Every one has their theories on what caused the mortgage crisis. Fannie and Freddie, greedy Republicans, aggressive first-time homeowners, even Former President George W. Bush. President Obama repeatedly mentioned the failed policies of the past eight years that put us in the present economic hard times.
A good friend of mine circulated an old newspaper article from the NY Times. The Steven Holmes article from September 30, 1999 highlights economic decisions made in the White House and Capital building that shed much needed light on the current housing crisis.
Below is an excerpt from the Steven Holmes article:
“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
…‘Fannie Mae expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,’ said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and CEO. ‘Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called sub-prime market.’
…In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”
WOW. So this is not Bush’s fault??? I’m perplexed. President Obama thinks it is. I heard him say so at his first press conference. If he said it then his statement must be true right? I think not.
Coming in the near future…I take on golden parachutes paid for by taxpayers.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Pragmatic Environmentalist
Clean coal fired energy. I don’t know if there is a truer oxymoron than clean coal energy. There are several technological proposals to clean up coal, but most of the technologies are unproven, work on a small scale and only remove a fraction of the carbon dioxide from a coal power plant’s exhaust. These drawing board technologies are incredibly expensive and cost around $100 million per power plant.
I laud the green weenie push to reduce green house gases. I want to live in a world where the air and water is clean. I like to swim in lakes and smell the fresh breeze. I also enjoy my air conditioning when its allergy season, fresh food in the refrigerator and the house lights in the dark of winter.
The demand for electricity is increasing and outpacing our generation capability. Wind generated power is great for some parts of the country where the winds blows all of the time like Colorado and Wyoming. Ranchers in Cheyenne, WY are making money hand over fist by leasing their land to windmill power companies. These ranchers are pragmatic people and don’t really care that the windmills dot the surrounding landscape. I wouldn’t care either if I was pulling in a quarter million dollars a year in lease income.
Not everyone feels the same way. The people of Vermont shot down a wind energy project in the Green Mountains because they did not want the pristine view of the mountains to include a string of windmills. The same private views also plague wind efforts off the coast of New Jersey and Cape Cod. In these cases, offshore windmill projects are half inch stick figure images on the far visual horizon. Fortunately, a federal judge ruled that Cape Wind can proceed with their windmill project. Great, because the wind howls offshore in the Northeast all winter long. I’m glad that there are some pragmatic judges out there.
Solar power is not the answer either. A cutting edge solar power plant is under construction in southern California on a ten square mile site. This plant occupies more space than a traditional power plant by a factor of one hundred and produces less than 25% of the power of a coal power plant. And it only works when the sun is out, which for the southwest is over 300 days a year. What about those two months when there is cloud cover? Solar power technology has a way to go before it can economically produce energy.
So what are the remaining options?
Power companies are trying to build more coal power plants despite extreme opposition from local and national environmental groups. So far, only two additional plants are going forward. So what do we do when electrical demand outstrips supply? Roving blackouts? Remember when California suffered rolling blackouts in the heat of the summer? Can you live without electrical power for a few hours in the middle of the day? Think about it.
What about nuclear energy? Environmentalists also block the power companies from building nuclear power plants because, you know, nuclear waste is bad stuff. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest power sources. Who knows, there may be technology in the near future that can reuse spent nuclear fuel.
I completely agree that we need to find cleaner energy sources. I also don’t want to sit in the dark when I’m home at night. I like candle light, but it does get tiresome to live by candle light and candles are expensive. Maybe I need to invest in candle futures. We need energy solutions now and we need a plan to get us to a cleaner future without bankrupting us now. I just hope the idealistic green weenies don’t paint us into a corner with no way out.
Who’s up for the pragmatic approach?
I laud the green weenie push to reduce green house gases. I want to live in a world where the air and water is clean. I like to swim in lakes and smell the fresh breeze. I also enjoy my air conditioning when its allergy season, fresh food in the refrigerator and the house lights in the dark of winter.
The demand for electricity is increasing and outpacing our generation capability. Wind generated power is great for some parts of the country where the winds blows all of the time like Colorado and Wyoming. Ranchers in Cheyenne, WY are making money hand over fist by leasing their land to windmill power companies. These ranchers are pragmatic people and don’t really care that the windmills dot the surrounding landscape. I wouldn’t care either if I was pulling in a quarter million dollars a year in lease income.
Not everyone feels the same way. The people of Vermont shot down a wind energy project in the Green Mountains because they did not want the pristine view of the mountains to include a string of windmills. The same private views also plague wind efforts off the coast of New Jersey and Cape Cod. In these cases, offshore windmill projects are half inch stick figure images on the far visual horizon. Fortunately, a federal judge ruled that Cape Wind can proceed with their windmill project. Great, because the wind howls offshore in the Northeast all winter long. I’m glad that there are some pragmatic judges out there.
