WSJ: Andrew Cuomo has more to answer for than does Bank of America

Politicians love to blame the financial crisis and by extension the recession on greedy bankers, but as the Wall Street Journal notes today many of them, like New York Attorney General and former Clinton Administration Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo have much to answer for:

With his fraud lawsuit last week against Bank of America, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has joined the long queue of politicians blaming bankers as the chief culprits in creating the financial panic and recession. We dealt with the merits of those BofA charges on Saturday, but that isn’t the end of this story. There’s also the not so small matter of Mr. Cuomo’s own role in promoting policies that fed the housing mania and set the stage for the meltdown.

Before he pursued statewide office in New York, Andrew Cuomo was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during Bill Clinton’s second term. And lest you think his tenure is forgotten, the HUD Web site has an instructive item in its Archives section.

Entitled, “Highlights of HUD Accomplishments 1997-1999,” the document chronicles the “accomplishments under the leadership of Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who took office in January 1997.”

HUD’s Web visitors learn that in 1999 “Secretary Cuomo established new Affordable Housing Goals requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two government sponsored enterprises involved in housing finance—to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages in the next 10 years. This will mean new affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families. The historic action raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that the companies must buy from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent—a 19 percent increase—in the year 2001.”

It’s a sign of Washington’s continuing failure to examine its own failures that HUD still views such a policy as an “accomplishment.” It’s as if the Pentagon described Pearl Harbor as a victory.

The Village Voice has much more on Mr. Cuomo’s actions at HUD here.

Bottom line the Federal Government and Federal Reserve are every bit as culpable as bankers are in creating this mess… Andrew Cuomo is just one of several prominent political figures who has to answer for his role his roll in creating the financial crisis. Unfortunately, I doubt Washington’s policy makers will ever admit to their culpability, it’s much easier to demonize and scapegoat Wall Street’s greedy bankers.

Peter Schweizer does a good of laying the anatomy of the crisis in Architects of Ruin: How big government liberals wrecked the global economy—and how they will do it again if no one stops them. If you haven’t read it, I suggest picking up a copy.

Rep. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, Dies at 77

Reuters is reporting that Congressman John “Jack” Murtha of Pennsylvania has passed away:

Democratic Representative John Murtha, the chairman of the House of Representatives defense appropriations subcommittee who exercised enormous influence on defense issues, died on Monday.

Murtha, 77, died peacefully at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington with his family by his side, a statement from his office said. He had been hospitalized recently with a gallbladder problem.

As the top Democrat on the House panel that oversaw defense appropriations, Murtha wielded big clout in Congress, making decisions affecting billions of dollars in defense-related spending.

The Pennsylvanian was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in February 1974. He was a former Marine and veteran of the Vietnam war.

It’s bad form to speak ill of the dead so I’ll just say, Godspeed Congressman, rest in peace.

Related

• Rep. Murtha Dead at 77 – FoxNews.com
• John Murtha dies, special election looms – Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
• Rep. Murtha Dies – Mike Memoli, Real Clear Politics
• Murtha dead at 77 – Hot Air
  

Video: Sarah Palin’s Keynote Speech at National Tea Party Convention

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin delivers the closing keynote address at the first-ever National Tea Party Convention, held in Nashville, TN. February 6, 2010:

Related

• Third party is the wrong party for Tea Partiers – Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner
• Nashville Shows Tea Party Is America’s Third Great Awakening – Glenn Reynolds, Washington Examiner
• Breitbart, Farah argue Birtherism at Tea Party convention – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

Holy Meteorological Meltdowns Batman

Every now and then in this job you come across something that just has to be shared far and wide… In this case it’s AccuWeather.com meteorologist Jim Kosek’s rather, umm, impassioned “Snowpocalypse” forecast:

Oh boy…

(H/T: LauraW @ AoSHQ)

Unemployment Rate Drops to 9.7%

I was going to post this yesterday, but there was something about the numbers that just didn’t make sense to me so I decided to hold off until I could dig through the report.

Anyway, the Associated Press got to use it’s favorite adverb, “unexpectedly“, again today:

The job market is lurching toward improvement. It just has a long way to go.

The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak Friday when the government released January’s unemployment rate showing an unexpected decline from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. It was the first drop in seven months.

Still, the government now estimates 8.4 million jobs vanished in the Great Recession. And economists say the nation will be lucky to get back 1.5 million of them this year. They also warn it will take until the middle of the decade for the job market to return to normal.

The economy is growing, and normally job creation would be strengthening. But the job market is weighed down by employers who remain slow to hire because consumers are not spending enough. Companies worry about their prospects once government stimulus aid fades. They also fret about possibly higher costs related to taxes or health care measures from Congress and statehouses.

Heh, I hate to break this to you folks at the AP, but this wasn’t unexpected if you’ve been watching the trends over the last couple of months it was foregone conclusion that the unemployment rate hold steady or decline.

Why? For starters lets take a look at Table A-12 in the Household Survey, the number of long term unemployed, that is those who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, has been rising steadily for the last several months. For statistical reasons those people are no longer considered part of the workforce.

Second take a look at Table B-1 in the Establishment Survey, the total number of jobs in the marketplace has dropped sharply from roughly 133 million in January 2009 to an estimated 129 million in January 2010… In fact if we look at the historical data the drop is ever sharper… From 137 million in January 2008.

Bottom line the decline in unemployment is the result of statistical manipulation not real job growth. In short if fewer jobs in the marketplace means you’re naturally going to have a lower percentage of those unemployed.

First-time Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly… Again

This is getting ridiculous, and as predictable as sunrise… Just how many times can new jobless claims rise “unexpectedly” before the Associated Press realizes there’s nothing unexpected about it:

The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.

The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 480,000. Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the third straight week to 468,750.

The figure is the highest in the past two months. Initial claims dropped sharply in late December, raising hopes among economists that layoffs were nearing an end and the economy would soon start generating net gains in jobs.

When you couple this report with yesterday’s news that planned layoffs have begun increasing again things don’t bode well for this so called recovery… Of course if tomorrow’s announcement from the Bureau of Labor Statistics about unemployment and job creation for January turns out to be bad news, the media will undoubtedly call it “unexpected”.

Related

• Stocks, Commodities Plunge, Dollar Gains on Debt, Jobs Concerns – Bloomberg.com
• House approves $1.9 trillion more debt – The Washington Times
• Companies boost productivity and put off hiring – Investors.com

Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown Asks to be Seated Immediately

From The Washington Times:

Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown on Wednesday demanded to be seated immediately, saying that while he is scheduled to be sworn in Feb. 11, “there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date.”

In a letter from his lawyers to Gov. Deval Patrick and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, Mr. Brown argues that the results of the special election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 are not in doubt and he should be able to take the seat right away.

“We represent Senator-elect Scott Brown. We understand that the election returns from Massachusetts cities and towns were transmitted this morning to the State Secretary’s Office and by the State Secretary to the Governor’s Office. While Senator-elect Brown had tentatively planned to be sworn into office February 11, he has been advised that there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date, For that reason, he wants certification to occur immediately. As he is the duly elected United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he is entitled to be seated now.

I don’t see where there’s any reason for controversy or delay here, Scott Brown is the duly elected Senator from Massachusetts he sworn in as soon as the election results are certified. The only real question is why is Democratic seat warmer Paul Kirk still casting votes in the Senate when it would seem his term ended with Mr. Brown’s election?

Thoughts on President Obama’s First State of the Union Address

Let me preface this by saying I didn’t watch the President’s speech last night. Frankly I’ve been been watching him for roughly two years now and I’m tired of his hollow rhetoric. I did read through the transcript this morning though… it reads more like campaign speech than a State of the Union address. Worse still there’s nothing new there, it’s the same tired rhetoric and buck passing we’ve been hearing all long… more big government boondoggles, but nothing about encouraging private sector investment and job creation. That’s what’s needed to get the economy going again, everything he’s proposing will just prolong the agony.

The really sad part of it is a year into his administration and he’s still campaigning… Never mind that he’s hard left ideologue, President Obama’s single biggest failing is that he still hasn’t made the transition from candidate to President… even his supporters are becoming disillusioned over his lack of leadership:

When Al Melquist voted for Barack Obama in 2008, the unemployed software engineer was drawn to the politician’s charisma and promise of solutions for the nation’s economic woes and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the time since, Melquist has given up looking for work. The house in Las Vegas where he lived sits empty and bank-owned after his landlord didn’t make mortgage payments for 13 months. He is burning through his savings and doing Web site work to make ends meet for his family of five, while working on his own startup.

Millions of Americans like Melquist tuned in to the president’s State of the Union address Wednesday night, aching for solutions but wary – aware that in too many places voters are no better off today than when they lifted Obama into the White House.

Many have become so disillusioned with their economic situations that they are tired of all the politics and promises and want action.

“He just says so many things,” the 41-year-old Melquist said of Obama. “I just don’t trust what he says is actually going to happen.”

For me the defining moment was his attack on the Supreme Court (emphasis mine):

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

It’s no surprise Justice Alito was seen shaking his and and mouthing “not true” during the President speech… As Linda Greenhouse explains:

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.

The Court’s decision doesn’t reverse a century of law, the statute the Court ruled was enacted as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law only about decade ago… It doesn’t change the rules on corporate contributions to political campaigns, foreign or otherwise, at all. The only issue the Court addressed was whether corporations… or unions could pay for television ads in support of or in opposition to  a federal candidate in the period immediately before an election. Quite honestly I don’t think the Court’s decision is going to have much of an effect… McCain-Feingold didn’t take special interest money out politics, it just changed moved it further into the shadows by forcing corporations and unions to create political action committees or 527 groups.

Anyway that’s my two cents. Ed Morrissey takes look at Pres. Obama’s 10 whoppers from the SOTU address here. Rochester Conservative has full dissection of the President’s speech here, James Pethokoukis calls it “A limited speech by a constrained president” and The New York Sun takes the President to task for his attack on the Supreme Court here.

Update: Paul Mirengoff has more about the Citizen’s United case over at Power Line.

Massachusetts Miracle: Scott Browns Wins!

I have confess I haven’t paid close attention to the special election in Massachusetts to fill the senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy… Frankly, I didn’t think there was even the slightest chance that a Republican could win there, in republicans haven’t won Senate race in the Bay State since the 1970s!

I was wrong… Scott Brown not only won the race but he did it by a significant margin:

A little-known Republican upended the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities and augurs trouble for his party in this year’s elections.

With 75% of the vote counted, Republican Scott Brown was leading his opponent, Massachusetts’ Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 52.7% to 46.3%, according to the Associated Press, which declared Mr. Brown the winner.

The Brown victory forces the White House and Congressional leaders into a mad scramble to decide how—or whether—to salvage their long-sought health-care overhaul. Rushing the bill after losing Massachusetts carries political risks. So does allowing it to collapse.

House Democrats Tuesday opened the door to passing the Senate version of the legislation, which the president could then sign into law. The White House has floated that idea, but it will be a hard sell. The Senate bill contains abortion, immigration and tax provisions opposed by many House members.

Scott Brown’s decisive victory in one the bluest states in the country should send a cold shiver through the hearts of Democrats…  Yeah, sure, Martha Coakley ran an unfocused gaff prone campaign and I’m sure some politicians and pundits are going to wrongly try and lay the blame for this loss squarely at her feet.

Yes, her gaffs made matters worse, but the simple truth is voters sent a message to the President and Democrats on Capitol Hill today, Mr. Brown made his campaign a referendum on their policies and they lost!

Related

• In epic upset, GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate race – The Washington Times
• The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill – The Politico
• The Pragmatic Leviathan – David Brooks, The New York Times

The Body Scanner Scam

Edward Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has a must read op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal… In short Mr. Luttwak lays way waste to the fallacy of body scanners in airport security screening:

All males have a body cavity. Females have two body cavities. In prisons, these body cavities are habitually used to smuggle drugs and improvised weapons past body searches, including complete nudity strip searches.

Given the power of widely available explosives, the amount that can be carried inside a body cavity—let alone two—is sufficient to destroy ordinary pressurized airliners at normal flight altitudes. That makes “pat downs,” or indeed any form of physical inspection that is remotely feasible in any airport of any normal country, entirely futile. That alone rules out scanners as a solution unless they are both very-high definition and pat downs are not allowed as an alternative.

Futility has not of course deterred the United States from creating and operating a vast Transportation Security Administration apparatus critically dependent on metal detectors. At enormous cost, and by inflicting enormous inconvenience, it almost guarantees the detection of any explosive device—so long as it is firmly attached to a nail clipper.

Reliance on metal detectors was dubious from the start not only because they cannot detect explosives as such, but because they cannot even detect knives if they are made out of ceramic. Some manufacturers of ceramic knives add metal to them specifically to allow detection. Others do not and their knives are just as lethal—certainly more so than the short box cutters used by the 9/11 terrorists.

Our current airport screening system is destined to fail for the simple reason we place to much emphasis on screening for and finding things. If we truly want to improve security we to invest as much if not more resources in screening people and identifying  potential threats as we do in finding weapons

The body scanners currently being pushed as the best way to prevent another “underwear bomber” only perpetuate that “things” mentality… Our enemies aren’t stupid, and as Mr. Luttwak points out the body scanners can be easily defeated.

It’s time we faced reality and realized that invading our physical privacy at airports isn’t going to make us safer, we need to focus on people not just things.

Next Page »