New Year's Resolutions I Wish the Media Would Make

Here it be Resolved:



That editorialists and reporters are identified.


That every time a blooper is shown, they must show one of their own.


That news readers may not slant news or give their opinion.


That the bimboid look on the part of newscasters be entirely voluntary.


That the candidates be given equal time.


That the pollsters must post their own accuracy stats when quoted.


That the duty of the media is to inform the public of facts.


That it is not the duty of the press to influence elections.


That the media can assist with the problem solving needed today.


That the media can produce more mini documentaries based on facts related to problems.



This is not a negative critique of the media. I appreciate all the money and time spent producing programming to inform and entertain and attract the audience. I spend time watching news shows and I learn and observe more every day. It is a wonderful opportunity for everyone.

However, a few canyons are created in credibility by some practices on the part of media. I get tired of the barracuda partisanship of some editorialists who act like what they emphasize is hard news. Financial problems loom and a possible global economic reorganization could be in progress. Disparate elements of the political system need to work together to solve problems. Ridicule of a political figure who could become important is short sighted and demeaning to our political system.

The question of the status of women arises when the bimboid look appears to be a requirement on some news shows. I'd like to see the males showing as much skin as the females, all in the name of equality. Would the male's credibility be strained by their attire if they showed that much skin? The spectacle of a woman in a skin tight, thigh high dress sitting with her legs tightly crossed, attempting to report news defies common sense. How can you be taken seriously when your buttocks are visible?

The political candidates are a whole another story. I get tired of endless emotional analysis of the candidates. Analysis should be limited to actual data like voting record and other verifiable information. I feel sorry for some of the candidates who were subjected to yellow journalism rather than rational analysis. Endless reruns of bloopers and salacious news is not only boring but wastes valuable time that could be spent on important stories. It takes tremendous courage to run for office. The candidates deserve respect.

Lastly, lest we be blown to smithereens, let's talk about the specter of nuclear war. It appears that some in the media are warmongering and talking about WMD again. I think it is time to face the reality that everybody is going to eventually have a nuclear capacity. What if a nation thought not to have a nuclear weapon did in fact have one and when attacked, might use it? Nobody knows everything about everything and to warmonger is irresponsible. At least produce a pro and con debate instead of the one sided pro war stance. The consequences of more war for this nation are bankruptcy and insolvency and debt slavery.

Anyway, thanks to the media for all that they do. I'm just glad we have the internet as an alternative source of information.

                                                     Happy New Year!

Fannie and Freddie Scam

Fannie and Freddie were formed to assist in home ownership for citizens. Their mission was to increase homeownership through responsible lending. Note that I said responsible lending.


Since this mission was subverted, the mission of Fannie and Freddie became to create as many mortgage securities as possible and resell them rapidly. The mission of increasing homeownership became the excuse for the behavior that led to the subprime mortgage and bogus mortgage securities scheme.

It's like they said one thing to get approval, but the real motivation was different. Responsible homeownership includes making a payment if one exists. Getting people in homes for a few months or years and then foreclosure and then reselling the appreciated homes was the scheme, while the mortgage derivatives were worth more than the actual worth of the houses they were based on. Foreclosures only became a problem when houses stopped appreciating because the loan money dried up, because the problem with worthless mortgage derivatives had become apparent. It was quick money for a few, however.

It's interesting that anybody who did a short sale cannot get a loan for years, but the house they purchased after an appraisal was not worth what they paid, not then and not now. It was not like you could choose; all prices were sky high and if you wanted or needed to buy a house, you had to pay. The punishment of misled homebuyers is quite a phenomenon.

I would like to see a list of names and positions of those who originated the mortgage derivatives schemes and who are perpetuating them. Mr. Geithner, Mr. Paulson, Mr. Bernanke, and private sector people will probably be on the list. Is Federal Reserve money being used to purchase mortgage derivatives?

Since executives at Fannie and Freddie are rewarded with bonuses if they obtained a larger market share, that is apparently why the chief executives received some $12 million in bonuses, even though they are demanding billions in tax money to fund their deficit spending. I think Fannie and Freddie have 78% of the market share in housing loans now, which is a significant increase. What is wrong with this picture? This is deliberate direct competition with the private market in origination of more mortgage securities, which is the apparent prime goal of Fannie and Freddie. The people these government organizations are supposed to serve are forgotten or used as pawns in order to create more mortgage derivatives.

Obtaining a bigger market share? That was not the mission. Why are chief executives being rewarded for capturing a larger market share? How about paying the executives to do their job and no bonuses? Bonuses are being used by somebody making policy to direct the course of events, which has proven to be a bankrupt way to manage home loans. We need a comprehensive policy statement in Fannie and Freddie that states loans to institutions can be made if they loan it out to deserving homebuyers and that the mortgages originating from those loans will be serviced by those originating those loans. Responsible lending would immediately result, but of course the profits are modest.

I think mortgage derivatives should be relegated to casino bets and the institutions Fannie and Freddie and all their contacts should be disbanded. If a new government institution is created to 'help' homebuyers, no derivatives should be allowed.

