white house

CBS 5 – KPHO Occupy DC, police to meet in noon showdown

by on January 30, 2012

WASHINGTON (RNN) – the National Park Service plans to enforce a “no camping” ban in two parks where Occupy DC protestors have setup two encampments. Clearing of the parks will take place at noon today.

Demonstrators say they will defend their sites at McPherson Park, located near the White House on K Street – synonymous with the lobbyists who work there – and Freedom Plaza, which is located on Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and Congress.

The Occupy DC group said on its website they will resist peacefully, and fully expect to be arrested.

“Show that we are the citizens here. [We] are the ones that are fighting for our democracy who's saying corporations are people and money is free speech, which doesn't really make sense to us,” Occupy DC protestor Sara Shaw told CNN. “So we're going to make sure we're there to meet the park police.”

Protestors have been at both encampments since the beginning of October 2011, a short time after the Occupy Wall Street protests began in September and spread across the country.

Over the weekend, many Occupy movements protested in cities across the country, resulting in arrests. Things turned violent in Oakland, CA, where hundreds of protesters clashed with police.

Some protestors entered City Hall, and vandalized some of the facility. the new York Times reported that more than 400 protesters were arrested.

“Officers were pelted with bottles, metal pipes, spray cans, improvised explosive devices and burning flares,” a statement by the police said.

A video posted online showed an Occupy DC protester walking away from U.S. Park Police, yelling that he had done nothing wrong before one of the officers used a stun gun on the man. CNN reports that shortly before he was tased, the man was removing eviction notices placed on tents by the park service.

[VIDEO: Occupy DC protestor tased by police WARNING: Strong language, brief nudity]

Two weeks ago, National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis told CNN he saw no reason to remove the protestors as they were well within their constitutional rights to be in the parks.

“We have the National Mall, McPherson Square, Freedom Plaza, all of those are first Amendment sites,” he said, “and I think if there's any place in this country, Washington, DC, is the place where we need to be the most tolerant of individuals that are exercising their first Amendment activities,” Jarvis told CNN.

U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, took issue with this, calling for Jarvis to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Jan. 24.

Issa and others on the committee pointed out that by law, protestors are permitted to maintain a 24-hour vigil in any park – but not sleep there. the Park Service can limit overnight stays in U.S. parks without infringing on speech, according to a 1984 Supreme Court ruling in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence.

CBS 5 – KPHO Occupy DC, police to meet in noon showdown

Obama Rejects Permit For Keystone Pipeline; GOP Jobs Claims Inaccurate

by on January 18, 2012

Congress insisted on a February 21 deadline to approve the pipeline, and the Obama administration says no can do. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says that what got in the way was being forced to decide quickly because of politics.

“The Republicans put in jeopardy a process that should be immune from politics, should be conducted on the basis of pragmatic and considered analysis, and tried to hijack it,” Carney said at his daily press briefing.

Republicans are going crazy claiming this means President Obama doesn’t care about jobs. The jobs claims are based on numbers by the company building the pipeline, as the Washington Post fact checker points out. and there is more to the veracity of the jobs numbers:

TransCanada Corp., which is pushing to build the pipeline, claims that Keystone XL “was poised to put 20,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline.” The company also cites another figure — 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL would create through increased business for local restaurants, hotels and suppliers — that comes from a study commissioned by the company. The study even suggested that under “normal” oil price assumptions, the number of permanent jobs would top 250,000.

But:

[TransCanada CEO Russ] Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was “one person, one year,” meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. that brings the company’s number closer to the State Department’s; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix.

As for the 7,000 indirect supply chain jobs, the $1.9 billion already spent by TransCanada would reduce the number of jobs that would be created in the future. The Brixton Group, a firm working with opponents of the project, has argued that many of the indirect supply jobs would be outside the United States because about $1.7 billion worth of steel will be purchased from a Russian-owned mill in Canada.

And as for safety:

One example of what worries activists: the break in an Exxon Mobil pipeline in Montana over the summer. on Friday, Exxon said efforts to control and clean up the 42,000-gallon spill would cost about $135 million.

