jmalmberg's personal blog on BloggersBase

Ordinary People Running for Congress - A Talk With Congressional Candidate Dave Corsi

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:43:12 GMT

March 18, 2010 - The economy is terrible. Even with the supposed recovery that elected officials keep talking about, there is little evidence of new jobs. This combined with other monumental issues that include healthcare reform, border control and talk of global warming are putting fire in the blood of average citizens. Citizens who have never seriously thought about running for public office. Citizens who have little or nothing in the way of campaign funds but who have the heart to believe that they can make a difference. Citizens who are fed up with the idea that Washington should be legislating everything from which doctor you use to how much sugar you should consume. People are angry and it is beginning to show. Dave Corsi is one of them.

If you have never heard of Dave Corsi, you can be forgiven. He is running for Congress on the Republican ticket for the New Jersey's 12^th District. He says that he leans more towards Libertarian views. In most years, he wouldn't stand a chance. There are certain states in which conservatives have been hunted to near extinction. New Jersey is one of them. But within the past few months and against all odds the state did elect a Republican governor. Like I said before. People are angry.

Corsi is the underdog in his race. In his own words, "I'm not the favorite son." He doesn't have the big funding of some of his rivals but he's running a grassroots campaign that he can be proud of.

Corsi's background is in real estate finance and management. He told me that he never thought about running for Congress and that being a congressman wasn't his first job choice. But his campaign slogan - "Had Enough?" - pretty well says it all. Corsi is angry about a lot of the things going on in Washington and audacious enough to believe that he can change government.

The two big issues that we discussed were the economy and healthcare reform. Not surprisingly, he's not happy about the way either of them is being handled.

On the economy, he said that as far back as 2000, he was warning people that real estate markets were on an unsustainable course and he can't understand how Alan Greenspan missed all the signs. Yet Greenspan has admitted on more than one occasion that he didn't see the bubble in housing prices coming. Corsi also said that the income tax code needs to be scrapped. "No single person has ever read the entire code," he said. "The tax code needs to be repealed and congress needs to stop tinkering with it."

He compares the current state of the economy to what happened under FDR. He makes the point that the government's actions in both the Great Depression and today's Great Recession are very similar; to artificially prop up the economy using taxpayer money. It didn't work then and there is no evidence that it is working now.

He is no more complementary of the current debate on healthcare. He does believe that healthcare reform is necessary but he wants a free market system without all of the government spending and regulation. Of the bill currently being debated he said, "It's like the tax code. A national disgrace."

Corsi is for small, limited government. He wants to take away Washington's blank check and return to fiscal responsibility. He is against corporate bailouts and for stronger border controls.

I asked Corsi what he thought his chances were. He didn't hesitate. "If I can win the primary, I think they're good," he said. When I asked him how he was competing with candidates with better funding, he told me that he is giving speeches, and going to "meet and greets" at people's homes or places of work. He said that one of the things that he really needs is more people to invite him to functions like these.

On the funding front, he mentioned that a lot of candidates were throwing fundraising parties where they charged $500 per head to get in. He said, "I'm more interested in the person who can give me $20 or $25. I'm the grassroots person." He also said - referring to fundraising, "I'm not beholding to anybody."

Corsi is a citizen candidate that, at least if first impressions mean anything, is a breath of fresh air. Now, we just need 500 or so more people just like him.

by Jim Malmberg

Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org

Follow me on Twitter:

JoinTea Party Bloggers on LinkedIn

Cash for Keys and the Next Bank Bailout

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:45:46 GMT

March 9, 2010 - Beginning on April 5^th, the next big bank bailout to be paid for by taxpayers will launch. The official name it has been given by the Obama administration is the Home Affordability Foreclosure Alternative (HAFA) program. Unofficially, it can be referred to as Cash of Keys. The program is being paid for by taxpayers and it provides money to mortgage servicers and to troubled homeowners. But the biggest beneficiaries of the program are likely to be lenders who are getting bailed out a second time. The only real difference this time is that the government is attempting to disguise the program as something else.

The basic premise behind HAFA is totally different from other government programs which are designed to try to keep troubled homeowners in their houses. In fact, HAFA is all about getting those same people out of their houses quickly; either through a short sale or a deed-in-lieu.

For the unindoctrinated, a short sale happens when a home owner sells their property for less than they owe on it. A deed-in-lieu is when the homeowner signs over their property to the bank without going through the foreclosure process.

