The Wall Street Journal published a superb editorial on Tuesday of this week. Penned by Debra Burlingame, sister of "Chic" Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flt77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, it is entitled "The Clintons' Terror Pardons."
For any voter in this year's Presidential election, it's eye-opening, "must" reading.
Because of the length of the piece- nearly a full page in the WSJ- I won't attempt to quote extensively from it. Tempting though that is.
Instead, I'll just provide a very brief summary.
As Hillary began her run for a New York Senate seat, her husband, Bill, arranged unrequested pardons for several participants in the Puerto Rican terrorist bombings of several building in NYC on New Year's Eve, 1982.
Ms. Burlingame's editorial details how Slick Willie evaded various Constitutional checks and balanaces by doing a favor for his wife's election campaign. He wasn't guilty of directly benefiting from the pardons. His wife was. She even admitted to several enraged Puerto Rican politicians, who were angry that some special arrangements which embarrassed the FALN terrorists had to be made, because the terrorists did not intend to comply with the usual conditions of their pardons.
The bottom line is that Slick Willie pardoned 16 FALN terrorists in order to get his wife elected to her Senate seat. So badly was this handled that, according to Burlingame, even the NY Times disclosed it in a piece entitled "Bill's Little Gift." Hillary had to backpedal from supporting the pardons when the whole mess became public and drew the ire of the general populace, because both civilians and law enforcement officers had been killed and/or seriously injured in the attacks.
As Burlingame points out, as Bill was talking tough against the Middle East terrorists, he gave unrequested pardons to the FALN in order to secure the New York Hispanic vote for his wife.
How despicable is that? Sadly, how typical of the Billary? He commits a smarmy, sleazy act. She initially accepts it. Then, upon being confronted with it publicly, feigns horror and shock. But, in the end, it has its desired effect and Hillary accepts the gift.
Remember this as you watch the home stretch of the Democratic Presidential primary race. The Clintons will do whatever it takes to win, no matter what principles are shredded, who is maligned, or, probably, what damage it does to their own party.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Democrats Lawyer Up
No, I'm not referring to the looming court battles between Hillary and Obama over the Floridian delegates.
Instead, I'm noting that all three original front-running Democratic Presidential candidates were lawyers- Obama, Hillary and John Edwards.
In this respect, the Democrats are quite distinct from the Republicans in the nature of the vocations of their Presidential aspirants.
Romney was a consultant, governor and Olympic troubleshooter/manager.
Giuliani was a lawyer, but not for the plaintiff's bar. Rather, he was a Federal prosecutor, then NYC mayor, and now a consultant.
Fred Thompson, too, was originally a lawyer. And a Senator. But he was, and probably will again be, an actor.
Instead, I'm noting that all three original front-running Democratic Presidential candidates were lawyers- Obama, Hillary and John Edwards.
In this respect, the Democrats are quite distinct from the Republicans in the nature of the vocations of their Presidential aspirants.
Romney was a consultant, governor and Olympic troubleshooter/manager.
Giuliani was a lawyer, but not for the plaintiff's bar. Rather, he was a Federal prosecutor, then NYC mayor, and now a consultant.
Fred Thompson, too, was originally a lawyer. And a Senator. But he was, and probably will again be, an actor.
Isn't it interesting that for a job that involves leading the country forward to solve both known and potential problems, the Democrats fielded sophists. That is, those whose calling is to argue either side of any issue.
This alone should tell you how prepared the Democrats are to apply relevant skills that will actually lead the country and solve problems. You can't give what you don't have, and Hillary and Obama only have legal training to guide them.
Come to think of it, Bill (Clinton) was a lawyer, too. And look at the mess he left George Bush (non-lawyer, business school graduate) to clean up.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Hillary's Mortgage Default Moratorium Becomes Moot AND Unwanted!
Friday's Wall Street Journal carried a fascinating editorial by Nicole Gelinas entitled "The Rise of the Mortgage 'Walkers.'"
Essentially, Ms. Gelinas reports that mortgages have an embedded "put," allowing borrowers to simply mail the keys back to the lender, and default. She writes,
"The apparent willingness of borrowers to 'walk away' from mortgage debt," the analysts noted, "has contributed to extraordinary high levels of early default" on loans issued during the 18 months before the mortgage bubble burst. It expects losses to reach 21% of initial loan balances for subprime mortgages issued in 2006 and 26% for those issued in early 2007.
Such behavior, where not precipitated by willful fraud, shows that American homebuyers supposedly duped by their lenders aren't so dumb. They're perfectly capable of acting rationally without political interference.
While mortgage fraud has abounded in recent years, voluntary foreclosures are not by themselves evidence of a newfound irresponsibility on Americans' part. To be sure, until recently, mass-scale voluntary foreclosures were unthinkable. But markets have changed, and people are changing their behavior in response."
Ms. Gelinas notes that, as banks allowed home purchases with as little as no, or 5% down, at the housing market's peak, it was not surprising that, at some point, price declines would trigger this behavior. Note that these borrowers want to have foreclosure proceedings begun.
She further observes,
"In most cases, once a homebuyer splits, the mortgage-securities investors are stuck with the loss. In some states, including California and Arizona, this provision is the letter of the law. In others, the bank forgives the balance of the loan -- a common practice that's unlikely to change now, given the criminal and civil investigations banks are already sweating through.
Essentially, mortgage-bond investors, seemingly unwittingly, sold homebuyers a put option, without properly pricing it, and now homeowners are exercising that option. Moreover, prime borrowers in many markets face the same incentives.
Borrowers acted rationally in response to market forces and incentives during the bubble: Buy a house because prices always go up; you can't lose. Many are acting rationally now: Mail the keys back and un-borrow the money, because prices are sinking fast while the debt isn't. When the house was purchased not as a first home but as a rental investment, the decision is even easier. Politicians keep saying that Americans need protection from their big, bad lenders -- but that protection is already there.
Of course, there's a price. Mortgage "walkers" will take a hit to their personal credit rating. Yet this once-forbidding punishment may be discounted. That's because, just as when markets change their behavior, people change, when people change their behavior, markets change also.
If hundreds of thousands of people with decent work histories are going to have less-than-stellar credit because of foreclosures this year and next, they won't suffer so much as in the past. Many walkers are going to want to buy houses again some day; and when they do, lenders are going to want to make money lending them money to do so (hopefully requiring a good down payment). Investors searching for yield likely won't bypass what could be a large pool of borrowers."
Note the belief that, when markets turn around and lenders want to lend for housing, they'll overlook or adjust their credit processes for these borrowers who behaved rationally.
Ms. Gelinas sums up the situation thusly,
"Nobody is going to debtors' prison. Nobody is going to have to toil for 30 years and sacrifice their kids' future to pay off burdensome loans that they're stuck with forever because they overreached. (Even if banks and mortgage administrators pursue judgments for post-foreclosure loan balances, there's always bankruptcy as a last resort.)
As for Sen. Hillary Clinton and her proposed "moratorium on foreclosures": She may soon find that borrowers, not just lenders, are screaming to let them act within their contractual rights."
Sorry, Hill'. Guess that moratorium could get you into more trouble than just keeping your mouth shut on this issue. The specter of families in jail due to mortgage foreclosures isn't even remotely true.
I guess this goes to show what happens when a political poobah gets into her/his head to begin preaching on "solutions" to issues about which they clearly know very little. Creating more problems when a new solution isn't even necessary.
And you say you want this woman to be our next President?
Essentially, Ms. Gelinas reports that mortgages have an embedded "put," allowing borrowers to simply mail the keys back to the lender, and default. She writes,
"The apparent willingness of borrowers to 'walk away' from mortgage debt," the analysts noted, "has contributed to extraordinary high levels of early default" on loans issued during the 18 months before the mortgage bubble burst. It expects losses to reach 21% of initial loan balances for subprime mortgages issued in 2006 and 26% for those issued in early 2007.
Such behavior, where not precipitated by willful fraud, shows that American homebuyers supposedly duped by their lenders aren't so dumb. They're perfectly capable of acting rationally without political interference.
While mortgage fraud has abounded in recent years, voluntary foreclosures are not by themselves evidence of a newfound irresponsibility on Americans' part. To be sure, until recently, mass-scale voluntary foreclosures were unthinkable. But markets have changed, and people are changing their behavior in response."
Ms. Gelinas notes that, as banks allowed home purchases with as little as no, or 5% down, at the housing market's peak, it was not surprising that, at some point, price declines would trigger this behavior. Note that these borrowers want to have foreclosure proceedings begun.
She further observes,
"In most cases, once a homebuyer splits, the mortgage-securities investors are stuck with the loss. In some states, including California and Arizona, this provision is the letter of the law. In others, the bank forgives the balance of the loan -- a common practice that's unlikely to change now, given the criminal and civil investigations banks are already sweating through.
Essentially, mortgage-bond investors, seemingly unwittingly, sold homebuyers a put option, without properly pricing it, and now homeowners are exercising that option. Moreover, prime borrowers in many markets face the same incentives.
Borrowers acted rationally in response to market forces and incentives during the bubble: Buy a house because prices always go up; you can't lose. Many are acting rationally now: Mail the keys back and un-borrow the money, because prices are sinking fast while the debt isn't. When the house was purchased not as a first home but as a rental investment, the decision is even easier. Politicians keep saying that Americans need protection from their big, bad lenders -- but that protection is already there.
Of course, there's a price. Mortgage "walkers" will take a hit to their personal credit rating. Yet this once-forbidding punishment may be discounted. That's because, just as when markets change their behavior, people change, when people change their behavior, markets change also.
If hundreds of thousands of people with decent work histories are going to have less-than-stellar credit because of foreclosures this year and next, they won't suffer so much as in the past. Many walkers are going to want to buy houses again some day; and when they do, lenders are going to want to make money lending them money to do so (hopefully requiring a good down payment). Investors searching for yield likely won't bypass what could be a large pool of borrowers."
Note the belief that, when markets turn around and lenders want to lend for housing, they'll overlook or adjust their credit processes for these borrowers who behaved rationally.
Ms. Gelinas sums up the situation thusly,
"Nobody is going to debtors' prison. Nobody is going to have to toil for 30 years and sacrifice their kids' future to pay off burdensome loans that they're stuck with forever because they overreached. (Even if banks and mortgage administrators pursue judgments for post-foreclosure loan balances, there's always bankruptcy as a last resort.)
As for Sen. Hillary Clinton and her proposed "moratorium on foreclosures": She may soon find that borrowers, not just lenders, are screaming to let them act within their contractual rights."
Sorry, Hill'. Guess that moratorium could get you into more trouble than just keeping your mouth shut on this issue. The specter of families in jail due to mortgage foreclosures isn't even remotely true.
I guess this goes to show what happens when a political poobah gets into her/his head to begin preaching on "solutions" to issues about which they clearly know very little. Creating more problems when a new solution isn't even necessary.
And you say you want this woman to be our next President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
