Al Jazeera just reported that there has been a hydrogen explosion at the third nuclear power plant that nuclear engineers have been working on in Japan. Several workers are reported to be injured or missing after the blast. Here is the first story I’ve seen about on Google: Fukushima Explosion: Japan Nuclear Plant Blast Believed To Be Hydrogen Explosion
Japan’s chief cabinet secretary says a hydrogen explosion has occurred at Unit 3 of Japan’s stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. The blast was similar to an earlier one at a different unit of the facility.
Yukio Edano says people within a 12-mile (20-kilometer) radius were ordered inside following Monday’s. AP journalists felt the explosion 30 miles (50 kilometers) away.
A massive column of smoke was seen belching from the plant’s No. 3 unit Monday. The No. 3 Unit reactor had been under emergency watch for a possible explosion as pressure built up there following a hydrogen blast Saturday in the facility’s Unit 1.
A second explosion has rocked a nuclear power plant in Japan. The plant is in an area that was devastated by a massive earthquake and tsunami on Friday.
The explosion occurred mid-morning Monday, while workers were battling to bring down temperatures inside the Fukushima Number One nuclear power plant’s number three reactor.
Television images showed a strong explosion obliterating the upper walls of the reactor building and causing a huge plume of white smoke.
At least 170,000 Japanese earthquake and tsunami survivors have fled their homes, fearing the spread of radioactive contamination from damaged nuclear power plants.
Officials say dozens of people could have been exposed to radiation while being evacuated from a town near one of the damaged plants. They and hundreds of others were being scanned for radiation exposure.
Authorities say a new hydrogen explosion occurred Monday morning at the Fukushima power plant north of Tokyo, sending a plume of white smoke into the air. Officials said at a news conference covered by NHK Television that the building is still safe and that there is little risk of a mass radiation leak.
Why am I not buying that?
I will continue to update as I get more information.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Where are mainstream Republicans these days? What has happened to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower? Prior to the Reagan years, Republican women were front and center in volunteering for planned parenthood, supporting the ERA, and working for abortion rights. First Lady Betty Ford was a proud feminist and one of the first women to put women’s health issues–including women with drinking problems and breast cancer–on the map. President Richard Nixon was responsible for many of the agencies that protect the environment. The current party is chock-full of science denying Theocrats and economics-denying Corporate Fascists. It’s making a sham out of the two party system. We may now have a window open wide enough to stop some of this. We should ready ourselves with the facts and act now.
An online conversation has been initiated with the publication of Ron Brownstein’s article in the National Journal on Thursday called ‘State’s Rights’. It is front and center in starting a discussion among Democratic bloggers, journalists, and other liberal/progressive sympathizers. States rights was code for the right to own slaves during the first 100 years of this country’s existence. It is now code for the right to discriminate against the GLBT community, insert the government into an individual woman’s gynecological care, and bust unions. The racial overtones have not gone away since the worst of the hateful verbiage is aimed at stopping any policy goal attempted by President Obama.
Any one who has read me over the last few years knows that I am not a big fan of this President and I’m even less of a fan of his zealous followers. However, it would take a fairly dim bulb to not see the racism implicit in many of the Republican attacks against him. Attacks range from the extremely bizarre personal assertions that he is a secret Muslim, foreign born, and a devout socialist/communist to a complete rewrite of any policy initiative.
Obama is about as conservative of a Democrat as one can find these days which has been one of my issues with him all along. His actions and words have not stopped the endless attacks on absolutely everything he attempts by Republicans and their monied interests. These tactics were first used against former Democratic President Bill Clinton but have reached some kind of hyper-extortionate apex today. It’s to the point that I firmly believe some of these Republican extremists would rather take the country down with them than negotiate something other than an ideologically pure outcome. Brown’s article and examples focus on the current bloc of extremist Republican governors with their take no prisoners policies. While his focus is mostly on the impact on Obama, I believe his larger point should entice us to think bigger.
But one senior Obama administration official, who also had a close view of Clinton’s interaction with Republican governors, contends that ideology is trumping interest for the governors in many of these new disputes. Health care reform, for instance, asks states for no new financial contribution to expand coverage through 2016 and only relatively small participation thereafter; because 60 percent of the uninsured live in the states where a Republican holds the governorship, their residents would receive the most new federal aid if the law survives. “One had the sense in the mid-1990s that conservative governors were doing whatever was in the best interest of their state,” the senior official said. “This time, the Republican governors appear determined to make an ideological point, even if it costs their state a great deal.”
Whatever the governors’ motivations (one man’s posturing, after all, is another man’s principle), their unreserved enlistment into Washington’s wars marks a milestone. It creates a second line of defense for conservatives to contest Obama even after he wins battles in Congress. It tears another hole in the fraying conviction that state capitals are less partisan than Washington. And it creates a precedent that is likely to encourage more guerrilla warfare between Democratic governors and a future Republican president.
American politics increasingly resembles a kind of total war in which each party mobilizes every conceivable asset at its disposal against the other. Most governors were once conscientious objectors in that struggle. No more.
I can remember attending Republican conventions in the early 1980s during the first hint of the unholy alliance between religious fanatics along the line of a Christian Taliban with the John Birch Society version of libertarians. It was a terrifying spectacle. At the time, the more pro-business and hoity-toity conservative elements in the party were willing to use them like pet pit bulls because they were incredibly organized at the grass roots level and they voted. Republicans traditionally had a much more difficult time turning out voters and their GOTV machines were dwarfed by the Democrats who could rely on well organized and managed union membership. This is one of the reasons why there is also the huge attack on the last standing unions now. They’re worth a fortune come election time and no Republican campaign strategist worth anything underestimates them. We can clearly no longer underestimate the religious zealots or those gullible to the rants of Glenn Beck. They’ve become a contagion.
Back in the day, the young me argued that this form of big daddy government intervention put forth by religionists and Birchers was basically enabling powerful business monopolies and drop kicking the constitutional mandate to deny the establishing of a state religion. It was against the very core ideology of historical Republicanism. I got no where. This was especially true as Nixon’s southern strategy began to work its evil influence on bringing in the remaining racist elements of the old Dixiecrats who frankly were all for the government taking care of any one that wasn’t like them. This added the last nail in the traditional coffin of the party of Lincoln. That sin is now manifesting in the xenophobia against Muslims and Hispanics in addition to African Americans topped by the anti-science bias from the religionists and the pro-monopoly market creation from the corporatists.
It appears that many old school Republicans now see the results of opening this Pandora’s box. They are horrified and have been trying to stuff the demons back into the chest. Now, you see those same folks that opened their kennels filled with poodles to the pit bulls are now acting absolutely appalled by the rising influence of absolutely whacked extremists like Glenn Beck. Scarborough, Rove, and Kristol are currently trying to put the Beckheads back into the box. Those of us that don’t vote Republican could afford to ignore this if it were just some intraparty feud. It’s gone beyond that with the rise of tea party hysterics and billionaire libertarian Daddy Warbucks’ propaganda machines. In many states, the Republican party infrastructure has been commandeered by the pit bulls. The poodles–like Arianna Huffington and Markos–have long left their confines. They are morphing traditional Democratic Party concerns. The same divisive issues that used to motivate the base to do the GOTV and show up at the polls has managed to bring this new crop of Republican governors and congressional members to a critical mass. They refuse any middle or even right of middle ground. They won’t negotiate on the usual country club Republican issues. It’s no longer a GOTV ploy for them because they are true believers.
Keep in mind, it’s ideology, not practical concerns, that lie at the heart of these governors’ reactionary moves. The states turning down investments for high-speed rail, for example, were effectively handed a gift — jobs, economic development, improved infrastructure — but Republicans like Rick Scott and Scott Walker turned down the benefits because of a philosophical opposition, deliberately hurting their state in the process. The administration was effectively throwing a life-preserver to a Republican who’s drowning, only to be told, “We don’t like government life-preservers.”
The same is true of health care, which would be a boon to states, but which far-right governors resist for reasons that have nothing to do with public policy.
Bill Clinton faced a watered-down version of these Republican pit bulls over a decade ago. Dealing with them is how he got his reputation for triangulation. He seemed uniquely placed to make some small progress then–that now seems impossible now–because of his past position as a southern governor with a decidedly homespun and folksy manner. President Obama has none of this going for him. He is surrounded by Businesscrats that are unlikely to fill the void. The only thing he’s managed to do is to gain the ear of the Chamber of Commerce types. These folks are hardly going to be sympathetic to social justice or middle class bread-and-butter issues. Additionally, right wing media sources and timid main stream media sources are playing into the hands of the outrageous. We have media enablers instead of investigative journalists.