Obama Rejects Permit For Keystone Pipeline; GOP Jobs Claims Inaccurate

How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation

by on January 17, 2012

Over the weekend, the Obama administration issued a potentially game-changing statement on the blacklist bills, saying it would oppose PIPA and SOPA as written, and drew an important line in the sand by emphasizing that it “will not support” any bill “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Yet, the fight is still far from over. Even though the New York Times reported that the White House statement “all but kill[s] current versions of the legislation,” the Senate is still poised to bring PIPA to the floor next week, and we can expect SOPA proponents in the House to try to revive the legislation—unless they get the message that these initiatives must stop, now. So let’s take a look at the dangerous provisions in the blacklist bills that would violate the White House’s own principles by damaging free speech, Internet security, and online innovation:

The Anti-Circumvention Provision

In addition to going after websites allegedly directly involved in copyright infringement, a proposal in SOPA will allow the government to target sites that simply provide information that could help users get around the bills’ censorship mechanisms. Such a provision would not only amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint against protected speech, but would severely damage online innovation. And contrary to claims by SOPA’s supporters, this provision—at least what’s been proposed so far—applies to all websites, even those in the U.S.

As first Amendment expert Marvin Ammori points out, “The language is pretty vague, but it appears all these companies must monitor their sites for anti-circumvention so they are not subject to court actions ‘enjoining’ them from continuing to provide ‘such product or service.’” that means social media sites like Facebook or YouTube—basically any site with user generated content—would have to police their own sites, forcing huge liability costs onto countless Internet companies. this is exactly why venture capitalists have said en masse they won’t invest in online startups if PIPA and SOPA pass. Websites would be forced to block anything from a user post about browser add-ons like DeSopa, to a simple list of IP addresses of already-blocked sites.

Perhaps worse, EFF has detailed how this provision would also decimate the open source software community. anyone who writes or distributes Virtual Private Network, proxy, privacy or anonymization software would be negatively affected. this includes organizations that are funded by the State Department to create circumvention software to help democratic activists get around authoritarian regimes’ online censorship mechanisms. Ironically, SOPA would not only institute the same practices as these regimes, but would essentially outlaw the tools used by activists to circumvent censorship in countries like Iran and China as well.

The “Vigilante” Provision

Another dangerous provision in PIPA and SOPA that hasn’t received a lot of attention is the “vigilante” provision, which would grant broad immunity to all service providers if they overblock innocent users or block sites voluntarily with no judicial oversight at all. The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts. Intermediaries only need to act “in good faith” and base their decision “on credible evidence” to receive immunity.

As we noted months ago, this provision would allow the MPAA and RIAA to create literal blacklists of sites they want censored. Intermediaries will find themselves under pressure to act to avoid court orders, creating a vehicle for corporations to censor sites—even those in the U.S.—without any legal oversight. And as Public Knowledge has pointed out, not only can this provision be used for bogus copyright claims that are protected by fair use, but large corporations can take advantage of it to stamp out emerging competitors and skirt anti-trust laws:

For instance, an Internet service provider could block DNS requests for a website offering online video that competed with its cable television offerings, based upon “credible evidence” that the site was, in its own estimation, promoting its use for infringement….While the amendment requires that the action be taken in good faith, the blocked site now bears the burden of proving either its innocence or the bad faith of its accuser in order to be unblocked.

Corporate right of Action

PIPA and SOPA also still allow copyright holders to get an unopposed court order to cut off foreign websites from payment processors and advertisers. As we have continually highlighted, copyright holders already can remove infringing material from the web under the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. unfortunately, we’ve seen that power abused time and again. yet the proponents of PIPA and SOPA want to give rightsholders even more power, allowing them to essentially shut down full sites instead of removing the specific infringing content.

While this provision only affects foreign sites, it still affects Americans’ free speech rights. As Marvin Ammori explained, “The seminal case of Lamont v. Postmaster makes it clear that Americans have the first Amendment right to read and listen to foreign speech, even if the foreigners lack a first Amendment speech right.” If history is any guide—and we’re afraid it is—we will see specious claims to wholesale take downs of legitimate and protected speech.

Expanded Attorney General Powers

PIPA and SOPA would also give the Attorney General new authority to block domain name services, a provision that has been universally criticized by both Internet security experts and first Amendment scholars. Even the blacklist bills’ authors are now publicly second-guessing that scary provision. but even without it, this section would still force many intermediaries to become the Internet police by putting the responsibility of censorship enforcement on those intermediaries, who are usually innocent third parties.

The Attorney General would also be empowered to de-list websites from search engines, which, as Google Chairman Eric Schmidt noted, would still “criminalize linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself.” The same applies to payment processors and advertisers.

These are just some of the egregious provisions in PIPA and SOPA that would drastically change the way we use the Internet (for the worse), and punish millions of innocent users who have never even thought about copyright infringement. As Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained, PIPA and SOPA are “the equivalent of being angry and trying to take action against Ford just because a Mustang was used in a bank robbery.” these bills must be stopped if we want to protect free speech and innovation on the web.

Please take action now and tell your Congressional representatives you oppose the blacklist bills.

How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation

Jon Huntsman’s Path to Victory

by on January 16, 2012

Longtime readers will know that I was initially very skeptical about Jon M. Huntsman Jr.’s chances of winning the Republican nomination. mr. Huntsman, in my view, had two fundamental challenges that would be very difficult for any candidate to overcome.

First, mr. Huntsman faced a significant strategic challenge. He chose from the start to run to the left of the Republican field, sometimes quite explicitly critiquing his party on issues like global warming. However, Republican voters are becoming more conservative. moreover, parties have historically tended to nominate more “extreme” candidates (meaning very conservative or very liberal ones) in their first cycle after losing the White House.

Mr. Huntsman has broken with his party on environmental policy, on civil unions for gay couples and on several key aspects of foreign policy. He also served in the administration of the Democratic president whom Republican voters are hoping to defeat. certainly, he is not without conservative credentials. his record on abortion and gun control is strong from a conservative’s standpoint. The conservative-leaning Cato Institute gave him a very strong grade for his record on taxes in Utah (although a poor grade for his record on spending). And some of mr. Huntsman’s views on foreign policy, if they do not square with the more interventionist policy that dominated Republican thinking during the George W. Bush era, are nevertheless in line with a broader conservative tradition.

Still, as compared to the median Republican primary voter circa 2012, mr. Huntsman is a relatively moderate Republican and is perceived as such. The vast majority of mr. Huntsman’s fund-raising has come from the moderate wing of the party, including from voters who classify themselves as pro-choice. perhaps mr. Huntsman did not help matters, as my colleague Ross Douthat notes, by giving most of his interviews to center- or left-leaning media outlets, nor by sometimes taking a scolding attitude toward the other Republican candidates during debates. But he wasn’t going to fool anyone into thinking that he was Rep. Michele Bachmann and would have looked ridiculous by trying.

Then there was mr. Huntsman’s tactical challenge. this challenge has a name: Mitt Romney. how was mr. Huntsman, running at about 2 percent in the polls, going to knock off mr. Romney, who was running at 20 percent? Especially given that the two have a fair number of biographical and policy similarities, but mr. Romney has much more money, much more support from the Republican establishment, much better name recognition among Republican voters and much more campaign experience, having run for president before.

Perhaps mr. Huntsman had some running room to mr. Romney’s left. But running toward a wing of one’s party is a good way to get 15 percent or 20 percent of the vote and no more. moreover, running to mr. Romney’s left meant that mr. Huntsman had little chance of competing in Iowa, an electorate that has very few moderates. perhaps wisely, his campaign has expended almost no resources there.

But by giving up on Iowa, mr. Huntsman invited two further problems. The first problem is simply that when you don’t win Iowa, someone else does. if that someone were mr. Romney, he would probably become his party’s nominee. if it were someone like Rick Perry, that candidate might become the front-runner.

The second and related problem is new Hampshire, where mr. Romney has something of a home-state advantage and has always significantly outperformed his national numbers. you can’t downplay expectations in both Iowa and new Hampshire and expect to have much of a chance (see: Giuliani, Rudolph W.), meaning that mr. Huntsman must perform well in the state. But even if mr. Romney were weakened by a poor showing in Iowa, or by other events during the campaign, he’d have a long way to drop before becoming vulnerable in new Hampshire as well.

Thus, mr. Huntsman’s campaign was predicated on something of a long-shot parlay. mr. Huntsman probably did not have the firepower to overcome mr. Romney all by himself. Instead, he needed some help from another candidate, someone who weakened mr. Romney to the point that he could lose new Hampshire. The problem is that he also needed the “helper” candidate to be vulnerable as well, and not have a lock on the nomination.

Consider mrs. Bachmann. she is capable of beating mr. Romney in Iowa. But a victory by her there might be chalked up to her regional advantage in the state or to her appeal to evangelicals — perceived as a one-hit wonder along the lines of Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Pat Robertson’s second-place showing in 1996. A win by mrs. Bachmann might thus do little damage to mr. Romney in new Hampshire or the other states. On the other hand, if a candidate like Tim Pawlenty had won Iowa — someone who had more traditional credentials and more support from the party establishment — he or she might have become the major alternative to mr. Romney, with mr. Huntsman playing little role.

The reason why I’ve become less skeptical about mr. Huntsman’s chances is that he might have found the perfect foil in the current Iowa front-runner, Newt Gingrich. mr. Gingrich is enough within the Republican mainstream that he can compete directly for some of mr. Romney’s voters, something which by and large did not appear to be true for candidates like mrs. Bachmann and Herman Cain who had surged previously.

But mr. Gingrich nevertheless faces a number of fundamental challenges — including, most notably, that the party establishment is extremely reluctant to nominate him. mr. Gingrich is exactly the sort of candidate who could substantially harm mr. Romney’s campaign without locking up the nomination for himself — and the odds of this will increase the more that Mr. Gingrich and mr. Romney go after one another.

The best-case scenario for mr. Huntsman might be if you had a result like this one in Iowa:

1. Newt Gingrich — 25 percent 2. Ron Paul — 22 percent 3. Michele Bachmann — 16 percent 4. Rick Perry — 14 percent 5. Mitt Romney — 14 percent 6. Rick Santorum — 9 percent

These numbers aren’t totally arbitrary; they’re pretty much what you get if you take the current polling averages in Iowa but subtract a few points from mr. Gingrich and mr. Romney (and reallocate them to the other candidates) on the theory that a negative campaign might harm them both. A result like this — a fourth or fifth-place finish — would do a lot of damage to mr. Romney. On the other hand, while mr. Gingrich would win, it would be by an underwhelming margin amid high expectations. it would probably not reverse mr. Gingrich’s momentum, but might constrain it to the point that he would not run away with the race. Meanwhile, mr. Huntsman would not mind that Ron Paul had done relatively well in Iowa, since mr. Paul also polls relatively well in new Hampshire and could complicate both mr. Gingrich’s and mr. Romney’s paths to victory there.

Even absent this specific scenario, there are other permutations where mr. Romney loses new Hampshire but the candidate who beats him does not have a lock on the nomination. if either mr. Gingrich or mr. Paul were to win new Hampshire, for instance, mr. Huntsman could claim that he had supplanted mr. Romney as the safe and electable alternative with a strong second-place (or perhaps even third-place) showing. keep in mind that supplanting mr. Romney would not be tantamount to winning the nomination — it’s possible that the contest could come down to mr. Gingrich and mr. Huntsman, or even mr. Perry and mr. Huntsman, and that mr. Huntsman would lose that fight. But at least he’d be in the ballgame.

But what about mr. Huntsman’s strategic problem — that he is running toward the left flank of a party which is moving toward the right? it remains a huge challenge for his campaign. However, mr. Huntsman can make the case that even if he is not a down-the-line Tea Party conservative, he is much more reliable than either mr. Gingrich or mr. Romney and voters will know what they’re getting.

Mr. Huntsman, of course, is making exactly this argument, having released a series of well-produced and hard-hitting commercials that target mr. Romney for his flip-flopping and that concludes with the motto “consistency matters.” although this message is not yet resonating much with Republican voters nationally, mr. Huntsman’s polling is respectable in new Hampshire and he is eliciting more sympathy from commentators as diverse as George F. Will and Erick Erickson.

