There are currently two bills in Congress that have been proposed to supposedly “fix” the current mortgage crisis. The very same mortgage crisis that was caused by big government intervention into the mortgage business sector in the first place by the wizards of Congress.  Millions of honest, hard-working people are struggling to stay in their homes today. They now owe way more than their house is worth, thanks largely to Congress mandating the ignorant “everyone has a right to own a home”  programs which forced lenders to hand out loans to high risk /unqualified borrowers in the first place.   Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac first started gobbling up sub-prime securities due to mandates they received from Congress in 2000, and the Clinton-era Housing and Urban Development Department, ( (HUD)  which attempted to make housing “more affordable to minorities and disadvantaged people by using their vast (soon to be taxpayer- funded) resources to purchase massive amounts of sub-prime mortgage securities. In 2000, Fannie and Freddie held less than 2.5% of the mortgage market, then it expanded to hold over 40% by 2004. Today? Fannie and Freddie now guarantee more than 70% of all home loans in America. As foreclosures hit record highs almost every month during the past two years,  Fannie and Freddie are now bleeding your tax dollars at an ever-increasing rate and the government wants to once again take action to stem the foreclosure crisis. (While also covering up the fact that their meddling in the mortgage business caused this crisis to begin with)

President Obama refused to deal with the Fannie and Freddie tax-payer funded black hole with his “supposed”  Dodd-Frank Wall-Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act last year. Now the Democrats and Barack Obama are bashing the Bank of America for charging $5 a month debit card fees, which were needed to stem the bleeding caused by the Dodd-Frank bill in the first place. This is exactly why people are fed up with big government control and intervention into every aspect of our free market system today. The Dodd-Frank bill is set up to allow the U.S. Government to close all small banks in the U.S. through their fake “stress tests” and then create a central government-run banking system.  Check the proof that backs up that statement from ABC News Business Blog:

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced its 73rd bank closure this year, pacing well behind the gargantuan number of 157 total bank closures in 2010.” (emphasis mine)

When the Federal Government closes all the small independent banks in America, who in the hell do you think will control the entire banking system then? This is exactly why Newt Gingrich constantly repeats the statement that we need to repeal the Dodd-Frank bill on day one of the new GOP President’s administration in 2013.  Government control of our entire banking system is a clear and present danger to our free market system.

When we add the Federal Housing Authority to Fannie and Freddy’s percentage of all home loan mortgages we see direct government control of 90% of all U.S. mortgages! Now that the damage and wealth redistribution has been done by government intervention into the mortgage industry, we see that Fannie and Freddie are backing off of  Jumbo housing loans in an article from The Real Deal Online;

In its bid to reduce taxpayers’ $141 billion exposure to housing mortgage risk and spur private investment in the sector, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration stopped backing jumbo housing loans. According to the Wall Street Journal, that move could put the housing market, and specifically housing prices, in a further funk.

Government meddling has the housing and mortgage industry in a shambles, so now they want to make the banks pay the price, which we see here:

The three entities ( Fannie, Freddy and the FHA) backed about 90 percent of home mortgages in recent months, thanks to the expanded loan limits. But the limits were restricted this month, meaning more buyers will have to turn to private banks to secure mortgages. Those loans are harder, and more expensive, to obtain. Banks would need to issue 56 percent more jumbo mortgages to fill the gap.

So what are the wizards of Congress to do to fix the very mess they, themselves have created in the mortgage debacle in America? Why, let’s propose two more government mortgage refinancing bills in Congress shall we? Current  House resolution 363 is titled The Housing Opportunity and Equity Act. Current Senate bill 170 is titled the Helping Responsible Homeowners Act.  Two different bills with two very different agendas, from savingtoinvest.com:

Look at HR 363 above. They want to help BOTH those who are current on mortgage payments and those who are delinquent. (what about proven ability to actually pay for the loan there?) They also want to prohibit appraisals on the homes being refinanced! Who, in their right mind would ever refinance a home loan without getting an appraisal to make sure it hasn’t been destroyed or burnt to the ground beforehand?   The Senate bill would seem to be a more responsible way  to help folks who are under water in their home loans today, but in today’s “compromising” Congress we can bet that the final bill will continue down the path towards the “everyone deserves a home whether they can actually pay for it or not” ignorant Liberal ideology. President Obama was scheduled to give another speech about what he plans to do about the mortgage crisis last week, but that didn’t happen to my knowledge.

 Pay attention as Congress tries to fast-track some form of Mortgage Refinancing plan once again in the coming weeks. Just remember the fact that, while the wizards of Congress are up in DC making wonderful speeches about their “newest fix” for the mortgage crisis plans, the fact remains that they are the ones who created the crisis in the first place.   2012 just can’t get here fast enough!

* * *

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain…
What’s the worst that could happen?…
There really are no ‘important positions’ that would be affected by S.679…

Don’t worry your pretty little head…

Supporters of the Back-Door-to-Dictatorship bill, or “The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011”, as it’s euphemistically listed in the U.S. Senate, tell us there’s nothing to fear.

All this harmless act proposes is to “…free up the Senate so that it can focus on our country’s most urgent needs of reducing spending and debt,” according to the bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Lamar Alexander, in a reply to this writer, “…rather than on confirming hundreds of junior positions in a president’s administration, like the public-relations officer of a minor department.”

Oh. Well, that’s a relief! If that’s all it is, maybe I shouldn’t worry my pretty little head about it. After all, what possible harm could come from our elected public servants relieving themselves from the onerous duty of rubber-stamping trivial, junior-level, non-essential posts that “are not involved in policy making,” as the good Senator pointed out.

Except…

When one reads the fine print, actually examines the job descriptions covered by S.679, a few positions jump out as not-quite-so “junior”.

Positions like the Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example.

Still, not to worry, we’re told. “These positions are part-time advisory board or commission positions, or full-time positions that are not involved in policy making…,” the senator reassured.

The Chief Scientist of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration … a junior position? Not involved in policy making? Well, that’s good…

Except…

That may be news to NOAA, its administrator, the Chief Scientist, and probably President Obama himself. On the administration’s own organizational chart, the Chief Scientist answers directly only to the NOAA administrator.

According to an Oct. 2009 email by that organization’s administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, agency was “Reinstituting and elevating the role of NOAA Chief Scientist, to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As senior scientist for NOAA, the Chief Scientist will drive policy and program direction for science and technology priorities.”

Should we be concerned that the person appointed by the president into this scientific position, one which will admittedly drive policy, might need at least a cursory glance by the Senate? What’s the worst that could happen… that Obama would hand-pick a decidedly leftist, socialist-leaning progressive? Have we any proof he’d do that?

Except…

We’re probably shouldn’t count his recently-departed climate czar, Carol Browner, of course. The ex-Clintonian EPA head who ordered her staff to wipe clean her government office computer’s hard drive before she left that post? The very same day the agency was ordered by a judge to preserve electronic records? Though Browner was acquitted of any wrong-doing, in an apparent case of ‘geez, your honor, I didn’t know I was s‘posed to keep them records’, one has to question the timing of the action.

And we probably shouldn’t be concerned that Obama could again pick someone like Browner, with ties to the group ‘Socialist International’. Ties that were also swept clean after Obama picked her as his czarina. Up until a week prior to that naming, the site listed her as one of its leaders of their Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The group is highly critical of America, promotes global governance, and calls for a reduction of wealthy countries’ economies in response to climate change.

So much for a ‘more transparent’ administration. Unless ‘transparent’ means ‘vanishes into thin ether’…

But not to fret… we have no reason to suspect Obama would appoint a globalist, socialist, climate-scarologist, ‘America-is-evil-ist’ radical for the Chief Scientist position of NOAA. Not when that agency is seen as an authority in matters climatic. Not when the climate is being used as a reason to make vast, sweeping transformations in the way Americans live and work.

Surely he wouldn’t have two such radicals pushing to affect ‘change’ in America because of the global climate threat?

Except…

To hold that position, we also must overlook another of the president’s men, science czar John Holdren.

Holdren’s official title is Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.

Holdren has touted mankind as the evil cause of global warming… wait, we’re calling it ‘climate change’ now, after the bitterly cold and snowy years we’ve had.

Holdren has worked to discredit scientists who dared challenge the progressive stance of anthropomorphic climate change, those who use their data to suggest the recent warming period was cyclical, not dependent on mankind’s actions. Holdren has suggested such draconian population measures as mandated limited family size, forced sterilization and abortion for women who defy such limits by daring have extra children.

But regardless of whom Obama places in the NOAA Chief Scientist seat – or any of the more than 200 ‘junior, non-policy-making posts named in S.679 – we shouldn’t worry. None of these positions could possibly be affect significant changes in America’s energy policy or business regulations or everyday processes.

Even if the Chief made outrageous recommendations, America’s rule of law and reliance on due processes that would keep such progressive chicanery from taking effect. Right?

Except…

This particular administration, has a track record for bypassing the process in order to get its progressive objectives accomplished (ObamaCare, anyone?). Senate leadership of this and the prior session have shown not only an inability to impede that agenda, but an unwillingness to do so. Senator Harry Reid, and his cohort in the House, former speaker Nancy ‘We-have-to-pass-it-so-we-can-know-what’s-in-it’ Pelosi, rammed the President’s health-insurance agenda down America’s collective throats, despite vocal outrage from across the country’s demographic.

The current Senate, still under Reid’s leadership even if several seats changed party, offers little or no improvement if supposedly Republican Senators like Lamar Alexander and Mitch McConnell don’t oppose but actually co-sponsor such legislation as S.679.

One must ask – and I do – if the co-supporting senators have actually read through this bill? Or if they’re relying on the its sponsor, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to just give them the gloss-over?

One must also ask – and I do – why the senators seem so willing to hand over their responsibilities, which we sent them to the Capitol to perform in our stead?

Cap-and-Trade legislation failed to get through the legislature. Yet Obama has announced his mulish faithfulness to the progressive eco-agenda without needing the legislative branch, stating the old adage that there’s more than one way of ‘skinning the cat’.