Under HAFA, everyone involved in the foreclosure process will get paid. Banks who hold the first mortgage on a property will receive the bulk of the proceeds from a short sale, but will not be the only beneficiaries. These same banks will receive a $1,000 payment from the government for agreeing to the short sale.

Up to $3,000 in additional government incentives will be available to second lien holders, including banks that provided second loans. In a foreclosure, second lien holders are traditionally wiped out. Additionally, the person selling the home will receive $1,500 for relocation expenses. In a traditional short sale, the seller receives nothing in most cases.

How many banks will actually participate in HAFA is questionable. The program requires participating banks to offer short sales or deed-in-lieu to anyone who doesn’t qualify for a loan modification. Participating banks will also have to agree not to pursue legal action against borrowers after the short sale is completed. This could be a tough sell since in many states borrowers may be held accountable by a court for the entire amount they owe even after a foreclosure has taken place.

Another issue for banks is that because HAFA would speed up the short sale approval process, it would force banks to write off the bad debt associated with properties being sold much more quickly. This could cause problems for investors by deflating bank earnings.

HAFA does do some things for certain homeowners that will be attractive to sellers. The question is, should taxpayers be required to pay for the program? Regardless of your answer, the question appears to be moot since the government plans to launch HAFA next month.

by Jim Malmberg

Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org

Follow me on Twitter:

JoinTea Party Bloggers on LinkedIn

White House Snow Job on Jobs

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:05:16 GMT

March 3, 2010 - Tomorrow morning, the latest job numbers are due to be released by the federal government. They are expected to be bleak and the White House is now in full-on finger pointing mode. But they aren't pointing the finger where you might think. They're not blaming those pesky Republicans or tea baggers. They're not singling out individual members of Congress that they consider to be obstructionist. No, they are blaming the weather; specifically the snow fall that has blanketed much of the country. Who would have thought that with global warming being such a big problem that snow could possibly result in an additional 100,000 or so job losses? Maybe we should track down Al Gore to explain how this all works!

All kidding aside, the White House is running as fast as it can to distance itself from the latest job numbers and they are blaming the weather. Larry Summers, an economic advisor to the President told CNBC that, "The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics."

The theory is that the snow storms artificially inflated unemployment by 100,000 jobs or more. While this may be true, it completely ignores the fact that most economists expect to see little or no job growth even where the weather was relatively good. That alone pretty much puts the kibosh on the idea that the weather is responsible for the dismal economic performance on the part of the Obama administration. In fact, even without the weather, the economy was projected to shed another 50,000 jobs in February.

Of course, the numbers won't appear to be as bad as they actually are. That's because each month a lot of people who are unemployed are reclassified by the government as underemployed or discouraged and not seeking work. People that fall into these categories are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers. When they are included the actual numbers for unemployment fall somewhere between 18% and 20%; about the same as they were three years into the Great Depression.

The White House is looking for a way to be let off the hook for the high unemployment rate. The same is true with Congress. They have both been fond of saying that they "inherited" the current situation and have continued to use that excuse to spend massive amounts of taxpayer money with little or nothing to show for it. Well, the President and Congress both wanted their jobs and the issue is now theirs. It is time for them to take ownership and stop blaming the economy's woes on anyone or anything else. The only blizzard that matters is the one they are creating themselves. It is time to stop the snow job.

by Jim Malmberg

Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org

Follow me on Twitter:

JoinTea Party Bloggers on LinkedIn

White House Decides to Ask Question Again When it Gets Answers it Doesn't Like

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:31:11 GMT

February 23, 2010 - Two weeks ago today, I wrote an editorial titled Why Does The Government Need To Know If Your Oven Is On? It was picked up by a variety of other websites; many of which are focused on consumer activism. The piece was about the federal government's plan for incorporating smart-grid technology in all home appliances (as described in the Federal Register on February 9^th). The technology has the potential to be highly intrusive and end privacy in your home as you know it today. Since the notification published in the Federal Register asked for comments, I suggested that readers respond by telling the government that any data collected should belong to them and that use by third parties should not be allowed. I can only assume that the government didn't like the comments it was receiving since the White House published a new Federal Register notice on February 19^th and any comments submitted prior to today are nowhere to be found. Is this just a mistake or is it sleazy government in action?

When the original Federal Register notice was published regarding the incorporation of smart grid technology in home appliances, I immediately tried to comment. The first surprise that I ran into was that the website for comments was not actually online. No worries though. Comments could also be submitted by e-mail. Eventually, those comments should have been posted on a working government website; something that doesn’t appear to have happened yet.

Instead, last Thursday the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) - a group that reports to the President and whose website is actually a part of the White House website - published a new Federal Register notice; once again requesting comments from the public. While the website address for these has changed, the e-mail address has not.

The government is trying to position smart grid technology with the public as an easy way to monitor energy usage and control energy bills. While that may sound attractive, the questions that they are asking in the Federal Register are disturbing and tell a different tale. Among these is "Who owns the home energy usage data?" That means that the government is actually contemplating scenarios in which you may not have any control over the amount and type of data being collected about your utility usage or how it is used.

Both the original and the second notice state that the government wants manufacturers to make appliances that are "manufactured with the ability to respond to electric grid emergencies and demand response signals". In short, the government wants to have the ability, or to give your utility company the ability to shut off certain appliances while leaving others unaffected. Just imagine this technology in association with televisions. It may sound a little paranoid but if the government doesn't like what you are watching on TV, they could have the ability to shut it off or at the very least monitor you.

If you think that sounds far fetched, just consider this. In a conversation I had today with consumer advocate Denise Richardson (GiveMeBackMyCredit.com and an ACCESS board member), she reminded me of a law suit that is currently in process in Pennsylvania. The suit involves a school district that issued its students laptop computers with web cameras built in. As it turns out, the school has the ability to turn those cameras on, and they have used that ability to spy on students in the privacy of their own homes. This has resulted in a federal judge issuing an order to the school district that prohibits spying on students through their computers. In many ways, what happened in Pennsylvania is very similar to what the government wants from the smart grid.

ACCESS is urging readers to submit comments to the OSTP. It is time to tell the government that your personal data belongs to you alone and that you require total control over how your information is used. That includes how much electricity, water and gas you consume and what appliances are actually installed in your home. All comments must be received by no later than March 12^th. You can submit comments to the OSTP online forum by clicking here or by navigating to http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/ and looking for the link on the right side of the page that announces the launch of the OSTP and NIST forum. Alternatively, you can submit comments by e-mail by sending messages to smartgrid@ostp.gov.

by Jim Malmberg

Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org

Follow me on Twitter:

JoinTea Party Bloggers on LinkedIn

Should Conservatives in Liberal States Boycott the Census?

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:46:23 GMT

February 22, 2010 - Every ten years, the Constitution mandates a federal Census. The data collected in the Census is used by the federal government to allocate resources to the states and to change the make-up of Congress. States that gain a lot of new residents will gain congressional seats and those that lose a lot of residents will lose seats. But what would happen if conservatives in liberal leaning states said that they didn't want to be counted in the Census? Could a targeted effort shift the House of Representatives to the right and actually reduce the size of the US Government?

This month, the US Census Bureau kicked off a massive - some would say stupid - advertising campaign with a Super Bowl Commercial. The campaign continues with advertising in print and even during the Olympic Games with nonsensical commercials that make a rather lame attempt at being comedic as they spend millions of tax dollars for air time and production. They are also running a bevy of radio ads. The goal is to have everyone fill out a Census form; something that we are all required to do by law.

The data collected in the Census, once assembled, is used by the government for a variety of purposes. The federal government gives large sums of money to the states every year. Much of that money is doled out based on state population. A majority of the money that the federal government gives out to the states should never have left them in the first place. If you think about it, the federal government taxes each and every one of us and then gives some of that money back to the state we live in; usually with a lot of strings attached. They tell the state how to spend the money. Often, spending is for pet projects (known as ear-marks) based on the personal preference of members of Congress.

The truth is, very little money should be given back to the states by the federal government. If the states have projects that they need or want, it should be up to the citizens of the individual states to pay for them.

Unfortunately, Congress doesn’t see it that way. The vast majority of incumbents in both parties like the current system. They like the being able to award money for projects in their congressional districts because they can go to their constituents and say, "See all the good work I've done? Reelect me!" What they never point out is that they are the same people voting to take tax money out of their constituents' pockets. It is almost like an arsonist who also happens to be a fireman. First he sets fire to an occupied house and then, waiting until the cameras arrive and are rolling, he rescues all the occupants and basks in the glory of being called a hero - right up until the time he gets caught. Congress is now in that same position, and it appears that for the first time in a long time the American people are on to them; hence, the TEA Party movement.

