The Alan Gustin Blog

It could be that Obama’s chances for re-election will rest in the hands of his failed policies.

GOP candidates are going to start ramping-up their references to the disappointing performance of the Obama administration just as soon as they figure out that they can do the country no good if they merely fight each other during the Republican primary campaign season.  If the GOP candidates are truly concerned about America’s fate, they must stop the infighting, mud-slinging, and negative ads.  They must start exposing the greatest threat to America — Barack Obama.

It’s funny how difficult it is to find real stories from real people about Obama’s Making Homes Affordable Program when you search on Google.  It seems that Obama’s federal webmasters have performed some genius SEO on their sites.  Either that, or some large federal money has found its way into the Google coffers.  Try it yourself.  You’ll be hard-pressed to find anything negative in the Google results when searching “Making Homes Affordable”.

If you go to the Barack Obama web site, you’ll find this garbage:

I especially like the nice touch at the end.  Yes, people… go out and prove to others how great I am by showing them these “facts”.  And be sure and tell them, “Obama, four more years!”

The New York Times has something a little more like reality:

Many economists and mortgage experts have concluded that banks must ultimately forgive loan balances to restore equity to underwater borrowers. Otherwise, growing numbers will walk away from their homes and accept foreclosure rather than make payments on properties in which they no longer own a stake.

This is the real situation millions of Americans find themselves in now.  And the unavailing Making Homes Affordable Program, which has probably cost more in marketing than the amount homeowners have been helped, is but another one of Obama’s many failures.

I post this article because I am one of the millions of Americans who wound up in a serious financial bind after losing my job to corporate downsizing.  The failing economy and resulting “Great Recession” has my family in a position where we cannot afford our mortgage payments.  Actually, that’s not quite accurate.  We could afford our mortgage payments if we didn’t also need to pay our electric bill, phone bill, grocery bill, health insurance premiums, car loan payments, car insurance, day care costs, etc.

We applied for the MHA program.  It was soon after Bank of America sold our mortgage to Seterus, which is the mortgage servicing branch of IBM. To make a long story short, we qualified for the program, but when we received the papers, we discovered that the terms of the temporary mortgage payments were such that we would actually be paying more than our current payment!  And to add insult to injury, the agreement stated that the permanent payment may be more or less than the temporary ones.  So we were faced with getting locked into a new agreement that could possibly result in a much higher monthly payment.  This is what Obama considers relief?

It’s a joke!

It’s as if the banks and mortgage service companies are literally thumbing their noses at Obama, and the MHA program literally has no teeth.

I don’t have time to research the actual facts pertaining to the number of homeowners actually helped by the MHA program.  So I am asking my readers to point me to a source of information that may provide the real numbers.  Anyone reading this article who can help, please leave a comment, or email:alan@alangustin.com

I will use the information to post further articles concerning the reality of Obama’s False Hope and Change.

…and please don’t come back to haunt us!

I say “good riddance” to one of the worst years ever. 2011 saw the passing away of my Dad just before Thanksgiving.  Though sick for some time with cancer, the treatment Dad had received gave us hope that he had two or three years of life ahead of him, and we are very disappointed in the care he received at the end.  However unrelated it might be, I still can’t help wondering if Dad’s case was in any way affected by the new laws brought about by Obamacare.  I know nothing will bring my Dad back, but I think the disappointing presidential (if you can call it that) performance by the Obama administration has fueled my distrust in the medical industry in general.  But I’ll leave that for another post.

We also witnessed many friends losing their jobs and their homes.  Our family also experienced one of the worst years ever — looking at it from a financial perspective, and we’re still possibly looking at losing our home to foreclosure in 2012.

“How did we get here?” is the question we ask ourselves often, and just as often, the answers point to the current and past presidential administrations, along with an incompetent and corrupt Congress.  But I also realize that we contributed to our own plight through our complacency and laziness.

But I believe that we, along with millions of fellow Americans, were lulled into a false sense of security concerning the health of the economy here in America and abroad.  In 2008, the end of the Bush administration saw the start of “The Bailouts”, which were signed into law by Bush, opening the “door to hell” which Obama gladly and recklessly cake-walked through at the beginning of his first (and hopefully only) term as president.  If the public had been properly warned, many of us could have prepared better.  We couldn’t have prevented the “great recession” (as it’s now being called), but as I said, many of us could have prepared better.

I (and others like myself) find it inexcusable that many of our elected representatives personally benefited financially from a foreknowledge of the impending financial doom, while allowing the rest of us to be destroyed.  The Tea Party, and more recently, the Occupy Wall Street movements are in response to the actions by members of Congress who should be found guilty of malfeasance.

