Come on Liberals, it’s time to admit that Obama bribed, strong-armed and threatened most of the Congressmen that voted for the bill, even though they knew in their hearts it was the wrong thing to do. Voting for a bill that no one read, is a crying shame that even you should be angry about. Why even as I write this there are Democrats teaming up with Republicans (who warned you this would happen) in a fight to repeal parts of this obnoxious law that will only hurt all Americans. I am willing to wager that your Highness Obama has still not read the bill and has no clue what is truly in it.

A bill that was supposed to reduce premiums for all Americans is now more than doubling the price of insurance and that is only the beginning, A bill that was supposed to cost 980 billion dollars over ten years is now costing nearly three trillion dollars with no end in sight. Only an idiot would believe that giving people unlimited insurance coverage would make premiums go down.  Come on Liberals it’s time to admit you were wrong.

A bill that was supposed to be a job creator is now killing jobs left and right. Businesses are not hiring people because of the added expense, not only because of the cost of the insurance, but also because of all the new regulation that Obama-Care brings. Businesses are cutting hours of their employees just so that they can survive and keep making a profit, I know profit is a dirty word for you Liberals, but without it why would anyone open up a business. I know only Liberals are allowed to make profits.

Keep your insurance and keep the doctor you have now, is what his Highness told us, another promise that goes un-kept. If you have insurance that is not what the government thinks you should have, you are forced to buy what they think is right for you (What happened to freedom of choice?) Already doctors are either leaving the business of not taking insurance entirely and accepting cash only. A recent survey found six out of ten doctors would retire early because of Obama-Care.

What happened to doctor patient confidentiality? Why that too is gone, your doctor must put all your medical records on-line, not only that, we now have to fill out a questionnaire revealing our whole background to the I.R.S.  if you don’t, you will be fined. I don’t know about you but the less the Government knows about me, the better I can sleep at night.

No death panels, another lie, Oh, they don’t call them death panels, but the result is the same. A panel of appointed Government know-it-alls (not doctors I might add) are going to approve or disapprove medical procedures, if they decide that a person is not worth having a certain procedure, tuff-nuggies, as we used to say.

It now says that even after this law is in full swing, there will still be over twenty-five million people without insurance (sought of defeats the whole purpose don’t it.) Liberals, I know you think that the rest of us are stupid, but the whole plan from day one was to push everyone into a Government run single pay system, we knew that from day one, you are not fooling anyone. Correction, the 32% that still favor Obama-Care I am sure do not know, nor do they care as long as it is free.

Come on Liberals admit you were wrong, it’s time to drive a stake through this monster of a bill and kill it, wait I forgot who I am talking too, you are Liberals, you never admit that you are wrong no matter how much evidence proves you wrong. If you would admit defeat than you would not be Liberals, sorry, what a waste of time this was, how can I even think that a Liberal would admit they were wrong and do what is right for the country, silly me.

You can find my new book “What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Right Here

Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco

The Undecided must balance their views with a sense of proportion. For instance, balance the need for the underprivileged to attain health care with the exorbitant cost of “Obama Care.” The voter must decide if taxing us all to pay for it will do more good than the unemployment that such taxing will so clearly cause? Each party points to the pain that the other party intends to cause, while explaining the good their plan creates.

An economy runs on profits. Only profits can perform R&D. Only profits can be reinvested. Profits grow a company, hire more workers, give workers raises, and send employees to school or training. It takes profits to take the risks of innovation. Taxes reduce profits. Taxes deplete job opportunities. Taxes slow R&D. Increased taxes downsize the workforce.

For those who believe that taxes are also used to create jobs, consider this. Stimulating an economy by taxing to create employment is akin to opening the refrigerator door to cool the kitchen. Although you’ll feel some cool for a short time just in front of the open door, the overall effect heats the kitchen. Eventually the refrigerator will work so hard trying to cool all the heat it is producing that it breaks down and there is no longer even a cool spot to show for it.

Considering real proportions, dynamics, and balance, the damage done by over taxing the economic system outweighs any employment it can “create.” Government should only be for those things that cannot be done by private industry, such as national defense and safety and monopoly regulations. Providing for everyone is never the efficient or effective way to accomplish such a goal. Private industry will provide for our needs because there is profit in it. If the need is real, industry will find a profitable way to fill it.

Often it is government that causes the inequities that plague a “free market system.” Free market does not mean that industry can do as it pleases but regulation for the sake of “leveling the playing field” always serves to tilt it. Once the market is unnaturally slanted, industry automatically takes advantage, and the public looses, despite the government’s intentions.

Find the candidate who wishes to remove unnecessary, unenforced, and unenforceable regulation while also removing the tax burden on the economy. Each time in our history that taxes are reduced, the economy has produced greater tax revenues because of how it stimulated a growth economy. Find the candidate who proposes to eliminate tax shelters and loopholes while stemming the revenue requirement.
When it comes to diplomacy, find the candidate that does not attempt to buy friends or placate them. Select the candidate that understands that Muslim nations take apologies as a sign of weakness to be taken advantage of.

It takes faith to reduce taxes in order to increases revenue. It takes faith to stand strong against terrorists in order to reduce their threat. It takes faith in the American system to allow industry to provide for its customers better than the government ever could.

The wise independent voter understands that it hurts the poor and increases their numbers to enable them with greater entitlements. With welfare perks like a home, food, healthcare, phones, and cars, many poor cannot afford to find a job.

The frugal voter understands that government entitlements inherently do more harm than the good they intend. The compassionate citizen understands that there is more compassion in supplying an opportunity than a handout.

God bless the undecided. May they choose well.

1.     Nearly $1 Trillion would be added to our deficit over 10 years under the Republicans’ proposal to continue tax cuts exclusively to households making more than $250,000 a year and to the wealthiest estates.

Only 1 Trillion in 10 years?  That sure is a better than Obama’s plan strapping us with over 10 Trillion more debt in the past 4 years, and much more in the next 10.  Republican tax cuts to those who are producing jobs realistically stimulate the economy.  History tells us that lower tax rates produce greater employment thus greater tax revenue 100% of the time!  Are 100% to 0% not good enough odds?

2.     Only 2 percent of American households will benefit from the Republicans’ proposal to extend tax cuts for those with incomes higher than $250,00 a year.

Actually 100% of Americans will benefit.  Those 2% are the ones investing in America and want to do more so more people can be employed, pay taxes, spend and invest.  All studies of history and economic models show that the sweet spot is about 17% across the board.  I.e. a flat tax of 17% produces the maximum revenue by allowing maximum employment and investment.  Thus we’re killing our selves by trying to squeeze more money than we can afford, which kills our ability to earn more.

3.     Under President Obama’s proposal, only the wealthiest 3 in 1,000 estates would owe any estate tax.

So only the wealthiest 0.3% will pay estate taxes?  He’s bragging about this?  Notice he doesn’t compare it to a Republican plan; a sure sign they have a better idea.

4.     Over the past 4 years, a typical family making $50,000 a year has received tax cuts totaling $3,600 – more if they are putting a child through college.

The White House fails to mention that our average income decreased 3.02% from 2008 to 2010.  For a $50K household, a loss of 3.2% is $1,600.

Inflation due to the Fed creating money, “monetizing the debt,” “QE3,” “printing money,” “digitizing money,” you name it.  Inflation was 4.46% in 2011 alone.  That has lowered the value of $50K by $2,238.

Those two factors alone add up to $3,830.  So even if your “tax decrease” was real, your average $50K family lost $283 per year.  Does the WH call these bragging rights?

They also fail to mention that he’s just Nationalized ALL student loans, (so he can forgive a great proportion of them).  That will cost “average” taxpayers more money.  So there are several ways we all pay for other people’s children to go to school.  Obama said, “those making under $250,000 won’t see a tax increase.”  Yup, they just won’t see it.

5.     5 million families would no longer be eligible for the child tax credit under the Republicans’ tax proposal.

Truth be known, both parties support a modification to the Child Tax Credit.  It is due to expire, so the debate is only which plan to adopt.

Additionally, the Treasury Department reports that illegal immigrants filing tax returns using the Individual Tax Identification Number are receiving more than $1.5 billion each year from the federal government through the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.  Need a fix?

6.     Because Republican proposals cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, nearly 6 million working families with children would see their taxes increase – averaging $500 apiece.

The WH has cherry picked only the most conservative of many Republican plans.  Many, if not most, do not affect this Credit.  In support of those that do, this Credit pays able people for not working.  We have enough of that.  What is not mentioned is that this proposal also abolishes tax code exemptions and credits for the rich and big business.  Everyone who is able needs to pay something.  It keeps us all responsibly involved in government.

7.     The President’s plan includes almost $700 billion in tax credits to help middle class families pay for health insurance over the next 10 years through the Affordable Care Act.

Somehow we’re to believe we aren’t going to pay the $700 billion.  That $700,000,000,000 comes from taxes.  How many will loose jobs because companies are forced to cut employment or go bankrupt because they have to pay fines, (oops “taxes,” oh no “fees,” wait “taxes,” whatever)?  They’ll have to pay much more just to employ people.  That isn’t going to help employment or the tax base.

Thus Obama Care will increase the number of folks relying on taxes to support them and pay for their healthcare, thus driving that 700 billion estimate off the scale.  This is a “Cloward and Piven” plan, plain and simple.  ”Overload the economic system through escalating the need for entitlements by the increased tax load to fund them.  Mr. Obama once taught the Cloward and Piven’s strategy to collapse capitalism.  Now he’s implementing it.

It has become common to name a Law the opposite of its worst feature to mask its true identity, i.e. ”The Federal Reserve” which is private and has no reserves.  Would you vote for the “Unaffordable but Compassionate Care Act”?

8.     The top 2 percent of households, with and average of $800,000, would see additional tax cuts under the Republican plan.

… as would most income brackets.  These wealthy people are already in the highest tax bracket.  This misleading information only mentions the cuts and not the main part of the plan that drastically removes tax exemptions in the first place.  Most Republican restructuring is designed not only to simplify taxes and reduce exemptions, but also to incite job creators.  Read the bills!

9.     Under the President’s plan, income tax rates for high income households would return to the same tax rates as in the ‘90s.  During that period, the United States created 23 million jobs and ran a budget surplus.

Remember the 17% rule?  Higher tax rates actually produce less revenue than lower rates above 17%.  When Bush lowered the tax rate in 2003, the tax revenue actually increased due to greater employment and higher wages.  Even Obama agreed to extend them for that reason.

It isn’t trickle down, it is flow down, and the government needs to be at the bottom of the flow, not the top.  Under the Republican plan everyone’s effective tax rate would be reduced, causing greater employment thus more tax revenue.  Businesses would be incented to locate and operate here in the US rather than overseas.

The government doesn’t create jobs, the people do.  Even government jobs are created out of the people’s tax dollars.  The government doesn’t build anything; we do, to include the government.  When the government uses our money to build inefficient, ineffective, failing, or just plain fraudulent institutions, we pay the price.

For example, the 90s is when the Liberals were most influential at inflating the housing bubble by incentives to lend to those who couldn’t afford those loans and eventually penalizing lenders that did not.  That escalated inflated prices that eventually had to burst.

10.     The President’s plan would continue the 10 percent tax bracket, which allows everyone to pay a 10 percent tax rate on their first $8,900 in income (or $17,800 for married couples).

Notice there is no mention of a Republican plan here, because under the Republican plan, middle-income families of four pay no taxes on the first $39,000 of its income.

So the President is bragging about doing nothing?  I have to admit, doing nothing has been one of his least problematic qualities.

11.     The Republicans plan eliminates the American Opportunity Tax Credit, meaning 11 million families and students paying for college would see an average tax increase of $1,000 each.

Actually there is no tax increase involved.  It means that the $1,000 credit for having a child in college expires December 31^st 2012.  Both parties have competing plans for an amended version.  Reality always sounds a little different than WH talking points.

