How to Kill Home Ownership

Posted: February 11, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: commercial banking, Economic Develpment, financial institutions, Surreality, Team Obama, We are so F'd | Tags: , | 38 Comments

Levittown House and family circa 1948

Your house is about to become even harder to sell, even more unlikely to appreciate, and even more unaffordable to more people.  Be prepared to go back to the past.   All those young Obama Democrats better love their landlords.  They’re likely to be stuck with them for some time.  Every think you’d see a headline like this for a Democratic President? Here’s one from NPR Today: Obama Administration: Not Everybody Should Own A Home,

For decades, U.S. housing policy seemed to assume that more home ownership was always better.

At one point in the early ’90s, the government launched the “National Homeownership Strategy,” whose stated goal was to “attempt to help all American households become homeowners.”

So perhaps the most striking thing in today’s housing finance report from the Obama administration is the simple idea that not everybody should own a home (emphasis added):

The Administration believes that we must continue to take the necessary steps to ensure that Americans have access to an adequate range of affordable housing options. This does not mean all Americans should become homeowners. Instead, we should make sure that all Americans who have the credit history, financial capacity, and desire to own a home have the opportunity to take that step. At the same time, we should ensure that there are a range of affordable options for the 100 million Americans who rent, whether they do so by choice or necessity.

This is idea, in turn, leads to the Obama administration’s main conclusion: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should cease to exist.

I’ve been a critic of the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were managed for about 15 years.  They were packaging up loans and paying bonuses like the worst of the Wall Street set.  This had nothing to do with their basic government franchise agreement which is to provide long term funds to back up home loans.  The packaging and wheeling and dealing were part and parcel of Fannie and Freddie trying to mimic Wall Street and privatization.  However, they both provided products with implied government guarantees.  This implies a higher level of due diligence in underwriting and packaging that they basically ignored.  It’s similar to USDA grade beef.  There was a guarantee that these loans would hold mortgage insurance and be underwritten carefully.   The root cause of the problems were not the attempts to get more qualified people into affordable mortgages, it was to feed Wall Street greed and shovel money to their executives who were frequently just political hacks. They simply did the worst of the Wall Street practices at a much higher volume with a more damaging result because of the US stamp of approval; the implicit guarantee.

Now, we have a back to the gilded age future ahead of us.  What has made these loans work as loans and the securities that back the loans work is the implied low risk with a decent rate of return.  Many, many pension funds and institutional investors  hold huge numbers of Fannie and Freddie Securities because they’ve always had high ratings.  Most of these pension funds and institutional investors are sources of long term funds.  There’s not a lot of a lenders that will lend long these days and that’s going to be a problem for most people looking for a home now more than ever.  My guess is that most home loans will now go down to terms of about 15-20 years or they’ll be completely variable rate.  That means the homeowner will have to bet on the rate to get an affordable mortgage and gamble their incomes will go up to secure the lowest rates and longest terms.   Both of these are highly risky bets.  Past data has shown that most people loose with these kinds of mortgages.

Plus, that’s if they can get the funding at all. Without something similar, I doubt that the major sources of these funds which are usually forced into safe investments will be available.  Either that, or you’re going to lock in to a fixed rate but for an intermediate term loan.  Think about your own house loan and what that would mean for you.   You either double your house payment or take the bet that the rate won’t go up enough to force you to default in the future.  Most people don’t have sophisticated enough knowledge of economics to even make an educated guess.   My guess is that if they take the loan at all, they’ll go for the short term fixed rate loan on a much cheaper house.  This is going to change the complexion of the housing market for ever if it goes through as planned.

This is a President used the gipper metaphor for himself. This is the White House that wants less Government in the Mortgage system.

The Obama administration wants to shrink the government’s role in the mortgage system — a proposal that would remake decades of federal policy aimed at getting Americans to buy homes and would probably make home loans more expensive across the board.

The Treasury Department rolled out a plan Friday to slowly dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored programs that bought up mortgages to encourage more lending and required bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis.

Exactly how far the government’s role in mortgages would be reduced was left to Congress to decide, but all three options the administration presented would create a housing finance system that relies far more on private money.

“It’s clear the administration wants the private sector to take a more prominent role in the mortgage rates, and in order for that to happen, mortgage rates have to go up,” said Thomas Lawler, a housing economist in Virginia.

Abolishing Fannie and Freddie would rewrite 70 years of federal housing policy, from Fannie’s creation as part of the New Deal to President George W. Bush’s drive for an “ownership society” in the 2000s. It would transform how homes are bought and redefine who can afford them.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the plan would probably not happen for at least five years and would proceed “very carefully.” In the meantime, he said the companies would have the cash they need to meet their existing obligations.

There are other ways to do this.  Most would have to do with tighter governance of Fannie and Freddie and elimination of private sector practices of bonuses for volume when government guarantees are involved.  Also, a cap for the mortgages to prices more standard through out the country rather than Washington DC would help.  Fannie and Freddie should have no place in the jumbo market.  Here’s a few of the proposals that are in the White House program.

The Obama administration proposals include raising the rates Fannie and Freddie charge to banks for loan guarantees to the same levels as private banks. Private mortgages for so-called jumbo loans, which are not covered by government guarantees, currently cost between 0.5% and 0.75% more than government-backed mortgages. So, if Fannie and Freddie’s fees were to rise to the market level, mortgage rates across the U.S. might rise substantially.

The administration also proposed lowering the maximum value of a mortgage that can qualify to be federally backed from the current $729,750 to $625,500. That’s a widely suggested move that would attract the private sector to make more loans in the upper range of the market. The proposal also called for Fannie, Freddie and the FHA to set a minimum down payment requirement of 10%. Currently, the agencies are authorized to make loans with no down payments at all.

The big issue is what to do about the government guarantee that assures investors who buy Fannie and Freddie mortgage bonds that the U.S. government will pay back the bonds in the event the underlying mortgages default. Because of that guarantee, Fannie and Freddie can offer lower interest rates than the private sector. Investors, especially foreign investors, were burned by subprime bonds during the financial crisis, and now they won’t touch private mortgage bonds without a government guarantee.

There’s obvious problems with Fannie and Freddie but they mostly lie with how it was managed and how it morphed as more up income and high price assets were put into play.  Helping upper income people or expensive real estate markets weren’t originally part of the charter.  Making it more like a bank isn’t going to remove the abuses but add to them.  Bonuses for production quotas lead to reduced quality.

It would be more prudent to take Fannie and Freddie back to their roots rather than to them strip them of their ability to provide affordable mortgages to entry level home owners.  The management got caught up in production over quality of loans because they got bonuses.  That was a huge problem.  The connection to affordable housing initiatives was never the problem.  Churning out crap to feed the investment frenzy of Wall Street and peeling off bonuses for their executives led to their sloppy loan processing.  They caught the same disease that plagued the private sector at a larger volume.  Congress also did a poor job of oversight.

This move will leave a huge gap in two places.  First, it will impact investment portfolios that rely on long term, relatively safe but decent yield-bearing assets.  It will also remove one more route to the American dream for ordinary Americans.  Let’s just say we’re all taking one for the Gipper.

TGFriday Reads

Posted: February 11, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Egypt, Foreign Affairs, John Birch Society in Charge, morning reads, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 39 Comments

Good Morning!

I’ve thought about writing some posts about the CPAC circus but frankly, any thing that gives Donald Rumsfeld a “Defender of the Constitution Award” plus features Dick Cheney and Donald Trump is just way too over the top for me.  There were several interesting things and most of it came via Ron Paul and his very dedicated groupies.  One of them shouted Dick Cheney down as a “war criminal”.  Most of the Fundies were AWOL because they didn’t want to be seen networking with folks that might be out there trying to convert them to the “radical homosexual agenda”.   Then there was The other Donald with your zen moment of the day saying that Ron Paul was a nice guy but had “zero chance” of get elected.  Next question, Mr. Trump.  What are your chances of being elected then?

One shout of “where’s Bin Laden?” rang out as Cheney spoke of Rumsfeld.

That led to the pro-Cheney contingent (which it should be said greatly outnumbers the opposition) to shout the hecklers down with the familiar “USA, USA” chant.

It was all very odd, especially considering that when Cheney appeared as the “surprise guest” at last year’s CPAC he was greeted with the kind of cheers generally reserved for a rock star.

But Team Paul — whose numbers appear to have grown at CPAC in 2011 — were not going to let that happen this time around.

“Uh, Defender of the Constitution?” Justin Bradfield of Maryland scoffed when I caught up with him after he walked out of Rumsfeld’s speech. “Let’s see: he expanded the Defense Department more than pretty much any other defense secretary and he enforced the Patriot Act.”