“…malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance.” —Daugherty v. Ellis

Speaking of Occupy Wall Street, this is another major disappointment of 2011.  I was excited to see another, younger group of citizens protesting about the state of the economy.  But the immature actions and misguided focus (or lack thereof) immediately turned me against these people.   The timing of OWS was perfect, but the execution was inept.  OWS could have driven a nail in the coffin of the Obama re-election, but their adoption of, and association with the same type of radical, Leftist rhetoric as used by Obama, prevented them from “turning against one of their own”.  Only recently have many of the OWS supporters finally turned against this president.

Fortunately for me, OWS has provided a welcomed distraction, and I’ve been gleefully poking fun at the movement via my blog, Occupy Stupidity.  I sincerely hope that Occupy Stupidity will provide an alternate opinion source for young people who have been seduced by the movement which is reminiscent of the “Summer of Love” hippie era of the late sixties and early seventies.

On a lighter note, I have found yet another disappointment just as 2011 comes to a close.  I went to see a movie at the local theater just a few days ago.  The experience was tainted right out of the gate by the obscene amount of television-style commercial advertisements that were shown prior to the main feature.  It had been quite a while since I had been to a theater to see a movie, and it will be a very long time before I return to a movie theater if this is going to be the new trend.  For me, the theater experience has been spoiled.  Perhaps forever.

Neither one of my football teams did any good this year, although the Arizona Cardinals started looking pretty good toward the end of the season with John Skelton as QB.  We can only hope that the Cards make a couple good draft picks in the off-season.  I’m officially dumping the Philadelphia Eagles as my second-favorite team.  They simply disappoint too often (i.e., year after year).

On the other hand… I have plenty to be grateful for.  My wife and kids are reasonably healthy.  Evan is still on Trileptal, which he has been taking for over a year now due to seizure activity detected over a year ago.  We pray that he will be able to go off the medication soon, as it is contributing to our financial stress.

I’ve got a full-time job with benefits, which is another blessing in these times.  I’ve got God in my life and I’ve got serenity in sobriety.  All-in-all, I guess my balance sheet isn’t so bad.

I am already praying that 2012 brings a peace and prosperity that will send 2011 into the realm of the forgotten.  But for now, I say, “good riddance, 2011″.

Somebody who goes by the name, Yves Smith posted an article at a site called Naked Capitalism titled: Alan Grayson Shreds P.J. O’Rourke on #OccupyWallStreet.

I just had to offer a rebuttal to this piece, mainly because it is typical of many on the left who go gaga over anybody who (seemingly) adds credibility to the Occupy Wall Street cause.  And rather than open with a ridiculous statement like Smith does, I am going straight to the video, then to excerpts from the article and my comments.  So please watch the video, then read on.

First of all… shredded?  …really?  When I read the title of the post, I expected to experience some über-intellectual deposition by Grayson, resulting in blood and tears all over the set of Real Time With Bill Maher.  But as you can see for yourself, Grayson’s response to O’Rourke’s infantile question is far from compelling to anyone outside of Maher’s audience.  And another thing… P.J. O’Rourke is to Bill Maher what Juan Williams was to Sean Hannity… just someone on the set the host can kick around, which means there’s nothing valid about any question that comes from this dolt in the first place.

Grayson’s little mini-speech answer, has no more substance than any of the pabulum coming out of the mouths of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  Most of us already know the state of the economy is in a mess.  Most of us would agree that Wall Street being in bed with politicians is a bad thing.  Most of us want to change the way the economic system in America functions.  But When Grayson says, "…we all know Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago…", doesn’t that seem a bit simple from someone who claims to have been an economist for three years?

I would agree if Grayson had said that Wall Street was yet another victim of failed economic policies put in place by the Federal government.  I might agree if he had said that crony-capitalism is one of the biggest reasons (if not the main reason) that these failed policies were passed into law in the first place.  I would agree if Grayson had said that the practice of selling–off large bundles of mortgages which were sliced and diced into tiny pieces and then sold again to investment funds and pension plans was a bad idea if not regulated properly.

Instead, Grayson simply regurgitates the same, tired mantra that we’ve been hearing for weeks from the Occupy Wall Street protesters… "Wall Street wrecked the economy…"

People who make fun of the OWS movement do so because of people like Grayson who, instead of articulating some valid ideas about how to improve the economic system in America (and consequently – the world), simply spout shallow, leftist rhetoric.  And thus it has been since the beginning of the OWS movement.  And as much as I can’t stand O’Rourke’s bubblegum question (and bongo reference) on this particular edition of Maher’s show, I have to agree that most of the higher–profile personalities (such as Grayson, Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin) are just beating the drum of revolution, continually pointing out problems without offering any solutions.

And since this is all that seems to be coming from the OWS "representatives", it likewise seems that there isn’t much in the way of economically–educated people within the movement. I certainly don’t notice denigration of OWS protesters by any serious news reporters.  I especially haven’t seen or heard of anyone making the protesters out to be poor, homeless, destitute, or "slovenly unproductive losers".  On the contrary, I’ve reported myself, and have read other reports that observe that these protesters are relatively well–dressed, carrying iPhones and cameras along with their protest signs.

I believe most observers of the OWS movement are waiting for the movement to take on a more appropriate target — namely the politicians who make laws that serve themselves, and who fail to make policy that protects the American people instead of ripping them off.  These politicians don’t reside on Wall Street… they occupy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House.

Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig of The Washington Post reported yesterday that “Energy Department officials were warned that their plan to help a failing solar company by restructuring its $535 million federal loan could violate the law and should be cleared with the Justice Department, according to newly obtained e-mails from within the Obama administration.”

It appears that this example of crony capitalism is coming to light and may become a scandal that Obama cannot wiggle his way out of.  What is becoming clear is that people associated with Solyndra who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Obama election campaign were given special consideration for the half-trillion dollar government loan which will now be the responsibility of American taxpayers.

Perhaps this type of crony capitalism is what the focus of the Occupy Wall Street movement should be.

Thinking that the Occupy Wall Street movement was a mere fad, many people dismissed it as just a bunch of young, hippie students and unemployed people venting their frustration at the state of the economy in America.  Their protests were seemingly misdirected, and many laughed at this group, who appeared to have no real solution to “Wall Street’s Greed”, and no real support for their cause.  But with the endorsement of several union groups, teachers and other students, the movement has picked up momentum and now appears to be getting stronger.  Some still cannot take this group seriously, when they hear from representatives of the movement such as Michael Moore and Harrison Schultz — both of whom come across as “kooky” in the delivery of their messages.

Frustration about the economic woes of the nation may be compounded by the fact that President Obama — failing to bring about the Hope and Change that many of these protesters expected — is a huge disapointment to these same people, who campaigned and then voted for him in 2008.  Some feel that the Occupy Wall Street movement is actually a subconscious protest against Obama, but since many of these protesters voted for him, they need to redirect their frustration at something else (namely Wall Street), lest they become mentally ill due to the resulting moral conflict brought about by turning against the very man they voted for.

On a serious note, it could be argued, as Herman Cain did recently, that the protesters are focusing their anger at the wrong establishment.  ”Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!” Cain said.  ”It is not a person’s fault because they succeeded, it is a person’s fault if they failed. And so this is why I don’t understand these demonstrations and what is it that they’re looking for.”

Cain may be right on one level, but the protest is supremely misdirected when one considers the larger problem of crony capitalism in America.  But that problem is a bit too complex for simplistic bemoaning, and calling for the complete dismantling of the government (instead of Wall Street), might seem a treasonous act worthy of more serious charges against the protesters.  However, if the Occupy Wall Street gang thought about it just a little bit, they would come to the conclusion that it is not Wall Street, but a system of government that allows elected representatives to pass self–serving laws and regulations that’s to blame.

Just look at the recent scandal surrounding the government loans to the solar panel manufacturer, Solyndra.  If that’s not a prime example of crony capitalism, then nothing is.  It’s unfortunate (for the left) that the Solyndra scandal implicates the Obama administration, and it seems that the leftist Occupy Wall Street protesters will grant Obama a pass and instead concentrate on assailing Wall Street.  Of course, crony capitalism has been around since before Obama, and it is unfair to uniquely align the Obama administration with crony capitalism without including past administrations as well.  But it is not completely the functioning of any particular presidential administration that defines crony capitalism in the first place.

This article will not delve into the history of crony capitalism in America, nor site any further examples of it.  Rather, this article is aimed at making a point about the misguided focus of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Assuming that the purpose of the recent protests against Wall Street are not intended to simply spread anarchism, or un–purposed revolution for revolution’s sake, the movement’s participants should consider this:

In the light of the Enron debacle, it would be puzzling if someone, or some group would attempt anything obviously illegal for the purpose of amassing wealth while covertly ripping people off.  There are too many ways to get caught these days and besides, there’s ways to do it legally.  And that… is the problem.