So shall we talk about unemployment?  How about why businesses move jobs overseas?  How about Agenda 21, (disguised as “Sustainable Development)?  Can we discuss how many more doctors will be created under Obama care?  How about illegal aliens; Homeland Security that considers “we the people” a greater threat than rife illegal boarder crossings?  Let’s discuss why the US prosecutes innocent supporters of the GOP (i.e. Gibson guitar), while allowing anything black, or Muslim, or alien, or Occupy movements go unprosecuted, (per stated administration policy).  How ‘bout that Medicare?  Social Security?  Where do those fit in your list to debate?

Barack Obama was right about “Hope & Change.”  Never has America hoped for change more than now.

God bless America.

A screenshot of Sandra Fluke's love letter/birthday card to ObamaCare.

I am more shocked than the eTrade Baby watching his friend scratch lottery tickets in a gas station.

This week, useful tool and all around idiot, Sandra Fluke, was allowing herself to be played on the national stage again via an article she wrote for the Huffington Post.  That’s right, y’all, the lady who was too stupid to figure out where to find $9 birth control pills has been tapped to scribble down Left-wing talking points for the country’s most high profile scandal rag.

And what has she come up with in her big piece?  She loves ObamaCare.  Well, we could have already guessed that without reading it, couldn’t we have?  The woman that’s too cheap to buy $9 birth control pills is definitely going to be too cheap to pay for her own mammograms.  Actually, here’s a list of just some of the things she doesn’t want to pay for:

…mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, pre and post natal care, flu shots, regular well-baby, well-child and well-woman visits, domestic violence screening, and the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.

In the very next paragraph, she dispels the idea that this is all “too good to be true”.  (sorta)

If this seems too good to be true, think again. This is the product of women in action – this is what happens when women stand up for what they and their families need to be healthy and are finally heard by people at the highest ranks of our government. This is what it looks like when government works for us and prioritizes our health.

Um… Okay… But WHO PAYS FOR IT?  Does “the product of women in action” have a method of paying for all of this “free” stuff?

And, of course, she ends her scribble with a big thank you and happy birthday to the “Affordable Care Act”.

I know that when women have the opportunity, they will take care of their health, which in the end benefits both our families and our country. On this second anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I express my gratitude and celebrate the new opportunity for healthy lives, before, during and after our reproductive years.

It’s not a surprise that Miss Fluke likes ObamaCare, and/or the getting of “free stuff” on the public dime, but it does seem interesting that she’s so willing to let herself be used to further the Left-wing agenda.  I hope she’s not being paid to be this Left-wing shill.  If she is, what does that make her?

Romney instituted a socialistic health care program in the state of Massachusetts while he was the Governor there and many politically minded people believe that if he is the GOP candidate, he will not be able to defend his statements concerning why he did so. Other are concerned that he will not repeal Obama’s health care program which will be imposed upon the citizens of all 50 States starting in 2014. There are several similarities in Obama’s Health Care Program and Romney Care.

In order to combat the criticisms of his applying Romney Care into law, Mitt uses the rationalization that the citizens of Massachusetts wanted universal health care for the state. This is a specious argument and displays his wrong thinking. An elected official is duty bound to protect his constituents from making wrong decisions, he is morally bound to stand for the Constitution not only of the United States, but in the case of States’ elected officials, the Constitution of that State. Mitt shirked his moral and honorable responsibility by signing that bill into law.

Romney would have better footing in this campaign if he had vetoed that bill, and sent it back to the legislature to leave it to them to force the citizens of Massachusetts to pay for medical care. And many citizens of Massachusetts did not want this forced upon them. Many people moved to New Hampshire, in protest, to avoid the taxes to pay for this failed program as well as the fees associated with not having health care insurance.

Using the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution to justify this action is also a rationalization. The Founders never intended for the 9th or the 10th to be used to put into place an anti-American, anti-capitalistic, pro-collectivist law by which some citizens are mandated to pay for other citizens, nor was it intended to force people to buy something they felt they didn’t need. Many younger people don’t buy health insurance because they are healthy and have not incurred any medical expenses.