By bestowing greater regulatory power to unelected bodies, like the EPA, and employing executive orders, the president has attempted to circumvent the will of the American people and Constitutional processes that give us voice in our own governance.

The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 threatens to streamline the American people right out of the process which our founders knew was necessary: the governance of the people, by the people and for the people, not the rule over the people by one man, unanswerable to the people.

America doesn’t need, or want, a dictator. But if we don’t all act – flood the Senate with calls, letters and emails telling them to drop S.679 – that’s exactly what we may end up with.

If We the People fail in our duty, sitting back while those we send to speak on our behalf give up that duty, then perhaps we’re only getting what we deserve.

# # #

On April 29, I sent the following letter of concern and disapproval to my U.S. Senator, Lamar Alexander (Read here…) over his co-sponsoring of Senate bill S.679, or “The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.”

If you haven’t heard of this insidious side-stepping of procedure, one which would grant the president even greater unchecked power by removing Senate approval from more than 200 appointed posts, you can find it here ->> S.679 at www.OpenCongress.org.

I was stunned to find an alleged Tennessee Republican senator would co-sponsor this bill, but even more so by his response to my letter, posted below.

***

Reply from Sen. Lamar Alexander, on S.679 (Bold emphasis mine…) :

May 2, 2011

Thanks very much for getting in touch with me and letting me know what’s on your mind regarding the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

This bipartisan legislation which I have cosponsored would eliminate the need for the Senate to vote on roughly 210 full and part-time junior-level executive nominations. These positions are part-time advisory board or commission positions, or full-time positions that are not involved in policy making or already report to multiple senior-level Senate-confirmed officials.

This legislation would free up the Senate so that it can focus on our country’s most urgent needs of reducing spending and debt, rather than on confirming hundreds of junior positions in a president’s administration, like the public-relations officer of a minor department. The Senate will still continue to confirm about a thousand presidential nominees – nearly four times as many appointees as President Kennedy had – and I will continue to support legislative efforts to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans.

I’m grateful you took the time to let me know where you stand. I’ll be sure to keep your concerns and comments in mind when the issues surrounding presidential appointees are discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.

Sincerely,

Lamar

***

Apparently, I didn’t communicate the danger well enough in my letter to the senator. He either doesn’t see it (in which case, we need a senator in D.C. who does), or he’s too involved in the Beltway Game to defend our best interests (in which case, we need a senator in D.C. who will.)

To reiterate what I expressed in the April 29 letter:

“The ‘assistant’ moniker in many of these titles should not be excuse to disregard them as trivial. As a reminder, those in secondary tiers are often the next to fill the top position. As such, their backgrounds and intentions should be no less scrutinized than those who fill the top posts, just as the candidate for Vice-President of the U.S. must be qualified to assume higher office if necessary.”

As for “bipartisan legislation”, maybe someone can explain to me:  how does foolishness from  senators of two parties improve on foolishness from one party alone?

Throwing a “bipartisan” label on faulty, unconstitutional and dangerous legislation doesn’t mean your course of action is right. It only means you’ve got idiots on both sides of the aisle.

And given the ability of public relations officers to direct a message, to paint a foul situation in a positive light, that ‘public relations officer of a minor department‘ can be as influential, if given the room to do so, as any administration official.

By the way, exactly which department does Alexander deem ‘minor’? Perhaps there’s room to cull the deadwood from the overgrown governmental tree?

Admittedly, I’m no great fan of the current regime. But the threat to our liberty from S.679 goes deeper than republican, libertarian and democrat. It reaches deeper than conservative or liberal ideologies.

Would Senator Schumer, the lovely liberal fellow who introduced S.679, be as quick to support this course of action if Bush were still in office? Or if a staunch conservative wins election in 2012? I rather doubt it.

On that score, I’m asking everyone reading this to take action:

• Check the list of cosponsors, see if your senator’s one of the idiots;
• Tell them to pull sponsorship of this legislation that would ‘streamline’ the American people out of the process of our governance;
• AND tell them to vote NO if the bill comes to vote. (Sad that you have to specify that, but that’s the part that’s really crucial and this way there’s no room for side-stepping);
• Pass this information to as many concerned citizens as possible!

Also, a little guerrilla campaigning idea…Don’t forget the liberal contingency!

Those of us on the ‘right’ and on the ‘left’ tend to snipe at one another. But we all need to remember: We’re all Americans.

We’re like a big, multi-viewpointed, oft-dysfunctional family. We may not agree, we may not like what the other ‘side’ is doing/saying. S.679 won’t benefit any of us in the long run.

Liberals stand to lose as much as conservatives, moderates and independents.

• Remind them that next election, or the one following, could bring an ultra-conservative into the Oval Office;
• Ask if they’d be comfortable if this power was granted to an ultra-conservative president;
• Suggest they research the bill themselves and read the implications with an open mind (i.e., not looking for something to refute just because it came from the ‘right’);
• Request that they contact their senators to protest this legislation.

Senate Bill S.679 cannot be allowed to pass. If a supposedly Republican senator from a crimson-red state like Tennessee not only supports but co-sponsors this rubbish, it’s going to take all of us to make sure S.679 fails.