Life under gangster government: Obama’s $20 billion bank heist

May 19, 2011

And a bunch of states’ attorney generals looking to pander for votes are in on the job. Karl Rove blows the whistle:

At last Wednesday’s “CBS Town Hall,” President Obama said he was “trying to . . . figure out how we can get the banks to do more” on modifying mortgage loan payments. Perhaps, he said, people whose mortgages are underwater should get a “principal reduction, which will be good for the person who owns . . . the home.”

Mr. Obama has decided that taxpayers have no appetite for bailing out homeowners who don’t make their payments, or for rescuing those whose homes are worth less than their mortgages. Instead, he’s backing a proposal by his Department of Justice and state attorneys general to force major banks to cough up the dough.

The money would come from a settlement with JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and other banks accused of “robo-signing,” in which foreclosure documents were signed by bank employees or agents without properly certifying all the papers. The attorneys general admit that virtually no one was erroneously foreclosed upon because of robo-signing. The banks foreclosed on people who were on average 18 months delinquent, and after multiple attempts to modify the loan had been tried and failed.

But Justice and the state attorneys general are demanding $20 billion for sloppiness, which they will then be able to hand out to voters—and potential supporters. The money won’t come from the banks; it will come from their customers, millions of whom will pay more in fees and interest and will, in some cases, be denied credit.

This stinks. It’s not only corrupt, it’s bad policy.

As Rove points out, only a few people were hurt in the robo-signing “scandal,” and the proper solution would have been to make them whole with some additional compensation, including returning them to their homes.  Instead, Ali Obama and his 40 Thieves President Obama and the state AGs are abusing the law to extort billions from the banks –at the customers’ ultimate cost– that can then be used to plug state budget gaps or as bait for votes. Far from doing justice, the robo-signing problem has been an excuse to do a great injustice, both to the banks and to the original victims, whose cause has been forgotten.

Michael Barone called this “gangster government” and “thugocracy;” we know it as “The Chicago Way.”

It sure isn’t the Rule of Law.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Obamacare and unintended consequences

June 17, 2010

Late in the health care debate, Norma Desmond Nancy Pelosi famously said we’d have to pass the health care bill to learn what was in it. She was right. Since the Democrats rammed the bill through without allowing enough time for study and debate (or any time at all, really), we seen one lousy example after another of  “what’s in it.” Think you’ll get to keep your health plan, as the Lightworker promised?

Karl Rove says, think again:

In his brilliant exposition of why sweeping policy changes often have unintended consequences, the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their “paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences” of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.

Which brings us to President Obama’s many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.

This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform’s effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.

This reality is settling in at businesses across America. A Midwestern contractor told me he pays $588,000 for health insurance for 70 employees, contributing up to $8,400 a year for a family’s coverage. If he stops providing health insurance, he’ll pay $2,000 per employee in fines, and the first 40 employees are exempt from fines altogether.

It’s also dawning on employees that they will lose their coverage. Some will blame management; many more will blame those who wrote this terrible legislation.

It dawned on a lot of people before the bill was passed, albeit with no thanks to the mainstream media, but it didn’t matter: the (Social) Democratic majority in Congress gave their (Social) Democratic president what he wanted, ramming this crap sandwich of a bill through Congress against the express will of the majority of the people. The promises about cutting costs and keeping the health insurance you’re happy with were all garbage. All of them.

And now we’re finding all the roaches under the health care carpet. (And there’s never just one.)

Employees who blame their employers are foolish; they’re only doing what is economically rational under the given set of incentives. The people to blame are the President of the United States and every single Democrat in Congress, even the so-called moderates, because their votes to elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader facilitated this mess.

Read the whole article and file this away for next November: