (At a comparable time under Romney, the state economy had added some 10,600 total non-farm jobs.)

What renders the president’s overall job picture negative is the 600,000 or so public-sector jobs that have been lost. Although liberals may lament the public-sector loss, one would think conservatives would be more focused on the private-sector figures.

But honestly, the jobs comparison doesn’t tell you much that’s truly useful. Why? Because the idea that governors are responsible, beyond the margins, for the job creation or job loss in their states is misplaced. It was mostly fiction in 1988 when Michael Dukakis ran for president on the so-called Massachusetts Miracle and it’s mostly fiction now. A president’s policies have more overall economic effect than a governor’s, but even on a national level, many other factors are at play.

So how to judge Romney as governor? Certainly he doesn’t rank with Bill Weld or Mike Dukakis, the two governors who define the modern era in Massachusetts. But he was hardly a dismal failure, as Obama chief strategist David Axelrod and yesterday’s supporting cast charged. He was an above-average state CEO, but could have been considerably better if he hadn’t turned his focus nationally so early in his single term. He dealt reasonably well with tough fiscal challenges. And as he showed on Romneycare, when he set his mind to something, he could get big things done.

But count on this: You won’t hear much about his signature achievement on the campaign trail. Not from Romney, anyway.

 The Boston Globe

 

So what about Mitt’s experience with the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic games? Wikipedia has made this assessment in the article which follows below:
 

2002 - Romney addresses Salt Lake City Olympic Committee . . .

Desert News - Salt Lake City

 

The Salt Lake Games faced a bribery scandal and some local opposition during the bid, as well as some sporting and refereeing controversies during the competitions. Nevertheless, from sporting and business standpoints, they were among the most successful Winter Olympiads in history; records were set in both the broadcasting and marketing programs. Over 2 billion viewers watched more than 13 billion viewer hours.  The games were also financially successful raising more money with fewer sponsors than any prior Olympic Games, which left SLOC with a surplus of $40 million at the conclusion of the games. The surplus was used to create the Utah Athletic Foundation, which maintains and operates many of the remaining Olympic venues.

Wikipedia

 

During the 2012 Presidential campaign the “US Olympic Committee” has released a statement asking the candidates to leave the games out of the politics.  The Following story expresses:

 

U.S. Olympic Committee wants Olympics footage out of campaign ads

July 26, 2012|By Melanie Mason

 

The U.S. Olympic Committee has a message for the presidential candidates and their supporters: leave the Games out of your politics.

The committee today panned an ad released Wednesday by Priorities USA Action, the "super PAC" supporting President Obama, which made ample use of old Olympics footage of Mitt Romney at the 2002 Winter Olympics. The spot poked fun at Romney’s international investments and pointedly referred to foreign countries where Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, helped create jobs.

That was not exactly in line with the Olympic spirit, at least according to the USOC.

"The Olympic Games are a celebration of friendship, excellence and respect. While we are absolutely confident that neither presidential candidate nor campaign has participated in the production or distribution of these negative ads, the attacks, using Olympic themes and images, need to stop,” said USOC spokesman Patrick Sandusky in a statement.

“Tomorrow we will celebrate America's finest athletes' accomplishments and watch Team USA march in the parade of nations,” Sandusky added. “For anything even remotely negative to be associated with that time-honored, inspirational moment would be extremely unfortunate.”

Olympics footage is not just off-limits for attack ads. Sandusky specified the ban “pertains to all ads. We will not allow Olympic footage to be used in any political ad, positive or negative, per the IOC's Olympic Charter."

The restriction may spell bad news for Mitt Romney and his supporters, who point to Romney’s stewardship of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics as a key biographical selling point in his presidential campaign.

His campaign has already used Olympics imagery at least once – a Web video from last December, called “Leader,” refers to his involvement in the Games and features a shot of Romney decked out in Olympics gear.

The USOC will ask candidates to stop running any ads that include Olympics footage; it will also ask YouTube to take such ads down.

 

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As for Priorities USA, it will still run ads in four battleground states during the Olympics, but it will sub in a spot unveiled last month which hammers Romney for layoffs at an Indiana factory that occurred when his private equity firm, Bain Capital, took over.

“When we were assured Mitt Romney and his allies would be held to the same standard, we were more than happy to take the ad down,” said Bill Burton, co-founder of the liberal super PAC.

The Los Angeles Times

So now what about the infamous “Bain Capitol”?  What is it and what is it’s purpose?  Wikipedia defines:

Bain Capital is a Boston-headquartered alternative asset management and financial services company that specializes in private equity, venture capital, credit and public market investments. Bain invests across a broad range of industry sectors and geographic regions. As of early 2012, the firm managed approximately $66 billion of investor capital across its various investment platforms.

 

The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including AMC Entertainment, Aspe Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

 

As of the end of 2011, Bain Capital had approximately 400 professionals, most with previous experience in consulting, operations or finance. Bain is headquartered at the John Hancock Tower in Boston, Massachusetts with additional offices in New York City, Chicago, Palo Alto, London, Luxembourg, Munich, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo.

Wikipedia

I have to say that Bain Capital sounds nothing like the villainous raiders the Obama administration as described them and the candidate Romney as.  Bain has helped many American companies secure their needed capital and many are business American families use from time to time.  The Obama campaign has leveled a number of serious charges at Romney and Bain to which the candidate has given the following answers:

 

Obama’s False Attacks

Team Romney | June 12, 2012

 

OBAMA MYTH: Destroying companies

REALITY: Governor Romney’s private sector record is one of success and turnaround, despite many investments in companies that were failing at the time.