“[Speaking] as a libertarian, that’s not really the type of person who should be getting Defender of the Constitution,” he added.

Wow, this is the sort’ve thing that calls for popcorn and chagrin.  The Hill covered the Trump card.

Business mogul Donald Trump said Thursday that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) could not possibly win the 2012 presidential race.

“By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected, I’m sorry to tell you,” Trump said at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday. “I like Ron Paul, I think he’s a good guy, but honestly he just has zero chance of getting elected.”

Then, the Caucus at the NYT covered the background on the Trumped-up decision to run for President.  Oh, the drama!  Oh, the pathos!  Oh, the ratings boost!

“Obviously, it’s a tremendous forum to espouse his views and to express the fact that he is legitimately contemplating on this run,” said Michael Cohen, the executive vice president of the Trump organization, who confirmed his attendance at the forum. “He is seriously considering doing this because he’s disgusted with how the country is being run.”

Mr. Cohen, a special counsel to Mr. Trump, has started a Web site, http://www.shouldtrumprun.com, to serve as something of a draft movement. But the Web site is far from an organic outpouring, considering that it is run by people on Mr. Trump’s payroll.

Advisers to Mr. Trump say that he will decide by June whether to go forward with a Republican presidential bid. The timing is built around his television program, “The Apprentice,” which is scheduled to end by June.

I have to admit that I was more interested in who WASN’T as much as I was in hearing about the theatrics concerning the attendees.  What does it say when two of the top draws in Republican Straw polls find better things to do?

I’m not sure if you caught the WAPO editorial written by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Abedel Moneim Abou el Fotouh but you may want to give it a read. I’m basically of the opinion that we should worry about the Fundies in our back yard before we worry about the Fundies in some one else’s back yard. El Fotouh tells us we shouldn’t worry at all.  He also reminds us that peoples of a nation have a right to self-govern. That’s the basic American principle that does make the US exceptional.

Contrary to fear-mongering reports, the West and the Muslim Brotherhood are not enemies. It is a false dichotomy to posit, as some alarmists are suggesting, that Egypt’s choices are either the status quo of the Mubarak regime or a takeover by “Islamic extremists.” First, one must make a distinction between the ideological and political differences that the Brotherhood may have with the United States. For Muslims, ideological differences with others are taught not to be the root cause of violence and bloodshed because a human being’s freedom to decide how to lead his or her personal life is an inviolable right found in basic Islamic tenets, as well as Western tradition. Political differences, however, can be a matter of existential threats and interests, and we have seen this play out, for example, in the way the Mubarak regime has violently responded to peaceful demonstrators.

We fully understand that the United States has political interests in Egypt. But does the United States understand that the sovereign state of Egypt, with its 80 million people, has its own interests? Whatever the U.S. interests are in Egypt, they cannot trump Egyptian needs or subvert the will of the people without consequences. Such egotism is a recipe for disaster. With a little altruism, the United States should not hesitate to reassess its interests in the region, especially if it genuinely champions democracy and is sincere about achieving peace in the Middle East.

I have to admit that any one who lives in Louisiana usually has a huge number of Mississippi jokes up their sleeve.  The same was true for Nebraska on Iowa.  Nebraska had a red and white license plate design and we always called Iowa Drivers out as ‘blue plate specials’ for there blue tags.  I got to use that same joke down here on the folks from Mississippi; especially my New Yorker transplant boyfriend who taught molecular biology and lived in Forrest County.  I just learned where the Forrest came from and  I’m not even sure I can express what I want to say about this tidbit on a proposed Mississippi license plates: ‘Mississippi May Honor Early KKK Leader On Commemorative License Plate. Some historical figures are best left dead  and  buried’.

Controversies over honoring Confederate heritage are not uncommon in the South, but some activists in Mississippi are pushing the envelope even further. The Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans is proposing a license plate that honors Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was also an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Following the Civil War, Forrest was involved with the very first incarnation of the KKK. He was so closely associated with the group’s formation that he is sometimes incorrectly referred to as the KKK’s founder — though he was quickly elected Grand Wizard, and began centralizing disparate KKK groups under his authority. He believed that while blacks were now free, they had to continue to toil quietly for white landowners. “I am not an enemy of the negro,” Forrest said. “We want him here among us; he is the only laboring class we have.”