One of the primary reasons that the federal government is giving to citizens for participation in the census is to assist their states in getting their fare share of federal money. This is the same money that never should have left those states in the first place. And some of the states that stand to take in the largest haul of that money are also some of the most liberal, spend-a-holic states in the country. Among them, but certainly not the only ones, are California and New York.

While figuring out how much money states are entitled to is one of the reasons behind the census, it is certainly not the most important reason. That has to do with the composition of Congress. Congressional seats are awarded to states based on their population according to the census count. They can also be taken away based on the census count.

Conservatives in liberal states often feel that they don't have a voice in their own state governments. There is nothing that is going to happen in the new census which will change that. But if those same conservatives went uncounted in the new census, their states might lose congressional seats. And since the number of seats in the House of Representatives does not change, only the states that those seats are in does, they might be awarded to more conservative states and voting districts. This is something that could have a fundamental impact on the way laws are made in this country and give conservatives a much larger voice in the federal government.

To be sure, there are downsides to this approach. If your state is underrepresented then you may see reductions in state services or even be faced with local and state politicians who want to raise your taxes. On a more personal side, not responding to the Census is illegal and there could be personal consequences. Even so, for those whose goal is smaller, more representative government at the federal level, a boycott of the census in high tax, big spending states might be just what the doctor ordered. It might be a way to infuse more conservative, common sense views into the political spectrum of Capitol Hill.

by Jim Malmberg

Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org

Follow me on Twitter:

JoinTea Party Bloggers on LinkedIn

Overweight Children and the Progression of Nanny Government

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:14:37 GMT

February 19, 2010 - The American people want jobs and a booming economy. They have been making that point known to all who will listen. But the point appears to be lost on the White House even in light of the recent election results in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts and most recently in New York where a TEA Party candidate has apparently won a state assembly race this past week. If you are wondering what the White House considers more important than the economy, the answer appears to be overweight children… yes, you read that correctly. And based on a Presidential Memorandum published yesterday, the President appears to be ready to put considerable financing and resources behind a push to make all children fit and trim. Is this really what we need to have our government focused on right now?

If you have a fat child, it is no longer just your personal business. It is now a federal issue! Why? Well, because the President says so! So there!

How the President, or for that matter any branch of the federal government, finds it within their Constitutional purview to monitor the body mass of the nation's children is beyond me. I actually reread the Constitution and couldn't find it anywhere within the enumerated powers. Congress might be able to pass laws having to do with this based on Article 1, Section 8 which allows them to provide for the "general welfare" of the country, but I doubt that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the ratified the document.

All kidding aside, the President has signed a memorandum that establishes a Taskforce on Childhood Obesity and he is placing the resources of a number of federal departments behind it. The people sitting on the task force will include: "1) the Secretary of the Interior; (2) the Secretary of Agriculture; (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services; (4) the Secretary of Education; (5) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; (6) the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady; (7) the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and (8) the heads of other executive departments, agencies, or offices as the Chair may designate." But that's just the beginning. The memorandum also authorizes the establishment of subgroups and the task force finds necessary. Essentially, the president is establishing a "fat bureaucracy."

The goal of the task force is to "solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight." But at what cost? That question has not been answered but it certainly won't be cheap and it is doubtful that it will create any jobs.

In the memorandum the President uses some statistics. He says that "Nearly one third of children in America are overweight or obese--a rate that has tripled in adolescents and more than doubled in younger children since 1980." While this may be true, it is also true that physical education in schools has been significantly reduced over that same period of time. If you want to solve the problem it might be a good idea to start making physEd programs mandatory again… just as they used to be. No task force is needed for that. Then, just wait and see what the results are before doing anything else.

Last year, many members of Congress and the Obama administration were advocating a number of taxes on what they considered to be unhealthy foods. These included taxes on soda, taxes on fruit juices, and even a sugar tax. All of these taxes were shot down. Call my cynical but I think it is likely that this task force will be used as a way to revive these proposals. It is equally likely that the task force will at some point come up with some method for determining if you are a fit or unfit as a parent if your child is overweight.

There is no doubt that childhood obesity is a problem in the United States. With that being said, nearly 10% of people are out of work and millions of Americans are facing the prospect of losing their homes. It is a pretty safe bet that the money and time being spent on this task force could be better spent elsewhere.

by Jim Malmberg

Subscribe to my website: www.GuardMyCreditFile.org

Follow me on Twitter:

JoinTea Party Bloggers on LinkedIn