Sunday, November 7, 2010

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Nov. 6 & 7, 2010


Nothing fancy...

...and that's the point.
Posted by at

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506404575592741466524972.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF4

Banks are starting to make "jumbo" mortgages again.

(*SIGH*)

In the second quarter of 2010, jumbo-mortgage lenders originated $18 billion in loans - a 20% increase from the first quarter.

(*SIGH*)

In high-cost metro areas, including New York and San Francisco, jumbo loans are generally those that exceed $729,750. The limits can be even higher in Alaska and Hawaii.

* YEP... JUST HELPING OUT THE LITTLE GUY...

(*SIGH*)

Robert Flaxman, a 54-year-old real-estate developer in Laguna Beach, Calif., says he is refinancing his $5 million mortgage, which has an interest rate that adjusts monthly. His new loan will be another adjustable-rate mortgage with a fixed interest rate in the 3.75% to 4% range for the first five or seven years, and adjusting annually thereafter.

* NICE, HUH...?

(*SMIRK*)

November 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/E-mail-shows-illegal-activity-in-Reid_s-campaign-1458042-106720628.html

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have beaten back challenger Sharron Angle and retained his post as the majority leader, but his campaign and one of his biggest supporters may have violated federal law to do so.

As National Review reported earlier this week, the Reid campaign sent a desperate e-mail to the senior vice president for government relations at Harrah's Casinos asking the company to pressure its employees to get out and vote for Reid. The campaign even offered to have Reid call Harrah's executives to help give "the backing" needed to get the company working on this.

The Reid staffer involved told Harrah's it needed to "put a headlock" on its supervisors "to get them to follow through."

This plea was distributed to senior executives throughout the company by a Harrah's vice president, Marybel Batjer. Batjer demanded that those executives "do whatever we need to do to get the supervisors to know that there is NOTHING more important than to get employees out to vote. Waking up to a defeat of Harry Reid Nov 3rd will be devastating for our industry's future."

Harrah's did just that, getting headcounts and insisting that supervisors explain why their employees had not yet voted. They also coordinated with employee unions to get buses and shuttles to take the employees to the polls.

None of this should be excused as just "politics as usual."

Both the Reid campaign and Harrah's [apparently] have violated federal campaign finance law that prohibits in-kind corporate and union contributions to, and coordination with, political campaigns. (Corporations and unions may spend money to run ads in support of or opposing a candidate, but they are not allowed to make direct or in-kind contributions to federal candidates.)

Federal criminal law also prohibits intimidation and coercion of a person exercising his or her right to vote (or not to vote).

* To be continued...

November 7, 2010 at 2:09 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

If a corporation or union spends money to support the election of a candidate in response to a request by that federal candidate (that is, if they make a coordinated expenditure), as clearly occurred in this case, then they are making an illegal contribution to the candidate.

This was not a situation where a corporation was simply encouraging its employees to go to the polls and vote for their candidate of choice - Harrah's was telling its employees how important it was to elect Reid, setting up a whole system to coerce its employees to vote, even making records of who had not voted.

Both Harrah's and the unions spend money, in terms of supervisor and employee resources on company time, and the cost of shuttles, etc., not merely in a nonpartisan way to get out the vote, but to facilitate votes for Reid.

Moreover, 18 U.S.C. 594 makes it a federal crime to intimidate, threaten or coerce, "or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for or not to vote for, any candidate for office of ... the Senate."

Harrah's executives were apparently threatening employees who had not voted, and were coercing them to vote for a particular senatorial candidate. The obvious implication for anyone receiving these Harrah's e-mails or having a "headlock" put on them was possible reprisals and adverse employment consequences if they did not cooperate in getting out the vote (and vote) for Reid. (The Justice Department's handbook on election crimes for prosecutors makes clear that it is criminal to engage in "conduct intended to force prospective voters to vote against their preferences, or refrain from voting, through activity reasonably calculated to instill some form of fear.")

Campaign finance violations are generally investigated by the Federal Election Commission as civil matters. But intentional and knowing violations are criminal violations, which are prosecuted by the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department. It is difficult to believe that neither Reid's staffer nor Harrah's senior vice president for government relations (its lobbyist), would not know that their coordination and in-kind contributions were highly illegal. So the question is this - will the Holder Justice Department open up an investigation into what seems to have been blatant violations of federal law? Or will the administration make the same type of political decision that it has made in numerous other cases, including the New Black Panther Party? If it fails to investigate, it will be telling the country that as long as you are an important political ally of the president, you need have no worry about violating federal law.

November 7, 2010 at 2:10 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/127995-justice-dept-strikes-back-against-alaska-gov-on-drilling-lawsuit

The Obama administration is urging a federal court to nix litigation brought by Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) that accuses the Interior Department of illegally blocking oil-and-gas drilling in federal waters off the state’s coast.

* THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS ANTI-DRILLING... (*SHRUG*)... WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY.

State officials want Interior to give Royal Dutch Shell a green light to conduct exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea (the company has, for now, backed off plans to drill in the adjoining Chukchi Sea), and more broadly foster development in Arctic waters thought to contain big hydrocarbon resources.

* WELL OF COURSE THEY DO! THEY'RE LOOKING OUT FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR STATE AND THE GOOD OF THE NATION! I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOU, BUT MY CAR(S) RUN ON GAS AND I'M A BIG FAN OF HEAT IN THE WINTER!

The Obama administration in late May blocked the company’s plans to launch drilling in shallow Artic waters last summer.

(*SHRUG*) (*SMIRK*)

Republicans and pro-drilling Democrats like Sens. Mark Begich (AK) and Mary Landrieu (LA) accuse the Obama administration of dragging its feet on permits in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

* ...BECAUSE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS DRAGGING IT'S FEET!

[E]ven before the BP spill, [Obama's] Interior [Department] in March nixed four upcoming lease sales in Arctic waters, citing the need for more "study" of development there, even as it announced plans to allow wider offshore leasing in the 2012-2017 period.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

[Alaska Republican Governor Sean] Parnell, in announcing the lawsuit in September, called offshore drilling a matter of “critical importance to Alaska's future and the economic and security interests of the United States.”

* YOU'VE GOT TO ASK YOURSELVES, FOLKS... WHAT'S OBAMA'S END GAME? (IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK...) (*SHRUG*)

November 7, 2010 at 2:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/128045-paul-military-cuts-on-the-table

Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) said Sunday he believes government spending cuts shouldn't exclude the military.

On ABC’s "This Week," Paul said: “Republicans traditionally say, oh, we'll cut domestic spending, but we won't touch the military. The liberals -- the ones who are good -- will say, oh, we'll cut the military, but we won't cut domestic spending.”

“Bottom line is, you have to look at everything across the board.”

* SOUNDS LIKE SOME GOOD OLD FASHIONED COMMON FRIGG'N SENSE TO ME...!!!

Paul also said it may be necessary to raise the retirement age to rein in federal spending: “You may have to. They're already talking about it. I mean, there's a bipartisan commission up here talking about raising age, graduating the benefits, maybe having means testing. You have to look at all of these things. They need to be on the table.”

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

The prominent Tea Partier described the movement, saying it is “… about the debt. It's concerned and worried that we're inheriting or passing along this debt to our kids and our grandkids, is the No. 1 thing of the Tea Party.”

He said he would support a constitutional amendment and congressional rules to limit spending and balance the budget. He will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

(*NOD*)

* NOW THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF PERSON WE NEED IN WASHINGTON!

November 7, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)