Eighty percent of the companies Bain Capital has invested in from its founding to today have grown revenues. When companies grow, they are able to hire more workers and our economy grows.

Bain Capital pursued an investment strategy that often included targeting companies in decline and trying to turn them around. In most cases, it held the companies for many years and invested a significant amount of human and financial capital into improving operations to help revive these struggling companies.

When President Obama attacks Governor Romney’s record in the private sector, he’s also attacking our country’s greatest engine for job creation: the free enterprise system.

OBAMA MYTH: Rich businessmen profited most from the firm’s investments.

REALITY: The major investment beneficiaries of Mitt Romney’s work in private equity – and private equity in general – are the investors in the fund.

The investors include pension funds, charities, and universities. In fact, over half the money invested in private equity is from pension funds and charitable foundations alone. The success of private equity investments helps provide secure retirements for seniors, allows charities to serve their communities, and provides universities with the resources they need to educate our youth.

In addition, state and local governments depend on higher returns from private equity investments to fund employee retirements without cutting into operating budgets. When investments don’t perform, state and local governments must offset gaps in investment returns by using tax dollars otherwise spent on local programs. In California, for example, one study has shown that a 0.25% decrease in investment returns could cost local municipalities and school districts $300 million per year. That’s $300 million less being spent on vital local programs.

When private equity succeeds, it is not just companies that thrive -- it is retirees, charities, local communities, and universities that benefit the most.

OBAMA MYTH: Bankrupting a successful steel mill in Kansas City, MO.

REALITY: The GS Technologies plant that Barack Obama has used to attack Mitt Romney was scheduled to be closed if Romney and his colleagues hadn’t bought the plant and tried to help turn it around.

In 1993, GS Technologies, a company Bain Capital had invested in, purchased a struggling Kansas City steel plant from Armco. Prior to this investment, Armco announced plans to close the Kansas City plant if a buyer could not be found.

This investment – and $170 million in upgrades – kept the Kansas City plant competitive in a tough international market and saved the steel workers’ jobs for eight years.

Two years after Mitt Romney left Bain Capital, the GS Technologies plant was closed because of foreign steel dumping into the U.S. market. Thirty-one other steel companies declared bankruptcy during the same period.

During his three and a half years in office, President Obama has consistently failed to take the steps necessary to protect American manufacturing from unfairly-subsidized Chinese imports. On day one, President Romney will designate China a currency manipulator and take the steps necessary to make American manufacturing competitive again.

OBAMA MYTH: Shutting down a successful paper plant in Marion, IN.

REALITY: The paper plant in Marion, IN was losing money when Ampad bought it to try to turn it around.

In 1992, Bain Capital invested in American Paper & Pad, or Ampad. Two years later – while Governor Romney was on a leave of absence to run for U.S. Senate against the late Ted Kennedy – Ampad purchased the assets of an unprofitable plant in Marion, Indiana from Smith Corona.

This was not a healthy plant: In the year preceding Ampad’s purchase, the Marion plant lost more than $1.6 million dollars.

Though the Marion plant would later close, Ampad added nearly 2,500 jobs at other plants between Bain Capital’s initial investment and the sale of its majority interest. During this same period, revenues grew dramatically from $8.8 million to more than $580 million.

OBAMA MYTH: A “Corporate Raider”

FACT: Even President Obama’s supporters acknowledge this isn’t true. Steve Rattner, President Obama’s former car czar, said that Governor Romney was the “furthest thing” from a corporate raider. Governor Deval Patrick rejected the characterization of Bain Capital as a raider and said that Bain was a “perfectly fine company” with “a role in the private economy.” The truth is that Governor Romney wasn’t tearing down companies; he was building up strong companies like Staples, Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, and Bright Horizons. This accusation is yet another failed attempt to smear Governor Romney’s “sterling” private sector record, and even President Obama’s supporters reject it.

OBAMA MYTH: Shipping Jobs Overseas

FACT: Under Governor Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital invested in over 100 companies. Of those, President Obama’s campaign has accused three of shipping jobs overseas. In two of these cases, the accusations are related to events that occurred in 2000 and 2001, well after Governor Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to lead the Winter Olympics. In the third case, the share of domestic production actually increased, not decreased, during the time the Obama campaign points to. This attack is merely an attempt to distract voters from President Obama’s failed economic record and his refusal to stand up to China’s unfair trade practices.

OBAMA MYTH: Closing Stores And Laying Off Employees

FACT: Under Bain Capital’s ownership, Stage Stores doubled the number of employees and doubled the number of stores. During this time, Stage Stores added locations in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Bain Capital sold its controlling interest in the company in 1997. Years later, Stage Stores filed for bankruptcy, but today it is a healthy business with 14,000 employees and hundreds of new stores nationwide.

 

Team Romney "Romney for President"

 

 

 

 

 VIEWS  FROM THE CONVENTION

 

Clint Eastwood  and  Dr. Condoleezza Rice

Kid Rock 

Mitt Romney

 

 

The Convention Floor

Con. Paul Ryan and Gov. Chris Christie

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts Delegates

 

Five Takeaways From Thursday

At The Republican Convention

Categories: 2012, Republicans

by Mark Memmott - npr

       

Mitt and Ann Romney (center) are surrounded by family members and balloons at the end of the 2012 Republican National Convention on Thursday in Tampa.

If you missed some of Thursday's action at the Republican National Convention, when Mitt Romney accepted his party's presidential nomination, we were live blogging here and you can always read through it to see how the day and evening went.