This argument reverts to Original Intent, not only of the United States Constitution, but to the State of Massachusetts Constitution which was adopted in 1780.

In order to understand what Original Intent means, we must first know what a Constitution is.

According to The American Handbook of Constitutional Law by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. in the 4th edition published in 1927 by the West Publishing Company, a Constitution is a governing document instituted by the people as a whole instead of by a legislature of their representatives. He states that it cannot be abrogated, repealed or modified by any power except that which established it, the people. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php He continues by pointing out that Constitutions are not established to restrain the people, but to restrain the government.

Black continues, “The provisions of a constitution refer to the fundamental principles of government and the establishment and guaranty of liberties, instead of being designed merely to regulate the conduct of individuals among themselves. [Constitutions announce principles, while statutes apply them. Sproules v. State, 97 Tex Cr. R. 561, 262 S. W. 757.” Ibid.

Summarizing, a Constitution is written for the people, put into effect by the people and it is to protect the people’s Natural Rights. It is a document limiting the control the government has over the people who voted to install the Constitution as their governing document.

Since both the US Constitution and the Constitution of Massachusetts have an amendment process, the definition of Original Intent must be utilized to guide that process.

Language is one of our keys to understanding what people write. However, words change meaning over time and in order to understand what is meant by a document written over 200 years ago, we must turn to the dictionary meaning of the words from that time period. Finding what the Founders actually wanted for this country is hinged on this premise.

The body of the Constitution outlines the limitations on the Federal Government, the duties of the government and the division of the government. The Rights of the People are outlined in the Constitution, primarily in the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The combination of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are our Founding Documents and they delineate the restrictions placed upon the Federal Government. In the 9th and 10th Amendments, the enumeration of the rights of the people not spelled out in the first eight Amendments is reserved for the people and for the States. However, taking from one person the fruits of his labor is not something the Founders intended, even if the people vote for that proposition. The “Pursuit of Happiness” clause of the Declaration was, among other implications, intended to ensure that people would have the right to do what they desired to increase their property, including physical property, monetary property, intellectual property and the results of those quests and to not have the Government of the Federal or State government legislate to confiscate those yields even if citizens vote for it. One person does not have the right to take the rights of another unless that right is given over freely. The majority voting to take from the minority is not the same thing. Giving of one’s rights to another person is an individual’s action.

The “Pursuit of Happiness” clause is part of Original Intent. When we refer to this concept, what is meant is the government may not change provisions of the original document with respect to liberties. In other words, it may not be amended to take away the rights of the people. We have seen several Amendments that do just this, for example, the 16th, which addresses Income Tax.

The first words from the Preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts are as follows: “The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life…” (The original spelling is utilized here.) http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm As you can see, though the language is different from the United States Constitution, the implication is the same: Men are entitled to the fruits of their labor.

“Laws must relate to the nature and the principle of the government that is established or that one wants to establish, whether those laws form it as do political laws, or maintain it, as do civil laws.” Charles de Montesquieu

These issues will rear their ugly head over and over as Romney continues to campaign for the nomination of the Republican Party Candidate.

And, Obama will use the fact that his health care reform bill is based on Romney Care.

Will Romney be able to defend his position on his signing the health care bill when he was Governor of Massachusetts when he faces Obama?

The voting bloc will pay attention.

Obama-Care Arena

photo: illegalimmigrationstatistics.org

The courts, for the most part, have sided with the Justice Departments argument that the law will hamper current federal law enforcements efforts to curb illegal immigration. An argument some opponents say makes no sense, given the current Administration’s latest decision to only pursue illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes.

SB 1070 requires Arizona law enforcement to detain individuals during stops they suspect of being in the country illegally. Arizona leadership contend that the law is to aid, not hinder, in the current battle against illegal immigration.

Most likely, the Court will hear the case in April, leading to a decision before July. This will possibly coincide with the Court’s decision regarding the President’s health care overhaul, which conservatives and Republicans say oversteps the limits of the federal government.

The scheduling and decision of both cases can have a dramatic impact on the upcoming presidential and congressional elections.

President Chavez created new national laws not unlike the U.S. Dodd-Frank supposed financial reform law that Barack Obama signed on July21, 2010. ( along with the supposed food safety law, and Obama-care that completes the tri-fecta of taking over banks, food companies and producers, and the complete U.S. health-care system)

The Chavez’ method of operation in stealing the total private sector wealth of private sector companies and taking over their total economy was done quickly and right out in the open, whereas Barack Obama’s plans have been quietly designed and signed into law beneath the radar of the public and many under-qualified members of Congress, who either do not see the stealth takeover of the private sector by the U.S.  government, or are choosing to turn their backs on the very people who elected them into power by remaining silent. Make no mistake here, the Obama and Chavez  doctrines run  extremely parallel and are rooted in the Marxist ideology of  Socialist wealth redistribution by a plutocracy that in the end ends up in an all-powerful Communist collective. First, let’s look at what Mr. Chavez has done in Venezuela.

Karl Marx

Chavez’s government well knows ( in his own mind) that the dollar-blinded rich in Venezuela must be defeated politically. A democratic economy is essential, and as private ownership fails to meet the needs of the masses, the state is taking over and formulating alternative ways of managing production and distribution. The pricing system is being moderated and social priorities are replacing market manipulation. As the global banking crisis and its scandals grew, the Venezuelan government ensured effective regulation at home. Several small private banks were taken over following revelations of bank fraud. (No fair trial, no evidence needed, just revelations) In November the main shareholder of a group of four banks, Grupo Financiero Bolivar, Ricardo Fernandez, known as a Chavez supporter, was arrested. Two of the banks were nationalised, and two were closed. The Institute in Defence of People’s Access to Goods and Services took control of four food companies owned by Ricardo Fernandez, to make sure there were no supply disruptions. Subsequently, a further three banks were nationalised and, on 11 December, Venezuela’s Superintendency of Banks closed an eighth.

Chavez declared on 10 December. “I have ordered the takeover of tuna, fish, corn processing and rice companies, as well as [the bankers’] estates and cattle … this will become wealth for the people’. He added: ‘We are confronting these problems in a coordinated manner with the whole state, and we are taking over companies that were forming a kind of network …We cannot wait until tomorrow. At the first sign, [we take] immediate action and inexorably apply the established laws and procedures.”  (Just like Liberal fake democrats in the U.S. created a slew of laws with no allowed input from Republicans or we the people, Chavez and company drew up and instituted their own laws)

The Venezuelan media takeover has played a central part in Chavez’ plans:  In this battle the media is central, and on 23 January RCTV and five other cable channels were temporarily taken off the air for breaking transmission laws requiring them to televise government announcements. On 14 January the state expropriated the sugar mills ‘Casta’, in the state of Tachira and the ‘La Batalla’ agricultural mill in the state of Barinas, to turn them into social property. All of this was accomplished when Hugo Chavez was given permission to rule by decree, without any input from the National Assembly:  Venezuelan lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez Wednesday approved a measure granting the U.S.-baiting left-wing leader authority to rule by decree  for the next 18 months.  Informed Americans have now come to realize that Obama and company now effectively control the mainstream media, as shown by their refusal to report on Obama’s questionable past, radical associations, and college Marxist ideology such as is thoroughly documented right here.  Now we shall look into what is going on in our banking sector, as we already have been made aware of the complete takeover of our healthcare system, 2 major auto companies, the government intervention into our agriculture sector enabled by the Food Safety Bill, all done in very much the same way Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, as shown above.

Signing of Dodd-Frank Bill enables Leftists and Obama Crony-Capitalists to take control of U.S. banks

          The FDIC closed 157 banks in 2010 and the current total for 2011 now stands at 90. 

During trips to several small towns in our area during the past two years, my family has always ended up discussing the possible reasons as to why all of the banks now have new names. The only bank still under it’s original name is the Bank of America, along with two credit unions. Why is this? If a bank is closed, how is it that it reopens almost immediately under a new name, and just why is this happening at an alarmingly increasing rate today? I recently discovered the answers to those questions, and several other questions others may have concerning the massive numbers of bank closings since 2009, and it is pretty unsettling, to say the least. 