There’s no denying that the capitalistic economic system is what helped make this country the greatest nation on the planet.  Innovators with enough ambition and drive are able to achieve great success in America.  But the game is rigged, and anyone with enough curiosity or willingness to learn can discover how the game is rigged, and who does the rigging.  But that requires a lot of work.  Work that should be done by the mainstream press.  We are all aware that the mainstream media is biased.  We cannot trust what is reported as fact, and that is a great shame on an institution that could negate the need for an Occupy Wall Street protest if only there was integrity within that same reporting institution.  If the press did its job, we would have an informed public.  All would know what goes on in the Capitol building.  All would see how certain senators and congressmen are rigging the game.  Occupy Wall Street would not be the movement… Occupy Congress would be.   The House of Representatives and the Senate are where laws and regulations come from that enable Wall Street to operate the way it does in the first place.  Change needs to come to government first.  Our system of government has evolved into a giant, bureaucratic mess which is being grown even bigger by our current President, Barack Obama.

I hope Occupy Wall Street will morph into a newer, brighter movement.  One that makes way more sense called… Occupy the Voting Booth.

Related Stories:

Wall Street Protests Spread
Why OWS Should Scare Repubs
OWS Demands
ABC News Live Blog

After he gave his speech to the special joint session of Congress, didn’t we all ask the question, “How is Obama going to pay for his Jobs Bill?”

In an article at Bloomberg.com, Laura Litvan wrote,

Senate Democrats are weighing a plan to substitute a surtax on millionaires for a package of tax increases President Barack Obama proposed to pay for his $447 billion job-creation plan, a Democratic aide said.

Does this mean that Obama lied when he said his Jobs Bill would be “paid for”?  Sounds to me like they are still trying to figure that out.  And didn’t Obama say in his speech that no new taxes would be necessary to pay for the Jobs Bill?  It seems that even the President’s own are having a difficult time getting on board with his agenda lately, and the timing of this seems to be so bad, that Obama may truly be hamstrung.  With the election campaign season in full-swing, many democrats may be watching Obama’s diminishing popularity as a reason to extricate themselves from his policies.

Laura Litvan continues:

Obama wants to pay for his plan by capping itemized deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples earning more than $250,000. The plan would also boost taxes on private equity firms and end oil and gas subsidies. Some Senate Democrats are objecting to those tax increases.

To many, it seems as if Obama is desperate to come up with something that will appeal to the voting masses.  But it also seems that, at every turn, he is hitting a brick wall.  It remains to be seen if he can rally his supporters enough to pressure the rogue democrats in the senate into agreeing with his Jobs Bill proposal.  But as each week passes, support for Obama seems to be slipping away.  Will the recent protests by the group known as “Occupy Wall Street” help or hurt Obama’s cause?  Yet another thing to watch for.

No matter how you look at it, it seems that Obama is traveling a hard road.  His Jobs Bill Tour may bolster his popularity, but the longer the bill is in limbo, the more his chances of increasing his poll ratings continue to diminish.

This was reported today at CNN.com

New York (CNN) — Several unions endorsed the two-week-old Occupy Wall Street movement and plan to join the protesters’ street theater in New York on Wednesday, labor leaders said.

“It’s really simple. These young people on Wall Street are giving voice to many of the problems that working people in America have been confronting over the last several years,” Larry Hanley, international president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, which has 20,000 member in the New York area, told CNN.

“These young people are speaking for the vast majority of Americans who are frustrated by the bankers and brokers who have profited on the backs of hard-working people,” Hanley added in a statement. “While we battle it out day after day, month after month, the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street sit by — untouched — and lecture us on the level of our sacrifice.”

Transport Workers Union Local 100 spokesman Jim Gannon said the Occupy Wall Street movement, which denounces social inequities in the financial system and draws inspiration from the Arab Spring revolutions in Africa and the Middle East, has advanced issues that unions typically support.

“Their goals are our goals,” Gannon said. “They brought a spotlight on issues that we’ve believed in for quite some time now…. Wall Street caused the implosion in the first place and is getting away Scot-free while workers, transit workers, everybody, is forced to pay for their excesses.

In an interview with the brilliant Reverend Al Sharpton, Harrison Schultz, who claims to be one of the organizers of the Occupy Wall Street movement, said this:

“…we all want something different, we all want something better. And as far as the specifics, as far as how to go about doing that… we don’t know yet.”

So just what are these goals that Mr. Gannon is referring to? Mr. Schultz admits that there is no plan, and also says that, “…a lot of the people here are in fact, anarchists — are in fact, revolutionaries.”

So union leaders are aligning themselves with anarchists and revolutionaries? Anyone surprised here?