But if you'd like to save some time, here are five things that struck us (skip to the end if you only want to read about Clint Eastwood):

— It's Not You, It's Him: From the start of the evening through Mitt Romney's acceptance speech there was a common message for those Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008: That's OK, you shouldn't feel bad — it's Obama who failed. Romney himself put it this way:

"How many days have you woken up feeling that something really special was happening in America? Many of you felt that way on Election Day four years ago. Hope and Change had a powerful appeal. But tonight I'd ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama? You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him."

— Romney's Faith Is Something To Be Celebrated: The former Massachusetts governor could become the first Mormon to be elected president. So far in the campaign, most stories about that have focused on whether some voters might be uncomfortable because they're unfamiliar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Up to now, the candidate and his campaign hadn't talked much about his faith. Tonight, they had friends tell about how he helped them through truly heartbreaking times.

"It seems to me when it comes to loving our neighbor, we can talk about it, or we can live it. The Romneys live it every single day," said a tearful Pam Finlayson, after talking about how Romney and his wife, Ann, helped and consoled her following the death of her daughter.

— It's Also OK To Talk About Bain Capital: Romney has taken a lot of incoming fire from the Obama campaign for his record as head of an investment firm that put money into some winners and created jobs — but also backed some losers that closed and cost workers their livelihoods. Tom Stemberg, the founder of one company that Bain helped get started — Staples — turned the issue back on Democrats: "You have to ask yourself: Why would an administration that can't create any jobs demonize someone who did? I've got a theory. I think when it comes to jobs, new businesses, and economic growth — they just don't get it. They say that Mitt Romney is out of touch with ordinary Americans. They just don't get it."

— Some Love From Brother Bush: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, departing from his prepared remarks, used the start of his address to the convention to honor his father (former President George H.W. Bush) and his brother (former President George W. Bush). It was one of only a few moments this week when George W. was spoken about from the podium, and his brother's words brought the delegates to their feet. "I love him," Jeb Bush said, and George W. "kept us safe" during "incredibly challenging times."

— Clint Eastwood Said What? It was easily one of the more bizarre moments in recent political conventions history. Actor/director/American legend Clint Eastwood came onstage to offer his support for Romney. He did it with what appeared to be a bit of improv theater: a "conversation" with President Obama, who was represented by an empty chair. For those in the Tampa Bay Times Forum, it was hard to understand what Eastwood was saying. According to a transcript put together by NPR's Padmananda Rama, and from what we could hear from our seat in the rafters, among the lines Dirty Harry said were:

— On the night Obama was elected "I just thought, this is great. Everybody's crying. Oprah was crying. I was even crying. And then finally — I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country."

— "What do you want me to tell Romney? I can't tell him to do that. ... He can't do that to himself. You're crazy. You're absolutely crazy. You're getting as bad as Biden."

— Vice President Biden is "just kind of a grin with a body behind it."

— "You could still use the plane. Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler when you're going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that."

— "I'd just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we, we own this country."

— "We don't have to be — what I'm saying, we don't have to be ... masochists and vote for somebody that we don't really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys if you look at some of the recent ads going out there. I don't know."

Well, Mr. Eastwood, with that we think we'll call it a day. Or a convention. Or a night. Or whatever. We don't know. Now it's on to Charlotte, N.C., where the Democrats get together next week.
npr

In conclusion; we have asked the simple questions about the "Romney Resume" and have reviewed some favorable and positive results.  If I had to rate or grade his performance I would give Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney an "A" + + + .  Go to the Romney site and read his economic plans!  I'm Felicity and you have been with the Noodleman Group. 

 

The Politician or the business man; or the business of politics!

                                                                               

 

 

* Images and photographs for this article; courtesy of "Google Images", 

 

the "Boston Globe" ,

 

the Salt Lake City "Desert News" and

 

Team Romney.



 

 

 

 

* “The Noodleman Group” is pleased to announce that we are now carrying a link to the “USA Today” news site. We installed the “widget/gadget” August 20, and it will be carried as a regular feature on our site. Now you can read“Noodleman” and then check in to “USA Today” for all the up to date News, Weather, Sports and more! Just scroll all the way down to the bottom of our site and hit the “USA Today” hyperlinks. Enjoy!

 

The Noodleman Group is on Google "Blogger"!

The Obama Files

 

Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States.

He is the first African American to hold the office. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii -

August 4, 1961? (No birth records available or issued at time of birth). Obama is a

graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president

of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before

earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught

constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997

to 2004, running unsuccessfully for the United States House of Representatives in 2000. Elected President of the US, November, 2008.

 

By Felicity Blaze Noodleman

 

 

This is a rather lengthy article; coming in at over 7,000 words and reprints 8 news articles from the past few years, but I think you can keep up with it.  The Presidential campaign of 2012 is now in full swing with the announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s VP running mate and there are already fireworks.  The Revelation of the $716 Billion cuts to Medicare budget through Obamacare.  It appears the Presidents hand has been in the Medicare cookie jar removing $716 Billion and using it to fund his “Health Care” initiative.  (See article below from The Washington Post)

 

Romney’s right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion. Here’s how.

Posted by Sarah Kliff on August 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm

The Romney campaign has gone on the offense on Medicare, charging that the Affordable Care Act “cuts $716 billion” from the entitlement program.

That $716 billion figure is one you’ll probably be hearing a lot about during this election cycle. It’s worth understanding where it comes from and what the spending reductions mean for the Medicare program.

First, where it comes from. On July 24, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, detailing the budget impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act. If Congress overturned the law, “spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period.”

As to how the Affordable Care Act actually gets to $716 billion in Medicare savings, that’s a bit more complicated. John McDonough did the best job explaining it in his 2011 book, “Inside National Health
Reform.” There, he looked at all the various Medicare cuts Democrats made to pay for the Affordable Care Act.

The majority of the cuts, as you can see in this chart below, come from reductions in how much Medicare reimburses hospitals and private health insurance companies.





Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney writes on a white board as he talks about Medicare during a news conference at Spartanburg International Airport Thursday in Greer, S.C.

Evan Vucci/AP

The blue section represents reductions in how much Medicare reimburses private, Medicare Advantage plans. That program allows seniors to join a private health insurance, with the federal government footing the bill. The whole idea of Medicare Advantage was to drive down the cost of health insurance for the elderly as private insurance companies competing for seniors’ business.

That’s not what happened. By 2010, the average Medicare Advantage per-patient cost was 117 percent of regular fee-for-service. The Affordable Care Act gives those private plans a haircut and tethers reimbursement levels to the quality of care administered, and patient satisfaction.

The Medicare Advantage cut gets the most attention, but it only accounts for about a third of the Affordable Care Act’s spending reduction. Another big chunk comes from the hospitals. The health law changed how Medicare calculates what they get reimbursed for various services, slightly lowering their rates over time. Hospitals agreed to these cuts because they knew, at the same time, they would likely see an influx of paying patients with the Affordable Care Act’s insurance expansion.

The rest of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts are a lot smaller. Reductions to Medicare’s Disproportionate Share Payments — extra funds doled out the hospitals that see more uninsured patients — account for 5 percent in savings. Lower payments to home health providers make up another 8.8 percent. About a dozen cuts of this magnitude make up the green section above.

It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: Medicare benefits. The Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and insurers. It does not, however, change the basket of benefits that patients have access to. And, as Ezra pointed out earlier today, the Ryan budget would keep these cuts in place.

The Washington Post

President Obama has been making the kind of wild and baseless charges against the Republicans. Charges that Democrats love to hear and truth doesn’t seem to be an issue with him.  If some other Democrat has made the claim in the past over issues back then the President will use it again.  Asking Romney to release his Tax Returns for example.  The Problem for the President is that Romney has already done so.

Romney Says He Paid at Least 13% in Income Taxes

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Published: August 16, 2012

 

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney said Thursday that he paid at least 13 percent of his income in taxes each year during the past decade, again confronting a vexing issue that Democrats have used to portray him as out of touch with middle-class values.

Calling the interest in his personal tax returns “small-minded” in light of the nation’s problems, Mr. Romney said that he had nonetheless examined the last 10 years of his personal tax returns after Democrats suggested that he might not have paid anything at all in some years.

“Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent,” he said, referring to his effective federal income tax rate, which is a higher effective rate than most people pay.

Mr. Romney’s decision to address the tax question on Thursday appeared to be an off-the-cuff attempt to put the nettlesome issue behind him once and for all. But at least initially, it had the opposite effect. Democrats seized on his comments to revive the issue and to once again demand proof of his claims by releasing multiple years of his tax returns.

“We would say: ‘Prove it, Governor Romney,’ ” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for President Obama.

The re-emergence of the tax issue consumed another day of the campaign and added to the sense of a shift in direction for a candidate who had once steadfastly refused to talk about anything other than job losses during Mr. Obama’s tenure, the unemployment rate and the nation’s growing debt.

Now, after Mr. Romney’s decision to name Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice-presidential choice, the campaign is instead waging an aggressive battle on Medicare, welfare and Mr. Obama’s character. That change in focus can be seen in the campaign’s ads and in Mr. Romney’s speeches. And it stands in contrast to the approaches of some Republican Congressional candidates, who said Thursday that they intended to wage their own campaigns strictly on economic issues.

“We are staying on our message,” said Chris Collins, the Republican candidate in New York’s 27th District, near Buffalo. Mr. Collins said that Republicans should welcome the Medicare debate, but that in his own campaign, “every time anything comes up, I bring it back to the economy, the economy, Obamacare.”

Richard Tisei, a Republican running in Massachusetts’ Sixth District, said that for Mr. Romney and Republicans, “ultimately, the campaign is going to be about the state of the economy.”

Mr. Romney made the remarks about his taxes on Thursday at a hastily arranged news conference at an airport in South Carolina, where he sought to amplify the Medicare argument he has been making in earnest since selecting Mr. Ryan. To drive home his point on the difference in the approaches to Medicare by the Republican ticket and the Obama administration, Mr. Romney drew numbers on a white board positioned on an easel before television cameras.

It was a moment that delighted aides back at his campaign headquarters in Boston — until Mr. Romney answered a reporter’s question about his income taxes. For the rest of the day, his statement that he has paid at least 13 percent in federal income taxes over the past decade received more attention than his original statement on Medicare.

Democrats have hounded Mr. Romney for months about his tax returns. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, has asserted — without providing any proof — that Mr. Romney paid no taxes in some years, presumably by using offshore tax shelters and other legal accounting measures.

Mr. Romney had already denounced the remarks as false. But he has steadfastly refused to release more than his full return for the 2010 tax year and a short summary of taxes he paid in 2011. In an interview on NBC’s “Rock Center” that was broadcast Thursday night, Ann Romney stood by her husband’s refusal, saying that further releases would simply provide “ammunition” for Democrats.