            How is the takeover of hundreds of U.S. Banks being engineered today?

In order to close a bank down, surely there must be strict laws in place to provide security against fraud to protect depositors, taxpayers who have to foot the bill under bank foreclosures under FDIC guidelines, and their investors right? Well it turns out there were protections put into place.. until the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act came along and changed the rules. First in March of 2009, the federal government starting stress testing the largest banks in the U.S. (note that this was immediately started in Obama’s first year in office) Please see The Case for Stress-Testing Community Banks*. Since this was actually the start of this method of evaluating banks, and then authorizing the FDIC to close them down, it is important to understand the role of  SCAP,  for Supervisory Capital Assessment Program and the subsequent evolution of the Dodd-Frank bill that now allows the federal reserve and the U. S. government to shut down any FDIC insured bank in America at any time. (Just like Chavez did, with zero input from elected officials)

The SCAP was launched in March 2009 to stress the capital of the 19 largest banks. This was a supervisory exercise to determine the capital buffers sufficient to withstand losses and sustain lending in institutions the U.S. Government deemed “systemically significant,” or “too big to fail.” While it was unlikely the rest of the banking industry would tolerate a system‐wide stress test, Federal policy was essentially leaving the rest of the industry to market forces and the normal FDIC resolution process. ( but not for long as we shall see next)

The stress test focused on the level and composition of capital for two years into the future. The test was conducted under two macroeconomic scenarios for two years forward:

o Baseline scenario based on consensus expectations as of February 2009; and

o More adverse scenario assuming a deeper and longer‐term downturn

(Ironically, this “more adverse” scenario was very close to what the U.S. Experienced).

The original SCAP program set the stage for Dodd-Frank regulations that would allow these “stress tests”, ( that actually had no proven benefit what so ever) to be injected into financial law. This marked a turning point on the thinking and attitude of the SCAP and the role stress testing could play in the banking industry.

Dodd‐Frank Act

The value of stress testing was cemented as Congress crafted regulatory reform. To ensure stress

testing became part of the fabric of bank supervision, Congress memorialized it in the following ways:

1. Federal Reserve to provide at least three different sets of conditions for firms to stress test

against;

2. Federal Reserve to do annual stress tests on bank holding companies over 50 billion in assets

and non‐bank financial firms under Federal Reserve supervision;

3. Above firms required to do their own semi‐annual stress test; and

4. All other banks with assets greater than 10 billion required to do annual stress test.

While the legislation establishes bright lines for the size of institutions which are required to perform stress testing, the entire financial services industry should be prepared for increased expectations as financial regulators become accustomed to seeing stress testing as part of the risk management framework and an important part of the supervisory process. Increasingly, bank management will find it difficult to demonstrate sufficient risk management processes without incorporating an element of stress testing.

Take note: Community Bank Performance 2009 & 2010

The pace of bank failures increased significantly in 2009, with 140 institutions being closed. As of October 1, 2010, 129 banks have closed in 2010. That has increased to a total of 247 bank closures during 2010, and 2011. As we see billions of dollars in losses putting a huge strain on the FDIC insurance fund, just who ends up taking over these ‘closed banks’ that end up reopened almost the very same day/week that they were shut down? End Part1   In Part 2, we see just who is taking over these FIDC mandated shuttered banks, who is left paying the bill for their past debt, and just who is raking in billions of dollars from these big government manipulated bank closures.

I’ll tell you two things I learned from this video.

One:  Romney was hoping the interview would be a bunch of softballs, and a circuit in his (robot) brain shorted out when he was thrown a curve ball.
Two:  Now that Newt is Romney’s greatest threat, Mitt’s gonna start throwing him under the bus like he used to do Perry. (and Huckabee the last go-round)

What do you guys think?  Did Willard quirm?  Did that robot brain seize up?  Or did he handle himself well?  And is he going to be able to bully Newt around the same way he used to do Perry?

Let us know your thoughts on Facebook or in the comments below.  This primary ain’t over yet, folks.  Not by a long shot.