Leftists are mobilizing a mass of uninformed young people who have no clue how to change the economic system in America. They don’t even have a clue about how the present economic system works in the first place, so how are they going to bring about meaningful change? They don’t know. They won’t offer an alternate system, because they can’t. They just want to “Tear it down!”

Wow… that’s helpful. I will keep my eyes and ears open for someone from this movement to come forward and articulate a plan that could work in place of the current economic system.

To quote the great John Lennon:

“You say you want a revolution? Well you know, we all want to change the world.”
“You say you got a real solution? Well you know, we’d all love to see the plan.”

Peace… and don’t forget to look for the “Union Made!” label on everything you buy!

When I saw this video for the first time, I laughed out loud. Then I was embarrassed for all the hippies out there that are part of of this “Occupy Wall Street” protest. The young man in this video, being interviewed by the very lucid and concise Rev. Al Sharpton, comes off as an arrogant high school kid, trying to look “cool”, trying to find a real reason to defend an excuse to ditch school or take a day off from work. This “Professional Sociologist” has no plan, and frankly, he doesn’t need one as long as these young people can continue “feeling good about something”. I personally dismiss this movement as a fad that will fade away in a few days unless they become focused and present a real idea about how to bring about their “change”. By the way… isn’t that why they all voted for Obama? Hmmmm…

This kook is the worst of the worst, in my opinion…

Michael Moore is, in my opinion, one of the worst opportunists around. He is praying on the naïveté of our youth and corrupting them with his vitriolic criticism of Wall Street. Go here for some insight into Moore’s nonsense. Then return here to leave your comment stating if you agree or disagree with Michael Moore’s statements.

From the New York Times:
By ERIC LIPTON and MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: October 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Some White House officials were so concerned about the financial health of Solyndra, a solar equipment manufacturer that had received federal loans, that they warned that a presidential trip last year to the company’s California factory could prove a major embarrassment, newly disclosed e-mails show.

The emails, gathered as part of a Congressional investigation into the Department of Energy loan program, offer new insight into just how worried senior administration officials were about the $528 million loan to Solyndra, which is now in bankruptcy, as well as other government efforts, amounting to $16 billion in loan guarantees, to promote clean energy.

The warnings came from both inside the White House — an official in the Office of Management and Budget wrote that the visit could be “embarrassing in the not too distant future” — as well as from private investors, including one Democratic campaign contributor who wrote to the White House the day before the president’s May 2010 visit to Solyndra to urge officials to reconsider the trip.

“I just want to help protect the president from anything that could result in negative or unfair press,” Steve Westly, a California venture capitalist and Democratic Party contributor, wrote in May 2010 to Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the president. “If it’s too late to change/postpone the meeting, the president should be careful about unrealistic/optimistic forecasts that could haunt him in the next 18 months if Solyndra hits the wall, files for bankruptcy, etc.”

The Solyndra loan, which was completed in September 2009 and could cost taxpayers a half-billion dollars, has come under scrutiny by lawmakers in Congress since the company declared bankruptcy last month. The business is also under investigation for possible fraud by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Obama defended the government’s investment on Monday, saying that “hindsight is 20/20” and the fact that the program involved risk was generally well known. In an interview with ABC News, he also said that the overall portfolio of loan guarantees was “doing well.”

In releasing the new e-mails, Democrats said they were seeking to demonstrate that there was no evidence of political favoritism toward Solyndra, whose investors include a foundation run by a major fund-raiser for Mr. Obama, a connection that Congressional Republicans have stressed. The e-mails, though, do provide new evidence of a concern by lawmakers that the broader loan guarantee program might be troubled.

An investor in Solyndra, in an e-mail sent to the White House in late 2009, questioned why the federal government had been willing to offer the solar start-up so much money.

“One of our solar companies with revenues of less than $100 million (and not yet profitable) received a government loan of $580 million,” the investor, Brad Jones, an executive at Redpoint Ventures, wrote in December 2009 to Lawrence H. Summers, then the president’s chief economic advisor, referring to Solyndra. “While that is good for us, I can’t imagine it’s a good way for the government to use taxpayer money.”

The investment, Mr. Jones said, demonstrated broad problems with the government loan program. “The allocation of spending to clean energy is haphazard; the government is just not well equipped to decide which companies should get the money and how much,” he wrote.

Mr. Summers wrote back that he shared some of the same concerns, before offering a partial defense of the government effort.

“I relate well to your view that gov is a crappy vc,” Mr. Summers wrote, using a shorthand for venture capitalist. “But suppose we think there are all kinds of externalities to renewable investments,” Mr. Summers continued. “What should we do?”