danajohnhill.org | Hard Times Come Again No More

On NPR this morning, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said, “the default rate on mortgages that have been modified thus far is very high”.  This statement caught my attention because, first, I have been saying for quite a while that getting people out of ARMs and into 30-year fixed-rate loans is the best way to prevent foreclosures, and, second, it is intentionally misleading.

Last week I read about two people in south Florida who had their mortgages modified.  One woman’s interest rate dropped 11% when her terms were changed.  Another man saw no change in his monthly payment because the bank added so many fees and penalties.  She kept her house; he went into foreclosure after all.

Rep. Cantor is right that the default rate on modified mortgages is high, but only if your definition of “modified” is very broad:

“It’s becoming more and more clear to us that if you do real modifications the default rate is significantly lower”, said Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, who has led a group of state officials pushing the industry to modify more loans. “They shouldn’t be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same”.

The facts are that genuine modifications keep 75% of borrowers in their homes, and allow them to stay current.  If the “modifications” Rep. Cantor criticizes fail, it’s because they aren’t modifications at all.

Filed under: Current Events, Politics, Rantings on February 25th, 2009 | No Comments »

…That Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.  Sure, most of his tax problems were ones I could imagine happening to anyone who has multiple sources of income, and spends money in ways that I do not, like receiving rides in limousines and airplanes.  And I am still shocked and appalled at the ways in which the rich are not paying their taxes.  If I owed the IRS over $100,000 I’d probably be in jail.  But all that aside, I think that Tom Daschle, however nice a person he is in his private life, was an exceptionally weak senator who wasn’t strong enough to win reelection for his seat, much less effectively execute a leadership role when he had that opportunity.  I feel the same way about Harry Reed today, and Nancy Pelosi in the house.  They are lame.  The Republicans lost power because their ideas were bad, and their execution of those ideas was even worse.  Also, many of them were terrifically corrupt.  But Tom Delay was no weakling, and Newt Gingrich had guts.  I think they’re both awful people, but they did what their constituents wanted them to do.

I think Barack Obama is a smart, capable man.  I want him to be surrounded by other smart, capable people.  Tom Daschle doesn’t seem very capable to me.

Filed under: Current Events, Politics on February 3rd, 2009 | No Comments »

First, Dick Cheney is human garbage.  He just told Jim Lehrer that he doesn’t believe that the public disapproves of his actions and performance as vice president.  When reminded of his historically low approval ratings, he said something to the effect that that’s not what he’s hearing from people.  No kidding!  Imagine that: Dick Cheney–the man who disappears from the public eye for long stretches; gives few interviews, especially to legitimate news organizations; spends a considerable amount of time in a bunker–doesn’t realize that an enormous majority of Americans think he bears considerable personal responsibility for much of the United States’ present difficulties.  Cheney, lest we forget, has been wrong about almost every single thing that has happened in the past eight years.  He would probably still tell you that there are weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq really was in the last throes of the insurgency in 2005.

Second, what is wrong with this Timothy Geithner guy?  If you’re just some regular dude, I can understand being confused about what has and hasn’t been withheld from your paycheck.  But this guy is supposed to be running the Treasury Department?  I think an awareness of your personal tax liability should be among the minimum qualifications to hold that job.  Meanwhile, it seems the common denominator amongst all rich and powerful wankers is undocumented household employees.  Two tips:

1. If you’re rich enough to hire household help, you’re rich enough to hire a U.S. citizen.  Don’t be so cheap.
2. President-elect Obama should drop this guy.  There’re better people out there.

Filed under: Politics, Rantings on January 14th, 2009 | No Comments »

With less than a week to go before his tenure as president concludes, George W. Bush is busy giving interviews.  These naturally involve questions about his administration’s actions and policies.  The answers he is giving to these questions–questions often pertaining to mistakes made during his presidency–are  frustrating to hear.  He claimed in a press conference that he doesn’t believe that America’s image abroad has been damaged by his policies.  Really!?  I guess I can understand that attitude if I consider how carefully he’s been insulated from protest.  It isn’t like people angry with his administration are given opportunities to introduce themselves to him and complain in person.  He’s probably seen many middle fingers raised in his direction while passing by spectators in a limousine, and had a shoe hurled his way now and then.  But he is kidding himself if he thinks America is as respected abroad as it was before he chose to invade Iraq, and authorize torture of human beings and hold them without due process.  His insistence that his administration “doesn’t torture” is now known to be a lie.

I guess it doesn’t matter any more what President Bush thinks or does.  Since the beginning of 2008 it seems that the public has written him off, and has been eagerly awaiting the day when he leaves the White House and our lives.  The next president will have a lot of work to do, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense, I suppose, to exert a great deal of energy holding the bad actors of the Bush Administration accountable.  How criminal Bush has been himself is unclear.  Contrary to his frequent pronouncements that his “job is to protect the American people”, the president swears an oath only to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.  In that light, many of Bush’s activities can be seen to be a violation of that oath.  It would feel good to see John Yoo, David Addington, Paul Wolfowitz and others in prison, but the damage is already done.

It’s one thing to make poor decisions or promote flawed policies.  Imagine, for example, that Bush had had his way in 2005, and his Social Security privatization program had been authorized.  Millions of Americans would be worse off today.  That would have been bad policy, but at least it would have gone through the proper channels and had a fair hearing.  It is another thing entirely, in my opinion, to have behind-the-scenes  wheeling and dealing with mid-level Justice Department lawyers to authorize warrant-less wiretapping, or instruct the CIA to kidnap civilians off the streets and fly them blindfolded to secret prisons in foreign countries to be tortured.  That all once seemed very John Clancy, but we now know it to have happened while Bush was president.  His shoulder-shrugging notwithstanding, a lot of people have been harmed by his policies.  With less than a week to go, it all just seems so sad.

Filed under: Politics, Rantings on January 14th, 2009 | No Comments »

My understanding of civics and history is decent.  I’m not an authority, of course, and there is something I would really like to understand.

Following a US presidential election, like the one we had last week, when the results come in from states across the country, and one candidate passes the required 270 mark in the electoral college, they are the winner.  Sure, the electoral college doesn’t formally convene until December, but last Tuesday night it was clear that Senator Obama was the winner, and will be president elect.

Here’s where it gets a little foggy for me:  So, Senator Obama is watching CNN, and he sees Wolf Blitzer and John King analyzing the maps, and projecting winners in each state until, finally, the 270 mark is passed. What happens then?  Obviously, Senator Obama–and everyone else–knows he’s won.  But is there some sort of formal procedure that’s followed?  Yes, the loser generally concedes, as John McCain did in a speech that exhibited a great deal of class.  And President Bush called Senator Obama, too.  But neither of those events are necessary.  I mean, even if, hypothetically, John McCain had stood up in that Phoenix hotel ballroom and said, “I declare myself the winner!”, it wouldn’t have mattered; 346 electoral college votes say otherwise.  But does some government official call up Barack Obama and say, “We’re watching CNN.  They say you have the votes, so, if you’re going to be home tomorrow morning, we’d like to come by and start telling you the all the classified state secrets you’re going to need to know”?  Something like that must happen, because, sure enough, the day after the election the NSA or CIA or some agency was briefing President Elect Obama.

Are there any authorities on US presidential history reading?

Filed under: Current Events, History, Politics, Television on November 9th, 2008 | 1 Comment »