It looks like foreclosures are up and I do appreciate the efforts of the law to recoup losses by forcing buybacks of delinquent mortgages packaged as wonderful investments by crooked rating agencies. The inflation in home prices was encouraged because the number of loans increased due to the dropping of lending standards. "If you could fog a mirror, you could get a mortgage", I was told. If they had stopped the scam with those who actually qualified for a mortgage, the foreclosures would have been within norms, but they had to have more mortgages to fuel their scam, so they just handed them out like popcorn to pigeons. Anything to keep the number of mortgages up so more mortgage derivatives could be sold. I knew people who would buy several houses at once and flip them 2-3 months later for tens of thousands more than they paid.

This inflation hit the consumer hard but the immediate effects were softened by various mortgage schemes that focused on the immediate payment the buyer would pay, rather than devious adjustable rate mortgages, interest only for a few years and other schemes designed to keep the payment low for a while, then escalating the payment to a level the buyer could not afford. Since by then there were no homes for sale the buyer could actually afford, these schemes became attractive since the buyers were assured their homes would continue to rise in value. Of course, that trajectory was unsustainable but what did the average schmo know?

It's amazing to me that the federal government is operating an agency that has as policy capturing a larger market share from the private enterprise market. The executives are awarded bonuses on the basis of market share statistics, rather than success in the mission to provide housing opportunities for the responsible buyer.

I suggest a review of the policies surrounding these 'bonuses', who wrote them and why and the consequences of encouraging particular courses of action without heed to future consequences.

Football Cult

This football scandal tops them all. Graphic details zoom around the world and it looks like the pagan worshipers of a sport have ignored feet of clay on their idol while the gold they worshipped filled their eager hands. The Golden Calf rules over the pagans who put more belief in their obsession than in moral certitude.


What disturbs about this scenario is the dubious value to the countless children who have been indoctrinated to believe that success at football is equitable with your value in the world. See a vision of a child's future that is defined by a sport that requires large size to succeed at the moneymaking trough narrows the field in that child's mind. What has happened to our moral fabric when a moneymaking game takes precedence over the students and the populace? They kept their insular trip going as long as they could.

The public schools and sports should be separated. Let the municipalities handle competitive sports while the schools teach academics and health for life. Profits from the competitive sports would help fund the schools and the municipalities. The competitive sports programs should be open to all on 8-12 grade level, with subsidized bus passes to the programs. Grade performance guidelines would apply to eligibility. Tutoring would be offered on site.

We are told that our local university funds other sports programs from football and basketball proceeds, yet contributions to the academic program lean towards getting instructors fired for giving bad grades to players or having special classes for the players, instead of them becoming a part of the university community and attending normal class. Our local athletic director has stated he will raise the graduation rate of the players, which has been abysmal under the recently retired long time coach. The hangers-on who suck a living out of the sports programs using the university name don't even bother to bolster up academics. It's all about money first and sports second .

Look at the Fiesta Bowl scandal. Free trips for state legislators, free tickets and free hotel rooms and meals, all to obtain influence and cooperation on key legislation that benefits their scheme. So the head of the Fiesta Bowl has access to all this money, which he spends on trips and freebies for himself, when the educational institutions represented get little cut out of all this lucrative action. I'm talking academics here: all that strange stuff like mathematics and the sciences and liberal arts, and the like. Most of that profit should be diverted into funding academics instead of puffing up the pay of the dealmakers and giving freebies to lawmakers .

The moral failure of the 'football leadership' did not live up to the hype fed children through the public schools and universities. Pressure applied by how many people resulted in a cover up that damages the students and the standing of the institution? Who participated in the cover-up? Who should go to jail for putting selfish interests ahead of right and wrong? Who would be better off today if they had stood fast and reported the truth until somebody actually heard it?

Debt as Tyranny

                                               The High-born Ladye



Debt as Tyranny


Thinking on the national debt and the local city debt is enough to create insomnia. City debt is more familiar to me and with that is a bit of contempt for the decision-making that mired the city in debt and more debt continues to be an attraction even though insolvency looms as borrowing has been the budget crutch in the city for the past few years. Why is borrowed money considered income in the accounting? Borrowed money is not income to be lumped in the general fund and spent on whatever. Borrowing money is a focused enterprise, hopefully with increased income or better conditions as a result of the cost of borrowing money. Around here, the real cost of borrowing money ranges about 30-50% of the principal, which is usurious but seems so desirable to the politicians who are courted by the lenders to borrow.

Politicians who borrow against revenue streams are indebting those streams for years after their term of office is over. They are often long gone and the taxpayers are still paying on those debts, ill conceived or not. The power these politicians have over our lives and environment is now reaching into the future lives of our descendents, as the politicians' insatiable urges to control cash seems to be more important than planning for the future.

