Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

I guess Obama doesn't understand the concept of "moral hazard" that brought us these problems in the first place. You'd think someone could've explained it to him by now.A FAKE FINANCIAL FIX by Mark A. Calabria June 18, 2009 THE Obama administration yesterday presented a misguided, ill-informed remake of our financial regulatory system that will make crises more likely and more costly. Our financial system, particularly our mortgage system, is broken -- but the Obama plan ignores the real flaws to focus on more convenient targets. Instead of putting an end to bank bailouts, the plan makes bailouts a permanent feature of our regulatory landscape. In fact, it extends the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts to any company choosing to become a financial-holding company. This will likely include every large insurer, as well as major consumer-finance companies like GMAC. Of course, the administration tells us that bailouts won't be needed -- because the same regulators who missed the signs of the current crisis will get added powers to prevent the next one. We're supposed to believe that, if only the Federal Reserve had the same oversight powers over AIG as it now has over Citibank and Bank of America, that the bailout of AIG would have been avoided. Just think: If only AIG had been managed and regulated as well as Citibank -- because Citi is in such great shape now. In the wake of this crisis, it's understandable that the Obama plan increases regulation and oversight of the largest financial institutions -- but why do it in ways that reduce the market discipline on those same companies? By assembling a list of institutions deemed "too big to fail," the president is announcing that any of these select corporations will be bailed out if it fails. As a result, these institutions will face lower funding costs than smaller lenders -- which will allow them to gain market share. That is, the Obama plan guarantees increased concentration of our financial markets: We'll have fewer banks, but larger ones -- insulated from market pressures. In short, the Obama plan puts the entire safety of financial system on hoping that regulators at the Fed get everything right. Meanwhile, the plan barely mentions two institutions at the very heart of the mortgage-market meltdown -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead, the administration tells us that it will study the issue and come back with alternatives at a later date. Yet Fannie and Freddie were the single largest source of funding for the subprime market during its height, buying more than 40 percent of all subprime securities at the market peak, while also leading the market in the reduction of credit quality. In all likelihood, their ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be greater than that of the bank bailouts known as TARP. Combined taxpayer losses from Fannie and Freddie could well exceed $300 billion -- twice the expected cost of bailing out AIG. Any reform plan that leaves out Fannie and Freddie can't be taken seriously. Even when it gets things right, the plan gets it wrong: It recognizes the failure of the credit-rating agencies, but misses the source of that failure -- namely, the fact that those agencies are a government-created monopoly. So it insists on more disclosure -- which won't solve the problem. What's needed is an end to the exclusive government privileges that have been granted to the rating agencies -- and an end to the practice of having government regulators outsource their jobs to these companies. Then there's the mortgage section of the plan. Naturally, the Obama team doesn't address the largest single problem -- the federal government's obsession with extending homeownership to households that can't sustain it. Instead, it calls for increased "consumer protections" in the mortgage industry. Sadly, the administration can't confront the basic fact that the most important mortgage indicator is the borrower's equity: How much of its own money a household puts into the home tells us far more about probable default than whether the loan was adjustable-rate or has a prepayment penalty. Admitting these facts, of course, would mean admitting that programs like the Federal Housing Administration have been at the forefront of pushing unsustainable mortgage lending. In short, the Obama team has once again put politics ahead of policy, offering "answers" that will sound good to the uninformed without threatening any of the vested Washington interests that played so large a role in creating the current crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

Another day, another corrupt and cynical political move. Yawn. How's that hope and change going?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
Here's the other side of the firingWalpinAn Obama "scandal" as phony as WhitewaterThe right finds a fake martyr in Gerald Walpin, a Bush holdover and right-wing ideologue fired by President ObamaBy Joe ConasonJune 19, 2009 | To Barack Obama's most excitable adversaries, the firing of the Americorps inspector general that the president ordered last week is an incipient scandal, as loud and thrilling as Whitewater once was. Their fond memories of that ancient controversy (and its many sequels) were revived by the sudden dismissal of Gerald Walpin, a Bush administration appointee who has depicted himself as the victim of a political conspiracy. Insinuations and smears abound already -- including an attempt by the usual suspects to drag the first lady into the mud, Hillary-style, on the basis of anonymous allegations.The latest accusations of White House impropriety are indeed reminiscent of the Clinton wars. But before conservatives spin themselves into a grand mal frenzy, they ought to understand that the strongest parallels between "Walpingate" and Whitewater are the palpable flimsiness of the charges and the questionable motives of the chief accuser. Unless there is much more to this story than what responsible journalists have found so far, the buzzing chatter on the right will soon subside into a disappointed murmur.According to the wingnut version, Walpin is a heroic investigator who was ousted simply because he exposed misspending of hundreds of thousands of federal dollars by an Obama ally, namely former NBA star Kevin Johnson, who ran a nonprofit organization in Sacramento that received Americorps funding before he was elected mayor of the California state capital last fall. Walpin had to be removed on June 11, after he refused the president's request that he resign, because the White House was trying to cover up Johnson's wrongdoing and permit his city to receive federal stimulus money.That simple and sinister scenario, like so many of the media descriptions of Whitewater, omits crucial facts.It is true that Walpin found evidence of misuse and waste of Americorps funds by St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit community group started by Johnson after he retired from the NBA. It is true that Johnson and St. Hope have acknowledged that they must refund roughly half of the money that the group received from Washington. But it is also true that Walpin, a Republican activist attorney and trustee of the Federalist Society before Bush appointed him as inspector general, went well beyond his official mandate last year by publicizing supposed "criminal" wrongdoing by Johnson in the days before the Sacramento mayoral election.And it is true as well that Lawrence Brown, the United States attorney in Northern California who received Walpin's findings, decided not to bring any criminal charges against Johnson and instead reached a settlement with him and St. Hope.That settlement, filed last April, is a public document that reflects no great honor on Johnson, to put it mildly. But it also voided any possibility of a "coverup" by Obama or anyone in his administration. The case against Johnson had concluded months before the president acted to dismiss Walpin -- and in fact only drew attention to the case by doing so, as he must have known would happen.Just as salient as the accusations against Johnson, however, are those brought by Brown against Walpin. A Republican named as the acting U.S. attorney by Bush, Brown filed a sharply worded complaint against Walpin with the oversight office for the federal inspectors general that charged him with ethical violations in an overzealous assault on Johnson and St. Hope. The U.S. attorney said that Walpin had "overstepped his authority by electing to provide my office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth" -- in other words, Walpin had failed to provide substantive exculpatory facts to the U.S. attorney, while trying to push the government into opening a criminal probe of Johnson. During the election season in Sacramento, Brown noted that Walpin had sought publicity for his findings against Johnson in the local media before discussing them with the U.S. Attorney's Office, "hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."Here the parallels with the early history of Whitewater seem nearly perfect. Brown's levelheaded handling of Walpin's exaggerated charges against Johnson are much like the dismissal of the original Whitewater complaints by Charles Banks, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., and an honest Republican who refused to gin up a phony indictment of the Clintons before the 1992 election (and lost his job as a result). And Walpin's excessive zeal and lust for publicity bear a startling resemblance to the antics of L. Jean Lewis, the Resolution Trust Corp. official who concocted a series of implausible theories implicating the Clintons in the looting of an Arkansas savings and loan.But Walpin, now in his late 70s, is a more intriguing figure than Lewis ever was. A hard-line conservative with a résumé that dates back to the early '60s, he was a curious choice for a position that requires dispassionate judgment and nonpartisan fairness. Although he developed a reputation as a highly capable litigator at a major New York City law firm, he has devoted much of his life to the causes of the extreme right, in particular as a trustee of the Federalist Society and as a director of the Center for Individual Rights, a right-wing law foundation devoted to overturning affirmative-action programs.He appears to have continued acting in those capacities even after his appointment as inspector general. In November 2007, for instance, he delivered a speech at a Federalist Society function titled "Inherent Presidential Wartime Powers -- The Wiretap Program is Constitutional." Then in March 2008, he wrote an Op-Ed essay for the New York Daily News berating human rights lawyers at Yale Law School for pursuing a legal action against John Yoo, the former Justice Department official famous for his memoranda justifying torture of terror suspects.Media profiles of Walpin now often mention his nasty quip at a November 2005 luncheon when he introduced Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, as the leader of a state dominated by "the modern-day KKK ... the Kennedy-Kerry Klan," a reference to the Bay State's U.S. senators, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Joking about Catholic politicians belonging to the Klan is always obnoxious, but Walpin was guilty of worse than poor taste.Aside from its ferocious pursuit of lawsuits against affirmative action, the Center for Individual Rights, where Walpin served as director for many years, has displayed an enduring attraction to academic racism, or at least to its practitioners. That attraction led CIR to represent both Michael Levin, the notorious racist professor at the City University of New York, and Linda Gottfredson, an obscure University of Delaware professor whose negative research on African-Americans has made her a heroine to racial extremists. To finance this kind of litigation, CIR accepted thousands of dollars from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation dedicated to proving that blacks are racially inferior to whites and Asians -- in short, the intellectual equivalent of the KKK.For that reason and many others, Walpin didn't fit very well within the Obama administration. He served at the pleasure of the president, who may well have taken some pleasure in ousting him -- and need make no apology if he did.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the other side of the firing
Cliff's notes: Yes, Walpin was correct, in that Johnson criminally misused money, but because he dared to try to publicize it, he had to be fired. To prove this, we will list some unrelated, unsubstantiated smears against Walpin.Glad that's cleared up.
An Obama "scandal" as phony as Whitewater
This part I agree with.
He served at the pleasure of the president, who may well have taken some pleasure in ousting him -- and need make no apology if he did.
The most ethical administration evah!!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliff's notes: Yes, Walpin was correct, in that Johnson criminally misused money, but because he dared to try to publicize it, he had to be fired. To prove this, we will list some unrelated, unsubstantiated smears against Walpin.Glad that's cleared up.
Oh, if only he wasn't legally required to NOT publicize something like this, you would have a point Henry. Those damn model rules of professional conduct we lawyers have to follow are such a burden. ( I get to say "we" now....fun!)This is akin to a DA using the press to turn public opinion against you before your trial. He did "dare" when he tried to publicize it. He deserved to be fired. More worrisome is the accusation that Walpin deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have aided Johnson's case. This is exactly the kind of behavior that got the Duke Lacrosse DA disbarred. But hey if Obama is involved, whatever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, if only he wasn't legally required to NOT publicize something like this, you would have a point Henry. Those damn model rules of professional conduct we lawyers have to follow are such a burden. ( I get to say "we" now....fun!)This is akin to a DA using the press to turn public opinion against you before your trial. He did "dare" when he tried to publicize it. He deserved to be fired. More worrisome is the accusation that Walpin deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have aided Johnson's case. This is exactly the kind of behavior that got the Duke Lacrosse DA disbarred. But hey if Obama is involved, whatever.
Of course Obama broke a law he helped introduce in the way he handled this. But meh, Obama is involved, whatever. Wow, who would have expected this. A smear campaign against someone who dared oppose one of Obama's corrupt cronies. I figure the press will be going full bore into this guys background Palin and joe the plummer style, to help their King. Of course Johnson's ties to Obama which Obama has lied about will be completely ignored.This is an extemely obvious case of firing someone who won't tow the party line, and then coming up with reasons later. Why wasn't this information released sooner. It would have been easy enough to state. It was because they just came up with this, and there will be much more before they are through.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course Obama broke a law he helped introduce in the way he handled this. But meh, Obama is involved, whatever. Wow, who would have expected this. A smear campaign against someone who dared oppose one of Obama's corrupt cronies. I figure the press will be going full bore into this guys background Palin and joe the plummer style, to help their King. Of course Johnson's ties to Obama which Obama has lied about will be completely ignored.This is an extemely obvious case of firing someone who won't tow the party line, and then coming up with reasons later. Why wasn't this information released sooner. It would have been easy enough to state. It was because they just came up with this, and there will be much more before they are through.
did you not read the post at all?
Link to post
Share on other sites
did you not read the post at all?
Of course, I read the post, Walpin is a greedy, homophobic, racist, facist, sexist, corrupt, right wing nut job who hates children. I have read that same post thousands of times over the past 20 years.Or are you talking about a different post than the one gobears posted.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, I read the post, Walpin is a greedy, homophobic, racist, facist, sexist, corrupt, right wing nut job who hates children. I have read that same post thousands of times over the past 20 years.Or are you talking about a different post than the one gobears posted.
CB's post. the whole idea that the IG is supposed to help promote the truth, rather than publicize and withhold evidence according to his/her biases?like, this part right here:"This is akin to a DA using the press to turn public opinion against you before your trial. He did "dare" when he tried to publicize it. He deserved to be fired."you don't see the problem with walpin's actions?
Link to post
Share on other sites
"This is akin to a DA using the press to turn public opinion against you before your trial.
Except that it's not, in that running for public office is not the same as being convicted of a crime, for many, many reasons.People with legitimate evidence of corruption by someone who is running for public office have a duty to bring the evidence forward. And since nobody has denied that a serious crime occurred, I have no problem with him bringing it forward. We have a right to know if our elected officials are criminals.The smear campaign against Walpin doesn't change that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the Sacramento area, and heard some of this on the radio, this morning. Picked up half way through. Cliffs notes so I know what the hell is going on without doing any actual research?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that it's not, in that running for public office is not the same as being convicted of a crime, for many, many reasons.People with legitimate evidence of corruption by someone who is running for public office have a duty to bring the evidence forward. And since nobody has denied that a serious crime occurred, I have no problem with him bringing it forward. We have a right to know if our elected officials are criminals.The smear campaign against Walpin doesn't change that.
address it to CB, not me. I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to this stuff. I was merely pointing out that ZD seemed to have missed the entire content of the post he quoted.
Link to post
Share on other sites
address it to CB, not me. I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to this stuff. I was merely pointing out that ZD seemed to have missed the entire content of the post he quoted.
The Walpin controversy?This guy Johnson used money from a federal program to give him and his buddies raises and to hire people to wash his car. He should be in jail, but instead got a deal for himself.When he started to run for Mayor, Walpin decided the public had a right to know (despite confidentiality agreements). Everything was fine under the Bush administration, but since Johnson is a pal of Obama's, the Obama adminstration had Walpin fired, claiming Walpin was delirious at meetings or some such nonsense. The left is now conductiong a smear campaign against Walpin.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Walpin controversy?This guy Johnson used money from a federal program to give him and his buddies raises and to hire people to wash his car. He should be in jail, but instead got a deal for himself.When he started to run for Mayor, Walpin decided the public had a right to know (despite confidentiality agreements). Everything was fine under the Bush administration, but since Johnson is a pal of Obama's, the Obama adminstration had Walpin fired, claiming Walpin was delirious at meetings or some such nonsense. The left is now conductiong a smear campaign against Walpin.
I think Cane nailed it in his post and Strat picked up on it. I'm going to go with Cane on it since he is an attorney (although he hasn't passed the Bar yet but I'm assuming he knows of what he speaks).Sounds like Walpin did his job up to a point and then he became a partisan hack. His boss who is a Republican and who was appointed by Bush admonished his behavior in the article. And I don't consider it a smear job when the article brings up reasons why Walpin was behaving like this - if he's letting his political views affect his job performance, then he should be fired.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that it's not, in that running for public office is not the same as being convicted of a crime, for many, many reasons.People with legitimate evidence of corruption by someone who is running for public office have a duty to bring the evidence forward. And since nobody has denied that a serious crime occurred, I have no problem with him bringing it forward. We have a right to know if our elected officials are criminals.The smear campaign against Walpin doesn't change that.
He broke the rules of prof conduct to do so. And as I said the publicizing is nothing compared to withholding exculpatory evidence which is THE major no-no of this type of position.You can call it a smear campaign if you want but the fact is Walpin acted incredibly unethically. Just because he was acting unethically to expose other unethical behavior does not make it ok no matter how much you want to know about elected officials.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Cane nailed it in his post and Strat picked up on it. I'm going to go with Cane on it since he is an attorney (although he hasn't passed the Bar yet but I'm assuming he knows of what he speaks).Sounds like Walpin did his job up to a point and then he became a partisan hack. His boss who is a Republican and who was appointed by Bush admonished his behavior in the article. And I don't consider it a smear job when the article brings up reasons why Walpin was behaving like this - if he's letting his political views affect his job performance, then he should be fired.
It seems unlikely the untarnished truth will ever come out; I suspect it is somewhere between the two stories. It's very likely Bush kept/encouraged this guy for political reasons, just as Obama fired him for political reasons.And for the record, I don't think there should be such a thing as confidentiality when it comes to someone running for public office and committing serious crimes. So if that's Walpin's worst offense, he's a hero and should be promoted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested to see how this shakes out. KJ is a good guy. I have met him before, and he has done a lot for Sacramento with his charitable foundations, specifically in his old neighborhood of Oak Park, which is a ghetto among ghettos. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to do good by Sacramento, but you never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to do good by Sacramento, but you never know.
Uh, that's not the part in question. He was basically found guilty of stealing money, and plea-bargained to just pay it back instead of paying it back and going to jail. The controversy is whether Walpin went too far in making this all public, and whether Walpin's excess merits being fired. Johnson is guilty as hell and should never be in charge of more than $5 at any one time ever again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, that's not the part in question. He was basically found guilty of stealing money, and plea-bargained to just pay it back instead of paying it back and going to jail. The controversy is whether Walpin went too far in making this all public, and whether Walpin's excess merits being fired. Johnson is guilty as hell and should never be in charge of more than $5 at any one time ever again.
When did all that happen?You can tell how much I follow our local politics. Of course I don't live in the city limits, so I do vote on anything, so I don't pay attention.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, that's not the part in question. He was basically found guilty of stealing money, and plea-bargained to just pay it back instead of paying it back and going to jail. The controversy is whether Walpin went too far in making this all public, and whether Walpin's excess merits being fired. Johnson is guilty as hell and should never be in charge of more than $5 at any one time ever again.
It was deemed by the US attorney that this case did not warrant criminal charges so he was not at risk of going to jail. Actually KJ plea bargained for the civil part of the case. Since he had been put on a list of individuals barred from receiving federal funds, this was obviously an incentive for KJ to reach a settlement since he and thereby Sacramento (since he became the mayor) were barred from getting federal money until this case was settled
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems unlikely the untarnished truth will ever come out; I suspect it is somewhere between the two stories. It's very likely Bush kept/encouraged this guy for political reasons, just as Obama fired him for political reasons.And for the record, I don't think there should be such a thing as confidentiality when it comes to someone running for public office and committing serious crimes. So if that's Walpin's worst offense, he's a hero and should be promoted.
it's not. that's the thing. it's his 2nd worst offense. his worst is that he deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that helped KJ's case. that is the biggest breach of conduct a criminal lawyer can commit. Or at least in the top three.And releasing confidential information to the media for politically charged reasons does not make you a hero. Unless you honestly believe that he would have still released the info to the press if KJ was a Republican. And you are too smart to believe that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's not. that's the thing. it's his 2nd worst offense. his worst is that he deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that helped KJ's case. that is the biggest breach of conduct a criminal lawyer can commit. Or at least in the top three.And releasing confidential information to the media for politically charged reasons does not make you a hero. Unless you honestly believe that he would have still released the info to the press if KJ was a Republican. And you are too smart to believe that.
I think risking your job to keep a slimeball out of office makes you a hero. Of course, under a Republican administration, it wasn't that much of a risk to take down a prominent Democrat. No, I don't believe that, if he is a rabid Republican, he would've done it to a Republican. But no matter what his motives, eliminating sleaze from office is a public service.It seems weird that he would withhold evidence; it certainly doesn't sound like he needed to. Everyone seems to agree Johnson is scum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have is if the two things Cain pointed out are true, then why did they say he it was because he was senile. This stuff is coming out way after the fact. I would be nice to hear both sides of the story. Obviously the Senater from Missouri didn't have this information when she called Obama out for not following guideline he cosponsered with her during Obama's senate term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question I have is if the two things Cain pointed out are true, then why did they say he it was because he was senile. This stuff is coming out way after the fact. I would be nice to hear both sides of the story. Obviously the Senater from Missouri didn't have this information when she called Obama out for not following guideline he cosponsered with her during Obama's senate term.
just because Wilpin was wrong and did unethical things doesnt mean the Obama/Dem team is not guilty of (ahem) trumping up their accusations about him. I am not saying the Dems have clean hands.....just maybe we should hold off on the parade for this guy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
just because Wilpin was wrong and did unethical things doesnt mean the Obama/Dem team is not guilty of (ahem) trumping up their accusations about him. I am not saying the Dems have clean hands.....just maybe we should hold off on the parade for this guy.
I understand what you are saying, and even if this guy is guilty of wrong doing, what was uncovered is really troubling. It appears as though the democrats are trying to turn Americorps into another arm of their politcal machine, another ACORN, being transformed into a community organization in the spirit of Chicago machine politics. Here is a Lou Dobbs interview transcipt:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth...ral-fired-obama
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...