Perhaps even more disturbing, however, were Forrest’s violent actions during the Civil War, specifically a massacre of black soldiers at Fort Pillow, TN in April 1864.

Yup, this guy slaughtered black union troops that had already dropped their rifles.  What is wrong with modern Mississippi and what will its Governor Haley Barbour say about this?

So, here’s an interesting YouTube with Noam Chomsky on ‘How Climate Change Became a ‘Liberal Hoax’ in a series from The Nation’.

Known for his criticism of the media, Chomsky doesn’t hold back in this clip, laying blame on mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, which will run frontpage articles on what meteorologists think about global warming. “Meteorologists are pretty faces reading scripts telling you whether it’s going to rain tomorrow,” Chomsky says. “What do they have to say any more than your barber?” All this is part of the media’s pursuit of “fabled objectivity.”

Of particular concern for Chomsky is the atmosphere of anger, fear and hostility that currently reigns in America. The public’s hatred of Democrats, Republicans, big business and banks and the public’s distrust of scientists all lead to general disregard for the findings of “pointy-headed elitists.” The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a “death knell for the species” because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. “If this was happening in some small country,” Chomsky concludes, “it wouldn’t matter much. But when it’s happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it’s a danger to the survival of the species.”

Okay, so, just so you know that our Congress is on the up and up these days, I’m going to leave you with this headline: ‘The Pajama Party Is Over, Ethics Group Tells Congress’.

A Washington ethics watchdog says it is time for Congress to crack down on lawmakers who sleep in their offices rather than pay for a place to live. Reacting to a surge in lawmakers’ bunking down in their work spaces, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wants the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether the politicians are getting an unfair tax break and violating their own rules by making personal use of public resources. “House office buildings are not dorms or frat houses,” Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director, said Thursday. “If members didn’t want to find housing in Washington, they shouldn’t have run for Congress in the first place.” Aside from the legal and rules questions, Ms. Sloan said she has heard reports from Congressional staffers about uncomfortable work environments. “Especially if you’re a woman and you’re working late and your boss is there getting ready for bed, that seems designed for discomfort,” she said.

They should just be glad their Senator isn’t David Vitter who probably uses campaign funds for hookers and diapers. Don’t make me think about what he’d be up to in his office!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

No Surprise here!

Posted: February 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd | Tags: , | 45 Comments

A study released in December by a non-partisan group at the University of Maryland showed an appalling lack of knowledge on a variety of topics by US voters.  One of the most interesting findings of the study was that most of the lack of knowledge and out-and-out misinformation could be sourced to the media one followed.

The survey included fairly basic questions on programs like TARP, the economy, and taxes.  Answers  were mostly a straightforward yes or no and could be easily found with a little internet research.  The surveyed voters were just sadly uninformed and missed question-after-question in large and significant numbers.  Probably the most shocking finding was that the degree to being misinformed was highly associated with the source of news followed by the participant.

The most controversial part of the study comes at the end.  MSNBC and NPR audiences were found to be least misinformed on the basic questions of fact.  The study points to Fox News as the chief misinformer among the three major cable news outlets.  The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:

  • most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
  • most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
  • the economy is getting worse (26 points)
  • most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
  • the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
  • their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
  • the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
  • when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
  • and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally

That’s a fairly interesting result.  The more you watch Fox, the more misinformed you’re likely to become. Now, we get this headline today from Media Matters and Eric Boehlert: “FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”.  That sure explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

And that’s the word from inside Fox News.

The ex-Fox employee whistle blower explains some of the ways that Fox distorts the story.  This just adds further evidence to the batch of leaked emails last year showing how a top news editor was found to have told staffers how to slant the news for the desired bias.   Here’s a sample on how Fox News insured that the Obama HCR plan was rebranded from its original roots in Romney Care and the Heritage Plan put forward in 1993 by then Republican Senator John Chaffee.

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the “public option”

1)      Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.

2)      When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”

3)      Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”

4)      When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

This isn’t even the first evidence we’ve had that Fox deliberately misleads its viewers.  You may recall the 2003 study that showed Fox viewers mistakenly thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers.  There were also other mistaken perceptions about other circumstances surrounding the lead up to the Iraq invasion.

In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President’s decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%. Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President’s decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

The Maryland Study cited above has found more evidence that viewers of Fox News hold views on the economy based on out and out untruths.  Again, the facts and data are easily found in many other sources.