“The more we get attacked, the more we get questioned, the more we get pushed,” Mrs. Romney said. “There’s going to be no more tax releases given. Mitt is honest. His integrity is just golden.”

In an interview last month, Mr. Romney was asked whether he had ever paid a tax rate lower than the 13.9 percent he paid in 2010.

“I haven’t calculated that,” he told David Muir of ABC News. “I’m happy to go back and look, but my view is I’ve paid all the taxes required by law.”

In saying that he paid a tax rate of at least 13 percent, Mr. Romney and his wife would still have had a higher income tax rate than most households. More than 46 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax in 2011 because their income was low enough that deductions and credits reduced their bill to zero. Even a typical household making $100,000 a year would pay closer to a 10 percent average federal income tax rate than a 15 percent rate, Congressional Budget office data suggest.

For many middle-class households, however, other taxes — like payroll taxes and state and local taxes — typically cause their total annual tax rate to rise to 20 percent of their income and higher. For Mr. Romney, these other taxes most likely had only a small effect on his total tax rate, because much of his income came from investments, which is generally taxed at a lower rate than wage income.

In 2011, Mr. Obama and his wife reported an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5 percent. In 2010, their rate was just over 26 percent.

In the brief exchange with reporters in South Carolina, Mr. Romney used a black marker to sketch out his assertion that the president had cut $716 billion out of the Medicare program “to fund Obamacare.” But the tax question came a few moments later, and he eagerly answered it.

“Campaigns don’t control their own destiny,” said Dave Carney, a Republican strategist who managed the presidential campaign of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. “You can talk about what you want, but you have to be relevant to the ongoing discussion.”

The New York Times

 

 

5 scandals that could undo Obama's re-election bid

For the most part, the Obama administration has successfully avoided bad publicity, but it's now being faced with a string of scandals at the worst possible time

posted on April 19, 2012, at 1:50 PM

 

Best Opinion: Atlanta J-C, Wash. Post, Buzzfeed ...The Obama administration has largely been heralded as the most scandal-free in modern history. But now, right in the middle of an election year, President Obama is being saddled with a string of embarrassing — and potentially damaging — incidents. Most recently,The Los Angeles Times released photos of U.S. soldiers posing with the corpses of Afghan insurgents. While the revelation was deeply troubling, that scandal has mostly reflected poorly on the military. Obama hasn't been so lucky, though, with respect to the still-unfolding Secret Service prostitution scandal that blew up in Colombia as the president headed there for the Summit of the Americas on April 14. Will the storm of bad publicity hurt Obama? Here, five scandals that could hurt the president's chances for a second term:

President Obama's reputation for
a clean administration is being
tainted by a string of scandals
involving everything from the State
Department to the Secret Service.
Photo: CC BY: The White House

1. The Secret Service prostitution mess...

"One Secret Service scandal in Colombia, by itself, will not undermine Obama's re-election chances,"

says Kyle Wingfield at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But if the list of "known scandals grows much broader or deeper or seedier, at some point some voters may conclude their government isn't being well-run. And that could only be bad news for an incumbent who promised competence in government, and who will be opposed by a managerial businessman-turned-politician in Mitt Romney."

 

2. ...Combined with the General Services Administration mess

So what makes the Colombia fiasco potentially harmful is that it comes as Americans are still digesting another bombshell, says Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post, "the lavish spending of the General Services Administration on a wild Las Vegas retreat." Romney is already "starting to ramp up his rhetoric on the subject," suggesting that he'd be more forceful in keeping his bureaucrats in line. "I'd clean house," the presumptive GOP nominee told conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham.

3. Alleged sexual hijinks at the Baghdad embassy

A "State Department gadfly," foreign service officer Peter Van Buren, dropped another potentially embarrassing "bombshell" this week, says Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed. Van Buren — who's locked in a "protracted legal battle with Foggy Bottom over the publication of his memoir, We Meant Well" — suggested on his personal blog that another potential scandal is in the offing for the administration. "What if a video existed that showed a prominent State Department VIP on the roof of the Republican Palace in Baghdad receiving, um, pleasure of an oral nature from another State Department officer?"

4. The "Fast and Furious" gun-running fiasco

"Republicans can bring the campaign war to American's television sets," says Thomas Grier at The Daily Caller, by shining a spotlight on the "Fast and Furious" scandal at the Justice Department. The DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives came under fire in early 2011 for pushing gun shops to sell weapons to "straw" buyers who were funneling guns to Mexican drug gangs. The ATF's goal was to trace the weapons to the upper echelons of Mexico's deadly drug cartels, but the botched sting ended in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent and the shootings of some 200 Mexican civilians. "Of all the myriad scandals of the Obama administration," this one is the worst, and "bloodiest," says David Limbaugh at News Busters.

 5. The Solyndra boondoggle Republicans have also "attempted to capitalize on the failure of Solyndra," says Felicity Carus at PV Tech. Congress is still investigating the case, that involved a $535 million Department of Energy loan to the now-defunct solar-panel manufacturer. Although Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last September with little to show for the huge investment, a recent survey suggests that the GOP's "attempt to use the Solyndra story to political advantage has failed to achieve the effect desired." Republicans who accuse Obama of reckless spending are ticked off about Solyndra, but the rest of the American public increasingly sees solar energy, which Obama was pushing with the Solyndra loan, as "a no-brainer."

Atlanta J-C, Washington Post

The "Presidential Approval Tracker" from "USA Today".  See how the

President is below the 50% rating for a large part of his first term.