I don’t want to make this sound as though it will be easy. Even if mr. Huntsman’s message is a salable one to Republican voters, they don’t necessarily like the messenger; instead, mr. Huntsman’s favorability ratings with Republicans are middling to poor. mr. Huntsman’s campaign can protest that he is much less known than the other Republican contenders and therefore has more upside potential, which is true as far as it goes, but his path would be much easier if he had a third of of Chris Christie’s charisma — or two-thirds of mr. Gingrich’s debating skills. I don’t know whether I’d buy or sell shares in mr. Huntsman at Intrade, where bettors estimate that he has a 6 percent or 7 percent chance of winning the nomination.

Still, mr. Huntsman’s path is much less obstacle-laden than it was a few months ago. At a minimum, he is dangerous enough to significantly complicate mr. Romney’s life, and mr. Huntsman has a plausible chance of winning the nomination for himself.

Correction: A previous version of this post mistakenly said that Pat Robertson placed second in the 1996 Iowa Republican caucuses. mr. Robertson finished second in 1988. Pat Buchanan was the runner-up in Iowa in 1996.

Jon Huntsman’s Path to Victory

US election 2012: ‘Manchurian Candidate’ Jon Huntsman facing the end

by on January 6, 2012

He told a crowd of young supporters that as president he would promptly complete the full withdrawal of US troops from the unpopular war in Afghanistan, to fairly muted applause.

“Our future depends on how prepared we are as a people to meet the challenge of the 21st century”, he said, predicting that this would come from “over the Pacific” and “in cities I have lived in”.

Mr Huntsman was rated the most likely candidate to beat mr Obama in the presidential election if he could secure the nomination by Nate Silver, a polling expert whose forecasts were accurate in 2008.

He caused consternation in the White House by leaving Beijing to run for president last year. mr Obama’s decision to appoint a Republican to the prestigious post in 2009 was viewed as a pre-emptive block to such a challenge for his job.

A thank-you letter in which mr Huntsman told the president: “You are a remarkable leader, and it has been an honour getting to know you”, promptly made its way into the press, apparently to harm his prospects among conservatives who would not agree.

This week he has also faced the first attacks for his links to the country that other candidates in this campaign painted as a job-stealing bogeyman.

“American values? or Chinese?” asks a video clip produced by allies of Dr Paul, between scenes of mr Huntsman speaking Mandarin.

The advertisement, which dubbed him “the Manchurian candidate”, also questioned whether the adopted daughters mr Huntsman rescued from China and India were in fact his own.

Mr Huntsman said the clip was “just stupid”.

“What I object to is bringing forward pictures and videos of my adopted daughters and suggesting there’s something sinister there,” he added.

A spokesman for Dr Paul said the clip was “utterly distasteful” and not linked to his campaign.

Kim Burgess, a 46-year-old attorney in the audience, described the clip as “shameful”. “it is a

You can read the rest of this article at:: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8998855/US-election-2012-Manchurian-Candidate-Jon-Huntsman-facing-the-end.html

Short URL: http://thepresidency.us/?p=9097

Barbara Walters Reportedly Drops a Bombshell During Interview With President Obama : TVBizwire : TVWeek – Television Industry news, TV ratings, analysis, celebrity event photos

by on December 15, 2011

Barbara Walters, 82, reportedly dropped a bombshell today during an interview with President Obama. according to a source who was present during the White House interview, Walters said she will retire next year, TMZ.com reports.

The website reports: “according to the source, during a break in the action, Barbara leaned over to Obama and said, ‘I need one more interview with you because I’m retiring next year.’ Here’s the thing … Barbara’s mic was open when she said it, and lots of people were listening.”

In a classic non-denial, denial, Jeff Schneider, Sr. VP of ABC News, told TMZ, "Barbara has joked that she is retiring every year since the Clinton Administration. anyone who just did a day trip to Syria, 90-minute prime time special and an interview with the President and first Lady hardly sounds like someone retiring from anything."

Horse Slaughter Ban Lifted; Questions Arise

by on December 1, 2011

BEND, Ore. — Horses could soon be butchered in the U.S. for human consumption after Congress quietly lifted a 5-year-old ban on funding horse meat inspections, and activists say slaughterhouses could be up and running in as little as a month.Slaughter opponents pushed a measure cutting off funding for horse meat inspections through Congress in 2006 after other efforts to pass outright bans on horse slaughter failed in previous years. Congress lifted the ban in a spending bill President Barack Obama signed into law Nov. 18 to keep the government afloat until mid-December.it did not, however, allocate any new money to pay for horse meat inspections, which opponents claim could cost taxpayers $3 million to $5 million a year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would have to find the money in its existing budget, which is expected to see more cuts this year as Congress and the White House aim to trim federal spending.The USDA issued a statement Tuesday saying there are no slaughterhouses in the U.S. that butcher horses for human consumption now, but if one were to open, it would conduct inspections to make sure federal laws were being followed. USDA spokesman Neil Gaffney declined to answer questions beyond what was in the statement.The last U.S. slaughterhouse that butchered horses closed in 2007 in Illinois, and animal welfare activists warned of massive public outcry in any town where a slaughterhouse may open.”If plants open up in Oklahoma or Nebraska, you’ll see controversy, litigation, legislative action and basically a very inhospitable environment to operate,” predicted Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States. “Local opposition will emerge and you’ll have tremendous controversy over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed.”But pro-slaughter activists say the ban had unintended consequences, including an increase in neglect and the abandonment of horses, and that they are scrambling to get a plant going

The White House Unveils Initiative To Help ‘Underwater’ Homeowners

by on October 25, 2011

Morgan Brennan, On Monday October 24, 2011, 4:21 pm EDT

On Monday, the White House announced a new initiative to help “underwater” homeowners, or homeowners with mortgages worth more than the properties associated with them, refinance their mortgage loans. under the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), the administration, working with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, plans to overhaul “key barriers” that have hindered homeowners from successfully refinancing their mortgages. the intended effect will be to offer homeowners with little to no equity in their homes the opportunity to refinance for the low interest rates available today, at lower costs. the opportunity is only available for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-backed loans. “We have far too many Americans who have done all the right things, have paid their bills and are current on their mortgages, yet they are still stuck with 6% or 7% mortgages because home prices in their neighborhoods have made them ineligible for refinancing,” states Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In the second quarter of 2011, 10.9 million — or 22.5% — of all homeowners were underwater on their homes, according to Corelogic, a Santa Ana, Calif.-based data firm. Homeowners burdened by underwater mortgages have, despite a bevy of government initiatives like HARP, been in many cases unable to refinance their loans and thwart the foreclosure process. HARP was created in 2009 to help as many as five million homeowners refinance their loans. as of today, the number of homeowners successfully able to refinance through the program has been 822,000 — painfully short of that goal. Worse, less than 10% of those 822,000 were homeowners more than underwater by more than 5% on their loans. To make the refi process more effective for more homeowners, the implementation of five major changes to revamp HARP will take place. President Obama is scheduled to discuss the initiative, part of his new “We Can’t Wait” campaign, further while visiting hard-hit Nevada this week. here are the HARP changes, as outlined by Secretary Donovan and Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council, in a conference call earlier today:

1. No more Cap on Underwater Amount. any homeowner who was more than 25% underwater on their mortgage was not eligible for HARP. under the new initiative, any borrower, no matter how deeply underwater, will be eligible.

2. Lowered Homeowner Costs to Refinance. Donovan says many homeowners chose not to utilize HARP because of the high costs associated with doing so. To knock some of those costs down, the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) will eliminate the risk-based fees they were charging for refi. the number of homeowners who need to get an appraisal to qualify for refi is being cut down too, with an automatic valuation technique being employed wherever possible. the cost of title insurance and loan processing are being reduced. and Donovan says the Treasury is collaborating with the Hardest Hit Funds in the hardest hit states housing-wise to see if there are ways for those states to help with closing costs as well.

3. Elimination of Reps and Warranties on Existing Loans. the mortgage lenders who made the original loans have responsibilities to Fannie and Freddie for the underwriting quality of those loans, but the resolution of those responsibilities has remained very murky territory. the result has been other lenders refusing to refinance existing loans because of uncertainty about what liabilities they might be taking on in the process. the FHFA says it will eliminate those reps and warranties on old loans and streamline the ones required on new refinanced loans. Sperling believes this will “unleash competition” among lenders to refinance loans. Despite the push to knock down closing costs, a “modest” fee will reportedly accompany this, details to be announced November 15.

4. Insurance Coverage Transferred to New Loan. Like lenders, mortgage insurers holding risks on underwater mortgages have had similar problems with reps and warranties that need to be resolved. under this overhaul, the major mortgage insurers have agreed to automatically transfer coverage from the old loan to the refinanced loan.

5. Re-subordinating Secondary Loans. In many cases homeowners attempting to refi have secondary loans held by lenders that refuse to re-subordinate the loan behind the new refinanced mortgage loan. Donovan says the administration is working with the major lenders to automatically subordinate their secondary loans behind the refinanced loans.

The FHFA and the Obama administration estimate that addressing these “key barriers” will enable more underwater homeowners to successfully refinance, saving as much as $2,500 per household per year. the program’s deadline is also being extended out from summer of 2012 until December of 2013. How many borrowers would be eligible for HARP under its new guidelines? Apparently the administration is trying to avoid making a projection right now: “The question of how many borrowers are ultimately eligible from the efforts announced today is uncertain and obviously the number of borrowers that will take this up is inherently uncertain,” dodges Sperling. Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke has estimated that up to four million homeowners appear to meet the basic criteria under these reforms. A big issue yet to be addressed properly by the administration is more accessible principal balance modifications. It’s nice to have more access to refinancing, but in places like, well, hard hit Nevada, property prices in Las Vegas have plunged as much as 60% since the 2006 peak, according to Zillow. Donovan says there will be options under HARP to accelerate the reduction of negative equity, including allowing borrowers to switch from 30-year loans to 15-year loans to pay off their loan balances sooner. but that doesn’t really incentivize a person to hang onto their home when they could default and live rent free until either a short sale or foreclosure auction materializes. Will these amendments usher in a higher success rate for HARP? will it actually be enough of a cost savings to empower underwater homeowners to thwart foreclosure? Are the government’s efforts helping housing? tell me what you think in the COMMENTS section below.

The White House Unveils Initiative To Help ‘Underwater’ Homeowners

Michaele Salahi News – UPDATE: Michaele Salahi Wasn’t Kidnapped, Ran Off with Journey Guitarist – Celebuzz

by on September 14, 2011

In WTF news of the day, reports now say that Michaele Salahi hasn’t been kidnapped as her husband feared — but the reality may be much worse (for his ego).

TMZ reports that one half of the infamous White House crashers has indeed run off, but on her own accord. The site claims that she skipped town with Neal Schon, the lead guitarist for the band Journey. let the head scratching begin…

According to the report, the two have been embroiled in a secret affair. A source confirms the two have been involved in what she has allegedly called an “intimate and passionate relationship.”

A rep for Journey tells TMZ: “Nobody kidnapped her and they are in Memphis together.”

Source: Getty Images

White House: Highlights of Obama’s plan

by on September 9, 2011

(CNN) — here is the text of an overview of the American Jobs Act released Thursday night by the White House:

1. Tax Cuts to help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow

– Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98% of businesses: the president’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98% of firms that have payroll below this threshold.

– a complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: the president’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).

– Extending 100% expensing into 2012: this continues an effective incentive for new investment.

– Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

2. Putting Workers Back on the Job while Rebuilding and Modernizing America

– a "Returning Heroes" tax credit for hiring veterans: this provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.

– Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.

– Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

– immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.

– a New "Project Rebuild," which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.

– Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.

3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans looking for Jobs

– the most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the president’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:

** Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.

** a new "Bridge to Work" program: the plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.

** Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.

– a $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.

– Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.

– Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family

– Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: the President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 — providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.

– Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.

5. Fully Paid for as part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan

– to ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the president will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. the president will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the president’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

We recommend from around the web

White House: Highlights of Obama’s plan

← Previous Entries

white house

Recent Posts