–  72% believe the economy is getting worse.

–  49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.

–  63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.

–  47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.

None of these things are true and can be easily fact-checked by checking government sites.   There are several things here that are extremely important.  The first is that print media is basically on the wane and followers of print media consistently score higher on knowing the facts.  The second is that Fox News consistently earns the highest rating.  There’s more people getting their news from a serious attempt at mass propaganda than an earnest daily rag.  The third is that we live in a democracy and people victimized by a propaganda outlet posing as a news source are a serious threat to our democracy. Misinformed voters make incredibly bad decisions. I have only to point to those same folks who cheered the Iraq invasion then that know better now to come up with a really good example of the true cost in lives and treasure of this kind of ignorance.

Obviously, this source is an ‘unnamed’ staffer who is no longer with Fox. These leaves the story open to the charge of unknown disgruntled worker.  However, the information jives with what we already know when examining the failed test scores of Fox News watchers and the contents of the 2010 leaked memos.  We also know that Rupert Murdoch writes millions of dollars of checks to Republican Candidates and has a large number or wannabe Republican candidates on air as experts.  Evidently, former governors of states with low populations and exceedingly low educational standards and economic performance can be cause enough to put one on the Fox payroll as some kind of expert.

There are many interesting observations offered up by the anonymous ex-staffer.

The source continues: “I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”

As for the press, the former Fox News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Fox News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.

“They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Fox News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Fox, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists]  know that. It’s not worth being  Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to  how Fox News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.

Indeed, the veal pen will rush to protect even the most dubious hack in the nastiest pen.  The problem is that most people believe what’s on a TV news program.  Maybe it’s because so many of us grew up with our much trusted Uncle Walter or Uncles Chet and David. Maybe it’s because it’s hard to fact check a mostly 24-7 operation reliant on pretty faces and glib voices. But, I know people that think that even Glenn Beck is a journalist and a fact checker.

We have what are supposed to be legitimate news programs as well as obvious political shock jocks on Fox that many people take seriously.    I’ve even had people tell me that the CIA Factbook site was either hacked by Cuba or not a legitimate site when I’ve used it as source of data to offset the memes of some rabid dog expert that’s blathered about US exceptionalism and how we’re number one on this or that.  You can’t spend a lot of time on the CIA World Factbook without noticing exactly how far we’ve been tumbling from a number one or even number 10 positions recently on nearly every imaginable positive measure of economic well-being.  Yet, we’re both dying under the yoke of socialist oppression while being exceptionally number one, simultaneously, according to Fox.

What’s the offset to this?  Well, I’m not sure considering the number of people that go to FOX and appear on FOX because it’s simply an echo chamber.  I do think the MSM should do more stories that point out misinformation available other places.  I also think that a few of them should try to start acting less like People Magazine and more like news magazine.  The corporatization and consolidation of Media obviously works against getting a good and decent media.  We get more coverage of Lindsey Lohen’s necklace escapades than news on Afghanistan or Gitmo these days.

A good part of living in a democracy and being committed to seeing it through is to remain vigilant against threats.  FOX News represents a clear and present danger. Perhaps the most we can do is just continue to find good sources of information in alternative media and then see that information goes out to our friends and family. I know I have to offset the Fox Effect with my Dad all the time.  It gets discouraging.

Mubarak’s “I am not Crook Speech”: He’s not going anywhere

Posted: February 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Diplomacy Nightmares, Egypt, Foreign Affairs | Tags: , , , | 96 Comments

Well, this is interesting.  It seems that Al Ariabia got it right and every one else–including the Public face of our

Not going anywhere, not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture

CIA–was wrong. Mubarak says he’s going to be a figurehead and the Torture VP is going to do the official duties.

Live Blog from UK GUARDIAN here:

9.02pm GMT: No one in Tahrir Square is listening to the rest of the Mubarak speech. The chant is: “Get out, get out.”

“We will be dignified until the very end, may God preserve Egypt, may peace be upon you,” is Mubarak’s final remark.

No sign he’s leaving. The “I have been ignoring international pressure” line suggests this was a “I fight on” speech by Mubarak.

9pm GMT: Mubarak’s not stepping down, that much seems clear, although exactly what that means with his previous statements about the army implementing change isn’t clear.