A Brief Look at Candidate Obama's 2008 Campaign Promises
by Jake Gibson | April 05, 2011 - Fox News

With the news that President Obama is officially running for re-election in 2012, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at where some of candidate Barack Obama's 2008 campaign trail promises stand today.

The president has said he keeps a check list of promises he made during the campaign in his pocket. Last fall Mr. Obama told "Rolling Stone" he figured his administration had "probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do."

The watchdog organization Politifact.com* has been keeping track and puts candidate Obama's list of promises at a staggering 506, of those they say the president has kept 122, or 24 percent. Coincidentally, of the 25 selected as the most significant promises, politifact.com says Obama has followed through on six, for a 'promise-kept percentage' of 24 percent.

Here is a selection we thought worthy of inspection:

1) Guantanamo Bay

As a candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly stated his intentions to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, calling the facility a recruitment tool for al Qaeda. With Monday's announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged plotters in the September 11 attacks would be tried in military courts, it has become even more obvious that Gitmo will not be shutting down anytime soon.

However, some Obama supporters say they don't see Guantanamo Bay shaping up as a huge problem for the president in 2012.

"President Obama is still trying to shut down Gitmo as soon as possible, it's just turning out that it's not possible," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. "But I don't see that promise really hurting him in 2012, his base probably won't abandon him over that."

2) Letting Bush-Era Tax Cuts Expire

As a candidate, Barack Obama said he opposed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and if elected to the highest office in the land, he would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire. However as president, Obama found that he had to compromise in order to avoid raising taxes for most Americans. In the end, the only way for the president to keep the Bush-era tax rates for couples making less than $250,000 was to also extend current tax rates for what he called "the wealthiest two percent of Americans."

Once again, Democrats don't see this as a deal breaker.

"He fought against extending the Bush tax cuts the whole way, he just lost. But once again I don't think his base will desert him for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich over this," said Trippi.

3) Foreclosure Prevention Fund

During the campaign, candidate Obama said he would create a $10 billion fund designed to come to the aid of homeowners at risk of foreclosure. "Too many families are unable to refinance because no one will lend to them, and they are unable to sell their homes because the housing market has fallen," said Obama in 2008.

The president actually tried to go above and beyond the initial promise by creating a fund that totaled $75 billion. This money came, in part, from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The problem is the program, for a myriad of reasons, has failed to deliver. As of January 2011, the program had helped only about 500,000 homeowners.

4) Immigration Reform

As a candidate out on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama promised to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, during his first two years in the White House, the president spent just about all of his hard earned political capital on passing health care reform and the economic stimulus. So by the time Obama went back to the well for immigration, he was politically broke.

The DREAM act, a bill aimed to provide a path to citizenship for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, passed in the House but died in the Senate during the lame duck session. With that chance missed, it could be a long time before Democrats and immigration reform backers have the numbers in Congress to make another run at it.

Obama called the failure to pass immigration reform "maybe my biggest disappointment" of the lame duck session but maintains he is still committed to the goal.

5) Restricting Former Lobbyists from Serving in Obama Administration

As a candidate, Barack Obama deplored the prevalence of lobbyists in and around the White House. "No political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration," said Obama in 2008.

However, according to politifact.com, the administration has granted waivers to several former lobbyists, allowing them to serve. The administration also allows "recusals," in which a former lobbyists can recuse themselves from discussions surrounding interests they used to lobby.

6) Iraq War

As a candidate out on the trail, Mr. Obama made the Iraq war one of his main issues and hammered his Republican rival Sen. John McCain over and over on the subject. Obama said he would work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months.

Here is one that is widely considered to be a promise kept for President Obama. Although about 48,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq as a transitional force, the bulk of the combat forces were headed home by the end of summer 2010.

7) Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

In the final weeks of a lame duck session, Congress overturned a 17-year-old policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The repeal calls for a transition period so that the Department of Defense can train all forces by this summer and implement the repeal in the fall.

By signing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law on December 22, 2010, President Obama kept another campaign promise.

8) Sign a ‘Universal' Health care Bill

Last but certainly not least is the promise Mr. Obama made to sign a universal health care bill. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has many detractors, this has to be considered a major promise kept by President Obama.

On March 23, 2010 after months of political battles on Capitol Hill, President Obama signed Democrat-passed health care reform into law, triggering a firestorm that is still working its way through the courts. Many legal scholars and pundits expect the matter will ultimately be resolved in the Supreme Court

Trippi adds that no president can keep all of his campaign promises, yet on the biggest issues, such as Iraq and health care reform, Obama did make good on pledges he made on the trail.

"More importantly the 2012 presidential election will be won on issues of the day, not promises from 2008," Trippi said. "The buck stops on President Obama's desk now, you can't blame President Bush anymore. So if the economy is good and we feel safe as a nation in November of 2012, he's looking good, however if unemployment is at nine percent, the president could be in trouble."

The president meanwhile seems eager to talk about his accomplishments rather than specific promises. During a conference call with thousands of grassroots supporters Monday night Obama ticked off some of his signature accomplishments such as health care legislation, Wall Street reform and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The president told listeners that in only two years his administration had produced "the most successful legislative initiative" of any president over the last 50 years. "I think it's important to remind people what we have accomplished."

*PolitiFact calls itself "a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter."