Solar power is not the answer either. A cutting edge solar power plant is under construction in southern California on a ten square mile site. This plant occupies more space than a traditional power plant by a factor of one hundred and produces less than 25% of the power of a coal power plant. And it only works when the sun is out, which for the southwest is over 300 days a year. What about those two months when there is cloud cover? Solar power technology has a way to go before it can economically produce energy.
So what are the remaining options?
Power companies are trying to build more coal power plants despite extreme opposition from local and national environmental groups. So far, only two additional plants are going forward. So what do we do when electrical demand outstrips supply? Roving blackouts? Remember when California suffered rolling blackouts in the heat of the summer? Can you live without electrical power for a few hours in the middle of the day? Think about it.
What about nuclear energy? Environmentalists also block the power companies from building nuclear power plants because, you know, nuclear waste is bad stuff. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest power sources. Who knows, there may be technology in the near future that can reuse spent nuclear fuel.
I completely agree that we need to find cleaner energy sources. I also don’t want to sit in the dark when I’m home at night. I like candle light, but it does get tiresome to live by candle light and candles are expensive. Maybe I need to invest in candle futures. We need energy solutions now and we need a plan to get us to a cleaner future without bankrupting us now. I just hope the idealistic green weenies don’t paint us into a corner with no way out.
Who’s up for the pragmatic approach?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Take The Check Book Away
President Obama is poised to sign landmark legislation on the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birthday. The Economic Stimulus Bill finally cleared the House and Senate and passed conference to iron out the differences. The grand total is $787 billion and change. The entire bill encompasses 1100 fun-filled pages.
By the way, has anyone read the entire 1100 pages front to back? In the immortal words of my freshman English teacher, will the first, last and only people to read this bill be its authors? Does that scare anyone else but me? President Obama pledges transparency in how this bill is spent, but I don't feel 1100 pages really define transparent. A lot of trickery can be hidden within 1100 pages. Are Pelosi and Reid going for an "A" on this bill by shear weight alone? Whatever happened to "explain your position in 500 words or less?"
Can you imagine the money we could save if Congress had not just term limits, but word limits? The average citizen might be tempted to read Congressional legislation if the bills were just a few pages front to back. We wouldn't need Congressional watchdogs. You could review the Congress' work after dinner and before you put the kids to bed.
I don't question the urgency President Obama laid out to the American people in his press conference. Actually, I'm impressed that Congress was able to do something in the first 30 days of President Obama's administration. 30 days is a split second when it comes to Congressional action which usually makes molasses look like quicksilver.
I wonder if our revered Speaker (hold your chuckles, please) likes the taste of crow. Did you catch the news bit wherein she swears repeatedly there is no pork in this bill? Did she really make such an outrageous statement?
By best estimates (my source is CRS), the Iraq war cost the taxpayers $>600 billion since March 2003. The war cost an enormous amount of money. Tomorrow, President Obama will spend more than the entire war effort to date in the time it takes to sign his name. Ouch.
A very smart lady once told us in college "just because you have checks in the check book, does not mean you have money." Good advice. Maybe Harriet should give money management lessons to the folks in DC. Either that or take the check book away.
By the way, has anyone read the entire 1100 pages front to back? In the immortal words of my freshman English teacher, will the first, last and only people to read this bill be its authors? Does that scare anyone else but me? President Obama pledges transparency in how this bill is spent, but I don't feel 1100 pages really define transparent. A lot of trickery can be hidden within 1100 pages. Are Pelosi and Reid going for an "A" on this bill by shear weight alone? Whatever happened to "explain your position in 500 words or less?"
Can you imagine the money we could save if Congress had not just term limits, but word limits? The average citizen might be tempted to read Congressional legislation if the bills were just a few pages front to back. We wouldn't need Congressional watchdogs. You could review the Congress' work after dinner and before you put the kids to bed.
I don't question the urgency President Obama laid out to the American people in his press conference. Actually, I'm impressed that Congress was able to do something in the first 30 days of President Obama's administration. 30 days is a split second when it comes to Congressional action which usually makes molasses look like quicksilver.
I wonder if our revered Speaker (hold your chuckles, please) likes the taste of crow. Did you catch the news bit wherein she swears repeatedly there is no pork in this bill? Did she really make such an outrageous statement?
By best estimates (my source is CRS), the Iraq war cost the taxpayers $>600 billion since March 2003. The war cost an enormous amount of money. Tomorrow, President Obama will spend more than the entire war effort to date in the time it takes to sign his name. Ouch.
A very smart lady once told us in college "just because you have checks in the check book, does not mean you have money." Good advice. Maybe Harriet should give money management lessons to the folks in DC. Either that or take the check book away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