That is why it is absolutely essential that whatever is left of the Democratic grassroots need to make one extremely loud noise right now. It is unconscionable that a rewrite of history, science, and economic is taking place while many of us are simply standing around with gaping mouths. I’ve spoken many times about the absolute lack of economics that is driving austerity programs. It’s already showing signs of slowing economic growth down at a time when unemployment is unacceptably high. This is only going to multiply as the days and months unfold. Ask yourself if we can really afford another recession?
Near the forum’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.
“You haven’t persuaded the public,” replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, “No, you haven’t.” Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, “That’s right. Kerry said it.”
Such a tone of searching bewilderment typified a handful of sessions that dealt with the struggle to motivate Americans on the topic of climate change. Only 35 percent of Americans see climate change as a serious problem, according to a 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
It’s a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate change.
These extremists are even rewriting the already right wing Ronald Reagan’s legacy to make it seem more extreme to support the legitimacy of their radical agendas. Here’s an example I found this morning on ThinkProgress on Reagan’s views on unions. Scott Walker’s fantasy world includes his vision of being Reagan’s heir. Yet, here is Reagan himself on the union movement in Poland during one of his radio addresses to the nation.
REAGAN: Ever since martial law was brutally imposed last December, Polish authorities have been assuring the world that they’re interested in a genuine reconciliation with the Polish people. But the Polish regime’s action yesterday reveals the hollowness of its promises. By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.
The one thing that I learned early on when dealing with these people from within the Republican party itself in the pre-Reagan and early Reagan days is that they believe their courses are so righteous that they will lie and do anything to support them. If we do not hold their actions and lies to the light of day, our country will be completely overrun by by folks that are anti-science, anti-economics, anti-rational thought, and anti-democracy. We’ll have a theocratic plutocracy in fairly short order.
It is absolutely imperative that we put pressure on the media and Democratic politicians to fact check these people, stand up to them, and expose their lies to the public. It is possible that we’ve caught a tipping point in their overreach process. If this is the case, it means we have to work with the momentum now. Nothing short of our democracy and our children’s future is at stake here. We cannot be complacent and we cannot be left with mouths wide opened. We also cannot rely on leadership from the very top. If you’re in one of those states that is acting up, act now!!! Find and support your version of the Wisconsin 14.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
I’ve got an on again off again relationship with Christopher Hitchens’ writings. It frequently depends on the topic and frankly, how much he’s probably been drinking at that time. He’s arrogant, curmudgeonly, erudite, and smug but always interesting to read. Here’s something to chew on from his latest at Salon called ‘Is Barrack Obama Secretly Swiss?” on the President’s overly guarded response to the recent Arab uprisings.
This is not merely a matter of the synchronizing of announcements. The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.
This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned “violence” in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi’s remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi’s membership.
I have to admit that I’ve had my own concerns about our tepid national response to the incredible thuggish brutality going on in Libya. First, there’s the news that helicopters were shooting at citizens in the streets. Then, there were the executions of Libyan soldiers who refused to follow the orders to shoot at citizens. Finally, there’s the news of mercenaries paid sums to commit violence on whoever they find in the streets. How much does it take for one to come out and say this is just plain evil and should stop now or else?
Obama’s made one tepid statement on Libya as well as one tepid statement on events at home that concern the stripping of collective bargaining rights from US workers. Both should be low hanging fruit for any Democratic politician. Libya murdered all those Syracuse students in the Lockerbie bombing. Unions fund and work tirelessly for their Democratic candidates including this President. Obama’s sure coming up short on words these days for a man with legendary status as a speech giver and TV personality. His new press secretary Jay Carney appears to be a Milquetoast spokesmodel also whose bland nonresponse responses must reflect the dithering at the top.