Fox News

 

 

Controversial issues seem to flourish around President Obama.  His birth records, his Social Security records, and his record for truthfulness in general.  There was the scandal involving the sale of his Senate seat for which the Governor of IL, Rod Blagojevich was convicted and sentenced to 14 yrs.  Also; there in the still unresolved issue of the Presidents involvement with the organization known as ACORN.  They were accused of embezzling 5 million.  The charges were never pursued by Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder and the Democrat controlled Congresses refusal to investigate.  This U.S. News and World Report's article below from 2009 explains:

 

ACORN Scandal Could Embarrass Obama

October 6, 2009

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Democrats portrayed Barack Obama's background as a "community organizer" as a plus, something to be admired, something that established his connection to regular people. Even though most people were unable to explain in any meaningful way what a "community organizer" actually did.

You don't hear too much about that aspect of his life these days, possibly because of the questions that keep coming up about ACORN—the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—and its affiliates: What they do, how they do it, where they get their money, how they spend it, and where the funds that apparently went missing have gone to?

The latest series of questions involves an embezzlement scandal that the News Orleans Times-Picayune says could involve amounts as high as $5 million. "An internal review by the board of directors of the community organization ACORN determined that the amount allegedly embezzled from the community organization was $5 million, well more than the previously reported amount of nearly $1 million," the paper reported Monday, citing a subpoena issued by Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, a Democrat.

The news has Republicans fighting mad, especially over Congress's refusal to investigate the matter.

David Norcross, chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association, accused Congress today of shirking its responsibility to the U.S. taxpayers and called on congressional leaders to increase their oversight of the organization.

"ACORN has in great likelihood defrauded the U.S. government and, by extension, the American people," Norcross said in a statement. "While some in Congress may view allegations of ACORN abusing the public trust as an unfortunate inconvenience, the public understands the severity of the accusations, and will hold public officials—who are unwilling to do their jobs—accountable." Going further, Norcross raised the specter of a "special prosecutor" to look into the matter, saying that—with respect to ACORN—the idea now merits "serious consideration."

It is highly unlikely that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder would take such a step—but it may be unnecessary. The investigations currently underway in Louisiana and elsewhere may uncover more than a Washington-centered investigation conducted by nominal "friends of ACORN" ever could. And which could potentially prove embarrassing, very embarrassing, to President Obama and some of his closest aides inside the White House.

 U.S. News and World Report

This article was just one of many articles upon articles which report, analyze, and tried to explain the dynamics of the housing bubble crash in 2008.  I've looked for one article which comprehensively explains how the whole scenario evolved and played out which brought us to the financial dilemma we now face today.  The dilemma President Obama likes to blame the Bush administration for.  The most exhaustive chronology is documented on "Wikipedia", but if you research as I have on "Google" you will turn up the names of Democrats like President Clinton and Congressman like Chris Dodd and Barny Frank who drove legislation to encourage financial lenders to make home mortgages available to low income buyers.  You may also run across legislation like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act (GSA). 

 

You also may run across blogs and emails posted by President Bush warning of what he saw as problems with these practices.  As for my research of the subject and having lived through the crisis, I can say the crash was precipitated by the Democrats.  I found legislation going back to the 1970's which was connected to the crash and I can see how big the problems with "Affordable Home Loans" was and how no one saw it coming, with maybe the exception of President Bush.  So for President Obama to make statements like the recession happened before he became president and blame it on the previous administration is just unacceptable.  That's why he was elected.  To lead!  I would like to reprint another article from the "Atlantic" for consideration:

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

By Peter Wallison

Dec 13 2011, 11:20 AM

A member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission responds to our interview with Barney Frank, arguing that without the government's intervention, there would be no housing crisis

Reuters

On December 9, The Atlantic published online an interview with Congressman Barney Frank. In it, he called me a "real extremist." This name-calling was not only false but also inappropriate to the seriousness of the issue -- which is whether government housing policy, and not the banks or the private sector, caused the 2008 financial crisis. I decided to respond to both Congressman Frank's statements and the questions he was asked about government housing policy and the financial crisis.

We're hearing Republicans in the presidential primary blame the housing crisis on the Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people. In your view, what caused the mortgage crisis and subsequently the financial crash?

Congressman Frank, of course, blamed the financial crisis on the failure adequately to regulate the banks. In this, he is following the traditional Washington practice of blaming others for his own mistakes. For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts.

It is government's fault for offering a housing finance program without making an effort to maintain underwriting standards.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.

Congressman Frank makes assertions about who was responsible, but he, like all those who hold his position, have no data. He says that the banks were responsible, but cannot challenge the numbers I have outlined above. These numbers show, beyond question, that it was government housing policy that caused the financial crisis. Even he has admitted it. In an interview on Larry Kudlow's show in August 2010, he said "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

Have the Republicans "blame the housing crisis on the Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people" as The Atlantic's question to Frank suggested? Of course not. Those who took advantage of the opportunity offered by the government's policies are not to blame for the crisis, just as those who make use of Medicare or other government programs are not responsible for the government's current debt problems. It is the government's fault for offering a housing finance program without making any effort to prevent the deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.

Finally, Congressman Frank calls me an "extremist" and says that I blamed the housing crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act. That just shows he hasn't read anything I've written, but remains chained to his partisan prejudices. I was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. I dissented from the FCIC's majority report, and in my dissent, I used the data above to indict government's housing policy. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)--which required banks to make mortgage loans to borrowers that were riskier than their normal loans--was certainly a part of the same government-quota approach that underlay the affordable housing requirements and was strongly supported by Congressman Frank. However, as far as I can tell, CRA was a relatively small contributor to the crisis, when compared to the GSEs and the affordable housing requirements. In any event, the FCIC acquitted the CRA from any responsibility for the crisis before it even began its study, and resisted all my efforts to find out more about the effect of the Act.