Apparently in Greece, the deal seems to be that the Greeks are expected to borrow money at 85% interest and if the latest bailout plan works, the holders of the risky Greek debt will rake in the principal plus 85% interest, all paid for by whomever is paying for the bailout. Since our President did not agree to pay this bailout, then the taxpayers are off the hook to pay that usury and allow those investors to collect big. Nobody should pay that money. A cyberspace rumor is floating around that a banker is going to take over the reins of government in Greece. If the spring drifts north all bets are off so the foolishness of creating a climate perfect for new species will result in unwarranted competition, in ecological terms. Doesn't anybody remember the plight of the Germans after WWI when they were forced to pay war reparations to the point they had nothing left? That political economic mistake led to WWII.

I think the moneylenders need to take a haircut and either go broke or get on with it. They deserve that for all the easy credit they offered on all levels, without checking to determine if any of the borrowers could pay it back. Liberal tax codes allowed for massive tax deductions on defaults. Tax deductions for these losses should not be allowed, since the evidence shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the lender in vetting potential borrowers. So incompetence in the workplace is compensated for by the government in the form of tax breaks? Just think of all the money paid in commissions to lenders who set up these deals. "Fund managers" who invested pension funds and other critical money should be liable for these reckless losses and 'bailouts' should be aimed at the pension funds, not the clown who handled the crappy investments.

Back to the politicians who recklessly borrow and spend, whatever happened to bond elections, where voters had to give permission for borrowing? Around here, the euphemism for borrowing is 'certificate of participation', which bring in millions in debt. The RTA is issuing bonds after receiving .5 cent sales tax to do a job. The borrowing adds more than 30% to the cost, but was it in the voter proposal as an expense? So we were told that it was always understood there would be borrowing. They're wasting over a third of the money they get on debt, but they get to dole out the millions. Refinancing existing debt by rolling over the old debt and starting over with the principal after fees are paid and a few bucks doled out keeps the taxpayers in hock for a longer time, but what the hell, let's spend that cash now and leave nothing but a hole in the ground for posterity. Your kids can pay for it too; it's worth it to somebody. Let's have some legislation that calls a debt a debt and demands voter approval for incurrence.

Debt is tyranny. A forced payment brought on by government borrowing. The spending of tax money on moneylenders is outrageous and should not be allowed above a certain point. It is called the debt limit, which is now an object of ridicule. How about establishing a realistic debt limit and limits on what borrowed money can be spent on? Prosecute officials who spend borrowed money on anything else or who build up costoverruns resulting in partial completion. Somebody has to take responsibility.

Fannie and Freddie, the Fed lending houses that eagerly buy mortgage securities, are a losing proposition, where mismanagement has resulted in a request for billions more tax money subsidy every year, owes the taxpayers $141billion and is now paying top executives $12million in bonuses this year. Who else gets a reward for running a heavy deficit when the Federal government is running a deficit and making it all worse by billions? Close them down. We don't need any more mortgage securities or derivatives and who likes them is totally irrelevant to what needs to be done. Make the lenders responsible for what they lend locally. The power of the mortgage brokers needs to be broken. Real estate prices might fall, which would identify more potential buyers.

One way to avoid more public debt, particularly that foisted off on the voters without permitting a vote, is to adjust the size of the contracts to be awarded. Smaller contracts would favor local workers, while the huge contractors want huge lump sums borrowed and given to them on a large scale. These smaller contracts would be contingent upon receipt of the tax support, which would have some consistency. Smaller, shorter term contracts based on actual revenue would favor local, small contractors. The money paid them would stay in town circulating instead of flying out of state or even out of the country. It is time to set up the local bidding process in such a way as to favor local small contractors who employ local workers without forced union representation. This is a right to work state. Costs need to be lowered on all fronts, which would create more jobs. Smaller contracts contingent on revenue would avoid debt and would allow for incremental building of projects using all of the assigned money with none going to the moneylenders.

Another problem is the 'underwater mortgage' problem. Remember the last real estate boom, the Subprime Boom? During the boom in Vegas, houses were actually selling for more than the asking price, the bidding was so fierce. Inflated housing prices were the norm. If you could fog a mirror, you could get credit. If you wanted to buy a home, you had to pay, like $275,000+ for a cheap 1200 sq. ft. cookie cutter. Around here that overbuilt item is selling for around $40-50,000 and falling. How far can the prices drop? Maybe until the average Joe can actually afford the loan payment.

The debt pervasiveness also keeps rents jacked up so the principal and interest on the debt can be paid, with a profit for the leinholder after that. Renters are expected to pay the subprime boom mortgage price for the lienholder plus more for maintenance costs and profit. The stagnation of the real estate and rental market is due to a heavy debt load that absorbs cash and does not produce jobs. Debt jacks up the price of everything.

The tyranny of debt has brought economic exploitation and now protesters to the streets. We need legislation to prevent politicians from borrowing anything over a reasonable debt limit and any borrowing has to have the consent of the voters. The voters need control because the voters pay for it. It's easy to blow money when somebody else pays for it. No more Certificates of Participation or any other disguised borrowing. The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) is claiming power to indebt based on the 1/2 cent sales tax they command and I question their legal right to indebt this fund without a vote of the people.

Our legislators can help the voters get control of public indebtedness and the time to act is nigh. No more moneylenders in the temple of government.