The Quarterly Report issued in October 2011 by the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) reveals the utter lack of oversight and mismanagement of funds in excess of $700 Billion Dollars.  The 316 page report begins:

Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”), the American taxpayers became investors in hundreds of financial institutions, the auto industry, and cer­tain markets for asset-backed securities, and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”) serves on the front line to protect those investments. SIGTARP is the only agency solely charged with a mission of transparency, oversight, and enforcement related to the taxpay­ers’ unprecedented investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in the private sector…. This month…the first criminal charges were filed against senior executives of a TARP bank when two senior executives of United Commercial Bank (“UCB”) were charged in connection with an alleged scheme to defraud investors. The Department of Treasury (“Treasury”), and by extension the American taxpayer, became investors in UCB’s holding company when it received more than $298 million in TARP funds. UCB was the first TARP bank to fail and the taxpayers’ entire TARP investment is lost.

TARP included $45.6 Billion to fund the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) of which only $2.5 Billion (5.4%) has been spent.  SIGTARP addressed its concerns about the poor performance of the HAMP program to the Treasury Department, but states that “Treasury has determined not to take any further action to implement SIGTARP’s recommendations. Treasury is giving up a chance at mean­ingful change and sadly, it is struggling homeowners who have the most to lose.”

The housing and mortgage crisis was a direct result of the increasing deregulation of the mortgage industry enabled by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the federal government’s ideological philosophy that everyone should and must be afforded their dream of home ownership, regardless of their credit worthiness or their ability to repay the mortgage. The federal government, through coercive threats of lawsuits for discriminatory lending practices, forced these lenders to make these risky loans.

The feeding frenzy of easy money, teaser interest rates, one hundred percent financing (generally involving two mortgages, a first mortgage for eighty percent of the purchase price and a second for the remaining equity, thereby eliminating the necessity for private mortgage insurance), no income or asset verification of the homebuyer and, in many cases where homebuilders were involved, up to one full year of mortgage payments paid in advance by the builder at closing in addition to the payment of all of the closing costs, increased the demand for new homes and drove up home prices.  An additional caveat of the 80/20 scheme eliminated the requirement that the homebuyer escrow money with the lender for payment of property taxes and homeowners insurance.  This resulted in massive losses of revenue at the city, county and state level.

(more…)

You are probably familiar by now with this infamous graph published by the White House in January 2009 highlighting their expectations for the impact of the Recovery Act on the rate of unemployment. Far from leveling off at 8% and then declining, the actual unemployment rate ran up to 10% by the end of 2009 and has declined only slightly since to 9.5%, largely due to a decline in labor force participation. This in spite of the rapid passage of the massive $787 billion stimulus bill in February 2009. (Geoff at the Innocent Bystanders blog deserves everlasting credit for being the first to point out this disconnect.)

With the White House and other Democrats resolutely sticking to their claim that the stimulus bill “saved or created” 3-4 million jobs, I thought it might be worthwhile to point out that the very same January 2009 White House report also included an industry by industry forecast of where these 3-4 million jobs would come from. Here it is:

Thanks to the inclination of economists to model verifiable data (even when they are pulling numbers out of the sky), these industry categories happen to align perfectly with employment data tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thus we can easily compare the actual changes in employment to the figures forecast by the White House. In the table below, I’ve calculated the net change in employment by industry from February 2009, when the stimulus bill was passed, to July 2010, using the latest data available from the BLS. (Click row headings for data source.)

(more…)

If you ask people on the street (outside of Chicago) if they have ever heard of ShoreBank, the answer would likely be “no.” While ShoreBank isn’t a Goldman Sachs, a Bank of America, or a JP Morgan, to the Progressives, this “little” bank is in many ways every bit as big and important as the aforementioned “large banks.”

Why?

One of the core components of President Obama’s fundamental change for America is to create clean energy jobs, also known as “green jobs”.  During his campaign and as recently as his State of the Union Address, President Obama continues to talk about the need “green” jobs. In fact, during his State of the Union 2010 speech, the President stated, “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities –  and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. “

In a speech given by the President in Virginia on Dec. 15, 2009, he said, “The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient — installing new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment — is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions.”

In the  stimulus package last year, President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his plan for building a new green-based economy.

(more…)