You said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a role in pushing this along. How heavily do you think they contributed?

Congressman Frank's response was "They were not the major factor. Let's put it this way: I think you would have had a crisis without them." Once again, Frank makes assertions without numbers. Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. No one who has grasped the significance of these numbers--and there is much more data in my dissent--could believe that Fannie and Freddie were "not a major factor." It was the unprecedented number of delinquencies and defaults among these mortgages, as I noted above, that drove down housing prices all over the country and caused the financial crisis. The data and my analysis led me to a conclusion that is exactly the opposite of Congressman Frank's: if it hadn't been for the government's housing policy, there would not have been a financial crisis.

In the presidential race, how would you grade Republicans' grasp of the history of the financial crisis, and would you say they're distorting it?

Congressman Frank's response was that Republicans have been distorting the history of the crisis. However, the real history of the deterioration of mortgage underwriting standards, and the reasons for it, are outlined above. For most of his career, Congressman Frank was one of the leaders of the effort in Congress to meet the demands of activists like ACORN for an easing of underwriting standards in order to make home ownership more accessible to more people. It was perhaps a worthwhile goal, but it caused the financial crisis when it was done by lowering mortgage underwriting standards. In the end, it was a colossal policy error by Congress and two presidential administrations. Frank admitted this in the Kudlow interview above. To his credit, Frank recognized his error by 2007, but by that time it was too late. Fannie and Freddie were nearing insolvency and the housing market was so engorged with subprime and other low quality mortgages that nothing could save it.

 

The Atlantic  Dec, 13 2011

 

 

 

Eric Holder is in the news again - something about being held in contempt of Congress over something to do with guns?  Some how it reminds me on the "Iran Contra" scandal during the end of the Regan administration.  I think when your house is dirty you should clean it!

House votes to hold Attorney General
Eric Holder in contempt

 

By Ed O’Keefe and Sari Horwitz, Published: June 28The Washington Post

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to make Eric H. Holder Jr. the first sitting attorney general held in contempt of Congress in U.S. history after he withheld documents that Republican lawmakers demanded as part of an investigation into a flawed gunrunning operation.

The vote — 255 to 67, with 108 Democrats abstaining — capped weeks of partisan sniping over Holder’s decision not to turn over a set of documents that lawmakers had sought as part of their 18-month-long probe into “Fast and Furious,” as the case was known.

  

As part of the operation, run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, agents watched as more than 2,000 guns hit the streets. Two guns tied to the operation were found at the scene of the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

 

As part of the operation, run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, agents watched as more than 2,000 guns hit the streets. Two guns tied to the operation were found at the scene of the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

 

In a statement, Holder described the vote as “the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided — and politically motivated — investigation during an election year.” He accused Republicans leading the investigation of focusing “on politics over public safety.”

 

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disputed such accusations. “I don’t take this matter lightly and, frankly, hoped it would never come to this,” he said from the House floor before the vote. “The House is focused on jobs and the economy. But no Justice Department is above the law, and no Justice Department is above the Constitution, which each of us has sworn an oath to uphold.”

 

Although the GOP-led House was widely expected to sanction Holder, it’s not clear whether the vote will get Republicans the documents they had requested. In the coming days, lawmakers will press to have criminal charges filed against the attorney general. But the decision of whether to do so will be made by the U.S. attorney for the District, Ronald C. Machen Jr., who ultimately reports to Holder.

 

The House also voted Thursday to authorize civil action against Holder, a move that paves the way for a federal court challenge to President Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege over some of the documents being sought.

 

For Republicans, however, the citation served as a symbolic blow to the nation’s highest law enforcement officer, who, by some accounts, is the first sitting Cabinet member to ever have been held in contempt of Congress.

 

Before the vote, several Democrats walked off the House floor to protest what they characterized as an investigation, backed by the National Rifle Association, to embarrass Holder and the White House.  Led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), about 100 members exited through the main center door of the House floor and then walked solemnly and silently down the front steps of the U.S. Capitol with television cameras rolling and tourists looking on.

 

Under the hot summer sun, member after member denounced the vote as a sham. “This is a terrible day for the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “We are declaring, by walking out, we are not participating.”

The Washington Post

 

This is not only a problem with the President but seems to be a problem with Democrats in general.  If you will remember President Clinton was impeached for "Perjury and Abuse of Power" during the Paula Jones law suite with Monica Lewinsky which stemmed from sexual misconduct between President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky in 1998.

Personally; there are two rules which I follow when I am confronted with confusing issues, but before I apply these rules I ask myself why is there a controversy in the first place?  That question brings the issue into much clearer focus.  If I'm still confused or uncertain then the two rules come into play. 

• Rule # 1:  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - then it's a duck!
• Rule # 2:  If the snake bites you once it's his fault - If he bites you twice then it's your fault!

Next week we will be looking at the "Romney Files" and also coincidentally "The Republican National Convention", Aug 27 -30, 2012 in Tampa FL.  So until then, I'm Felicity Blaze Noodleman.

 



 



* Photography courtesy "Google Images". Photography contained

within the below article reprints originated from those articles.

 

 

 

 



*  “The Noodleman Group” is pleased to announce that we are now carrying a link to the “USA Today” news site.  We installed the “widget/gadget” August 20, and it will be carried as a regular feature on our site.  Now you can read “Noodleman” and then check in to “USA Today” for all the up to date News, Weather, Sports and more!  Just scroll all the way down to the bottom of our site and hit the “USA Today” hyperlinks.  Enjoy!



The Noodleman Group is on Google "Blogger"!