Okay, well, back to Hitchens for the strong words …
Evidently a little sensitive to the related charges of being a) taken yet again completely by surprise, b) apparently without a policy of its own, and c) morally neuter, the Obama administration contrived to come up with an argument that maximized every form of feebleness. Were we to have taken a more robust or discernible position, it was argued, our diplomatic staff in Libya might have been endangered. In other words, we decided to behave as if they were already hostages! The governments of much less powerful nations, many with large expatriate populations as well as embassies in Libya, had already condemned Qaddafi’s criminal behavior, and the European Union had considered sanctions, but the United States (which didn’t even charter a boat for the removal of staff until Tuesday) felt obliged to act as if it were the colonel’s unwilling prisoner. I can’t immediately think of any precedent for this pathetic “doctrine,” but I can easily see what a useful precedent it sets for any future rogue regime attempting to buy time. Leave us alone—don’t even raise your voice against us—or we cannot guarantee the security of your embassy. (It wouldn’t be too soon, even now, for the NATO alliance to make it plain to Qaddafi that if he even tried such a thing, he would lose his throne, and his ramshackle armed forces, and perhaps his worthless life, all in the course of one afternoon.)
I’ve always thought Hitchens to be a war monger. His foreign policy diatribes are usually way over the top for my taste but I have to admit that this particular opinion piece is spot on. If we can’t use our position as the world’s superpower to at least publicly condemn these kinds of atrocities, what good are we? There has to be more to do here than just wait around until the tide shows some sign of turning. I’m not suggesting we invade Tripoli but some kind of sign of moral comprehension of the situation–even if it’s just a toughly worded condemnation–would certainly create a signal that the US will not stand around silent while some crazed dictator slaughters his people. Right now, it just seems like the U.S. is just going to sit on its thumbs and watch the slaughter. White House responses to Egypt, Libya, and the suppression of labor in the U.S. feel like a series of “The Pet Goat” reading moments. How guarded of a response do you have to make to thugs?
U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday imposed sanctions on Libya’s government for its violent repression of a popular uprising, signing an executive order blocking property and transactions related to the country.
#Obama signs executive order blocking property and prohibiting transactions related to #Libya
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Oops, there goes another rationale for the Iraq Invasion
Any number of us that closely followed the trumped-up case for the Iraq invasion figured that most of the evidence was shoddy if not based on out-and-out lies. I seriously wanted to throw up every time I heard some Bush official equivocate smoking guns and smoking mushroom clouds. The most disheartening thing was the number of people that believed them. The entire Iraq Invasion run-up just showed how vulnerable the American public is to propaganda and jingoism. You could hardly hold a civil conversation with so much hysteria-based flag waving going on.
So, it’s another one of those moments where you learn exactly how duped the entire country was by a set of people just itching to scratch that NeoCon rash. The UK Guardian reports that the “man codenamed Curveball ‘invented’ tales of bioweapons”. Colin Powell’s judgment looked bad then, it looks nonexistent now. Remember, he was considered the moderate voice of reason. You can watch the video and hear the words of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi: ‘I had the chance to fabricate something …’ I’m sure they begged him to do it.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.
“Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right,” he said. “They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”
The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme.
The careers of both men were seriously damaged by their use of Janabi’s claims, which he now says could have been – and were – discredited well before Powell’s landmark speech to the UN on 5 February 2003.
The former CIA chief in Europe Tyler Drumheller describes Janabi’s admission as “fascinating”, and said the emergence of the truth “makes me feel better”. “I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now,” said Drumheller.
It was no secret that most of the advisers surrounding Dubya Bush were the same ones disappointed in Poppy’s decision to stop the first Gulf War with Saddam still in power. There were many good reasons to leave Saddam in power including the geopolitical stalemate created by tensions between the Sunni Saddam and the Shia Clerics in Iran that frequently burst into horrible wars. We shifted the balance of power in the area to Iran and have undoubtedly created a long term mess in Iraq itself. It’s cost us lives and money. It’s cost the Iraqis untold horrors. We continue to learn it was based on nothing but a pack of lies. This mea culpa is just the latest.
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.
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.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
The Sky Dancing banner headline uses a snippet from a work by artist Tashi Mannox called 'Rainbow Study'. The work is described as a" study of typical Tibetan rainbow clouds, that feature in Thanka painting, temple decoration and silk brocades". dakinikat was immediately drawn to the image when trying to find stylized Tibetan Clouds to represent Sky Dancing. It is probably because Tashi's practice is similar to her own. His updated take on the clouds that fill the collection of traditional thankas is quite special.
You can find his work at his website by clicking on his logo below. He is also a calligraphy artist that uses important vajrayana syllables. We encourage you to visit his on line studio.
Recent Comments