Message #162308

[Harconen]

            On April 3 William Black, a former senior regulator who helped expose the savings and loan frauds of the 1980s, appears on Bill Moyers’ Journal to discuss the causes of the current economic crisis. The targets of his criticism include Democrats, Republicans, Wall Street executives, and the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. Black states that Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, “…is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it’s going to take $2 trillion— a trillion is a thousand billion—$2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they’re allowing all the banks to report that they’re not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can’t be true. It can’t be that they need $2 trillion because they have massive losses and that they’re (also) fine.” Black says of Obama, “First, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the savings and loan crisis called the Prompt Corrective Action Law, and it requires them to close these institutions. And they’re refusing to obey the law.” When Moyers asks, “Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?” Black responds, “Absolutely.” (Black is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, and is an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri.) [2194]

            The administration announces that Obama plans to lift travel restrictions on Cuba, allowing Cuban-Americans to visit the island and bring with them unlimited funds. Arguably, the ability to travel freely back and forth between the United States and Cuba works against the asylum pleas of Cuban refugees. Obama gets no concessions from Fidel Castro. In exchange for the easing of restrictions—which will move more American dollars to Cuba and further protect the Castro regime—Obama could have called for the release of political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and even private enterprise. Castro may have agreed to none, but Obama apparently did not try too hard to broker a deal. (Castro is also kept in power with lop-sided European trade; Europe lends Cuba cash to buy European products, and Castro then neglects to re-pay the debt. Cuba owes Europe as much as $29 billion and the island nation has only 11 million residents.) The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) expressed support for easing restrictions on Cuba, even though it is opposed to the Castro regime. Critics of U.S. policy charge that the U.S. embargo of Cuba hasn’t helped free its citizens because it keeps them poor and subservient to Castro, but the embargo is not a blockade, and Cuba trades freely with other nations. Cubans are poor because of communism and repression, not a lack of American merchandise. [2196, 2223, 2332]

            Ray Gonzales, Street Supervisor of Burleson, Texas tells organizers of a tea party tax-and-spend protest they will not be allowed to hold their demonstration. Gonzales, a Democrat, says it is “not in the public interest.” Organizers will appeal to the city manager. Meanwhile, the American Family Association (AFA) announces there are almost 1,600 tea parties scheduled for April 15, to protest the government’s reckless spending and accumulation of insurmountable debt. AFA chairman Donald E. Wildmon warns, “The runaway spending by President Obama and Congress will have a definite negative effect on our families. We are leaving a debt of trillions of dollars to be paid by our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.” Hundreds of other protests are planned for July 4 and several Saturdays over the next few months. [2159, 2165]

            Dr. Orly Taitz writes the Supreme Court and asks that it cooperate with an FBI investigation into “cyber crimes” related to her Obama-eligibility lawsuits. Taitz filed a complaint with the FBI alleging that a Supreme Court clerk intentionally interfered with her appeals, including deleting them (and other Obama-related challenges) from the Supreme Court docket. Because the Justices are also victims in the crime, their cooperation is needed for the FBI to conduct a more thorough investigation. [2166]

            After the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) gives the Obama administration a legal opinion that it would be unconstitutional to give Congressional voting rights to the District of Columbia because it is not a state, Attorney General Holder defies the opinion and “shops around” for one to his and Obama’s liking; he finds it in one of his own appointees, Deputy Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal. Holder refuses to make public the OLC opinion, which is consistent with over 45 years of legal opinions on the D.C. voting issue. Holder had promised at his confirmation hearing that “We don’t change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over,” and any review “will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.” The issue, if pursued by Democrats in Congress, will end up in the Supreme Court, which will more likely rule in accordance with the U.S. Constitution than with the political schemes of Obama and Holder. The District of Columbia’s non-voting delegate to the House, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, is more than willing to ignore the U.S. Constitution. She remarks, “I don’t think members are in the least bit affected in their votes on the question of its constitutionality. People vote their politics in the House and in the Senate.” A Department of Justice spokesman says that Holder “…made his own determination that the D.C. voting rights bill is constitutional.” (Holder apparently prefers not to consult the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court on the issue.) [2171, 2172, 2173]

            Under pressure from Wall Street and the Obama administration, the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) relaxes mark-to-market valuation rules. The action will allow banks and investment firms to value their assets at higher levels. The result is that “troubled assets” might be re-valued more generously than they should be, allowing Wall Street and the administration to say, “Hey, things are getting better!” when they are not. (If a homeowner with a $500,000 mortgage defaults after the house has declined in value to $300,000, the bank will lose money regardless of the book value of the loan.) [2182]