Tahrir Square is going nuts, based on the live footage.

8.58pm GMT: “I have spent most of my life in defence of our homeland,” says Mubarak. “I have never succumbed to any international pressure…. I have my dignity intact.”

So he’s not stepping down, it seems.

8.53pm GMT: Mubarak says he’s asked for the amendment of articles 76, 77, 88, 93 and 181 of the constitution, and abolishing the controversial article 179.

Article 179 is the emergency law that has been a huge issue and a major demand of the protesters. The rest involve the powers and terms of the presidency but we’ll get more details later.

8.51pm GMT: Mentions that the reforms will be “implemented by our armed forces,” and on-going dialogue.

Talking about a “national dialogue” and a “road map that is very clear on a specific timetable … until September,” but follows this by talking about the various committees he has had set up.

I’m not sure more committees are going to cut it right now in Tahrir Square.

8.50pm GMT: Mubarak speaking: talking of a “smooth transition of powers” but not much detail yet.

8.49pm GMT: Mubarak reaffirms that he’s not standing for election as president and that power will be transfered to “whoever the electorate chooses in the new fair and square elections”.

8.48pm GMT: Mubarak speaking: mistakes were made, he says.

I can tell you that I as the president of the Republic I have to respond to your calls but I am also embarrassed, and I will not accept or listen to any foreign interventions.

8.46pm GMT Mubarak now speaking on state television.

I can tell you before anything else that the blood of your martyrs will not be wasted and that I will not be easy on punishing people who committed these crimes.

Says he will “respond to your demands and your voices” and carry our promises.

Is this an appeal to Egyptian people watching him from their sofas in their living rooms?  He still seems to think that the protesters are still foreign agents and upset young people.  What does he see as the difference between ‘delegating’ power and remaining in power?

President Hosni Mubarak addressed an expectant Egypt on Thursday, saying that he had delegated his powers to his vice president, Omar Suleiman, but would not leave the country,  according to NBC News translation.

Saying he was addressing Egypt’s youth and people in Tahrir Square and the nation, he said he believed in the honesty of the demands of the protesters and their intentions.

“I am addressing from the heart,” he said. “The blood of the martyrs and injured will not go in vain … My heart aches for your heartache.”

Breaking News: Mubarak likely to step Down

Posted: February 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Breaking News, Egypt, Foreign Affairs | Tags: , | 94 Comments

There are reports coming from all news sources that Mubarak is “likely to cede power” sometime tonight.

President Hosni Mubarak will meet the demands of protesters, military and ruling party officials, the Associated Press reported Thursday, in the strongest indication yet that Egypt’s longtime president may be about to give up power.

The military’s supreme council was meeting Thursday, without Mubarak, its commander in chief, and announced on state TV its “support of the legitimate demands of the people,” AP said.

CIA director Leon Panetta, testifying on Capitol Hill Thursday, told the House Intelligence Committee”there is a strong likelihood that Mubarak will step down this evening.”

Most reports indicate that he will turn power over to new VP Omar Suleiman and the Egyptian military.

There is a strong likelihood that embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will step down Thursday night, CIA Director Leon Panetta told the U.S. Congress.

Mubarak has agreed to yield power to his vice president, a senior U.S. official told CNN, citing contacts within the Egyptian government.

This official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said that given the mixed signals sent throughout the crisis that “we need to see it happen.”

But the source said the information came from reliable and ranking officials in the Mubarak regime. Asked when the transfer of power might take place, the official said: “We are told soon is the plan.”

The secretary-general of Egypt’s ruling party confirmed Thursday that a transition was underway and he expected Mubarak to address the nation soon.

This happened as a general strike by all levels of Egyptians began. There’s some indication that protests may not end

Thursday’s sudden developments came as thousands of Egyptians again took to the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian towns and cities, calling for President Mubarak to step down.

Doctors, bus drivers, lawyers and textile workers were on strike in Cairo on Thursday, with unions reporting walkouts and protests across the country.

The BBC’s Jon Leyne, in Cairo’s Tahrir (Liberation) Square, the focal point of the anti-Mubarak protests, reports that the protesters there are starting to celebrate after hearing news of Mr Mubarak’s possible departure.

But Egyptian Information Minister Anas el-Fekky told Reuters news agency: “The president is still in power and he is not stepping down. The president is not stepping down and everything you heard in the media is a rumour.”

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →