How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
- Details
- Written by: Steve Elias
That got me to thinking. It would be very helpful for TV public affairs shows to always put sidebars or bubbles showing the net personal worth and annual income of their various talking heads. The same would go for TV appearances by public officials, politicians and political shills of all stripes. I found myself wondering about the Fed chairman’s net worth, and then the members of the committee and the other “experts” assembled to support the administration’s request. From there my thoughts jumped to the TV commentators and pundits who are either super rich themselves or operate in those circles.
Why should we care about someone’s wealth? Every time one of these well-heeled folks says something being proposed is in “our” interest, you have to wonder whose interest they are talking about. Surely Secretary Paulson’s interest is not the same as mine as my net worth is slim to none. So, when Henry Paulson, or Donald Trump for that matter, advise that a course of action would be in “all our interests,” I’m pretty sure they are thinking of a relatively small circle of family, friends and associates whose net worth is way up there in the many millions.
So, here’s what I think about the proposed bailout. It’s crystal clear that the people who have made out big time under the current credit-debt system desperately want it to continue. And for them the bailout is a necessity. It may be that it’s a necessity for the rest of us as well, but I’m unwilling to take it on trust from the people who are pushing that line.
If I had knowledge of who had benefited from the housing and credit bubbles, I would be better positioned to assess whose interests were being served. For now, it appears to me that the “titans of wall street” and the government that serves them are using the same shock and fear approach to a power grab that has worked so well with the American people in the past — scare the hell out of them and then take what’s yours.
This of course implies that this was and is an engineered crisis. And why not? Everyone in a position of responsibility repeats the mantra that these high flying finance types are very smart people. If so, they must have seen it coming. A lot of us less brilliant people saw the handwriting on the wall a long time ago.
Of course a possible alternative explanation is that the Masters of the Universe (to use author Tom Wolfe’s phrase in the Bonfire of the Vanities) are far too arrogant and completely lacking in common sense. In that case we really ought to ignore what they say and let events take their course. I do believe that “the market” will likely produce a better outcome.
Steve Elias is an attorney and a radio show host on Lake County's community radio station, KPFZ 88.1 FM.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Ray Perry and Jacie Casteel
On Sunday, Sept. 7 at 11 a.m. the Treasury Secretary of the United States announced that the government will be taking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.
The first thing to understand is that conservatorship simply means control. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also known as agencies, are the backbone of the real estate and mortgage financing markets. These agencies are responsible for making sure that there is always adequate funding for consumers to obtain mortgage financing for real estate.
Fannie and Freddie are government-sponsored agencies, which means that the government created them. However, up until Sept. 7, the government did not control them. Fannie and Freddie are public corporations.
As you have been hearing reported for the last few months, both of these agencies have been suffering financial losses in the billions of dollars. These losses are directly related to the national housing and financing crises that exists.
The record number of foreclosures, mortgage delinquencies and personal bankruptcies are destroying the value of the mortgage securities that Fannie and Freddie hold in their portfolios. Simply put, mortgage securities that are held by these tow agencies are backed by the consumers ability to pay their mortgages on time.
When consumers are not able to pay their mortgages, and the value of real estate declines, the securities that these agencies hold lose value. This results in the agencies inability to operate and ensure that additional funding will be available for future lending. In the end, they cannot survive without help.
The bottom line is that the current credit crisis has reached epidemic proportions and that the survival of Fannie and Freddie is a must. The government stepped in to take control was the only solution to ensure that funding will be available for mortgages and to provide stability to the housing market.
What does this mean in general?
Below are bullet points that explain the major aspects of the government takeover and how it will affect the market.
The United States Treasury now has the ability to provide an unlimited amount of funding to purchase mortgage backed securities from these agencies. The ability for Fannie and Freddie to sell their securities that money will remain available for lending.
The government control means that these companies are now backed and controlled by the government. This will almost immediately begin to create stability within the financial markets. The stabilization of the financial markets is one of the first steps to creating an economic recovery.
The bailout of these agencies will be paid for by the taxpayers, however unlike the Bear Stearns bailout, the stockholders in Fannie and Freddie will not be rewarded. Treasury Secretary Paulson has made it very clear that prior to any stockholder receiving any dividends from either Fannie or Freddie; the taxpayers must be paid back first.
At the present time there is no estimate as to how much the bailout will cost the taxpayers. A major factor in determining the total cost will be determined by how quickly the financial and real estate markets stabilize.
Interest rates are expected to remain stable for mortgage financing over the next few months. Rates are significantly lower since the announcement making financing more affordable. As of Sept. 9 Jacie Casteel from Sterling Mortgage in Lakeport reported that rates have dropped to 5.875 with zero points for a 30-year fixed mortgage.
What opportunities exist for homeowners and homebuyers?
With the stabilization of the markets, the decline in property values is expected to slow down. If you have been waiting for values to drop further, it is possible that the bottom is very near and sitting on the sidelines much longer may cause your cost of homeownership to increase. The time to act is NOW.
Lending guidelines may get a little tougher with new government control. This potentially means that accessing funds for mortgage lending may become a little more challenging and make it harder for borrowers to qualify. Once again, if you have been waiting to purchase or refinance your home, now may be one of the most affordable times to do so.
There are many unknowns pertaining to the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the takeover was a must and the actions of the government will eventually bring badly needed stability to the markets helping to reinvigorate the battered housing market in the US.
Ray Perry is a Realtor with CPS Country Air Properties. Jacie Casteel is a loan agent with Sterling Mortgage.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Barbara Coombs Lee
Sam Aanestad calls the California Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act an unnecessary “intrusion” into the doctor-patient relationship.
At Compassion and Choices, the nation’s largest end-of-life choice organization, we see things differently. We know talking about death won’t kill you. If patients aren’t ready to hear the truth, they won’t ask for it. No one should force an unwelcome conversation, but the Right to Know Act doesn’t do that. When patients do ask, they want and deserve accurate, complete information. And then, no one should keep it from them.
The Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act (AB 2747), written by Assembly members Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine, passed the California Legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature. This landmark law simply requires that when a terminally ill person asks about end-of-life options, doctors tell them about all legal choices. Aanestad asserts patients don’t need this kind of information and claims it would do more harm than good. Well, let’s allow patients to make that decision for themselves.
Compassion and Choices sponsored the Right to Know Act because we know dying patients may suffer greatly without crucial information. We also know people with end-stage cancer may suffer through rigorous, futile chemotherapy treatments weeks or even days before death because they think they have no choice. Doctors are not always straightforward about the true prognosis and offer false hope. As a result, treatments can leave patients too weak for spending quality time with loved ones, rectifying relationships or seeking spiritual peace. When patients have full information about all of their options, they are empowered to knowingly choose – or refuse – difficult treatment.
Research is on our side. The May issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology reported terminal patients who have an end-of-life discussion with their physician are more likely to receive hospice care and less likely to enter an Intensive Care Unit.
Another recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association lists study after study showing that oncologists often continue aggressive chemotherapy long after it is likely to extend life.
Aanestad seems to believe that withholding this crucial information is a humane way to deal with people who are dying. As an organization working with the dying for 28 years, we know information and counseling regarding end-of-life care options is essential to the comfort and peace of many terminally ill patients and their families. These poignant conversations help patients weigh all options and make an informed decision that reflects their values and beliefs. It gives the physician an opportunity for a heartfelt discussion of the benefits and risks of all available treatments, and it can facilitate earlier access to hospice care.
AB 2747 does all of these things. It offers peace and comfort to patients and their families who want to know more. This is why we urge Gov. Schwarzenneger to sign the bill. Knowledge won’t kill you, but cancer will. How can we withhold the information that can bring so much comfort and peace of mind to those deciding how to spend their last days on earth?
Barbara Coombs Lee is president of Compassion and Choices, a nonprofit group focused on end-of-life issues.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Sophie Annan Jensen
We all know that politicians exaggerate, embellish and enhance their stories. And sometimes, we suspect, they outright lie, which isn't very smart in this age of electronic record-keeping.
McCain-Palin supporters are trying to pass her off as a feminist with statements like this: "Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change." (Article at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/06/INB312NP3M.DTL&type=politics)
Being a working mother and being elected to office do not make you a feminist. Hard-working, ambitious – yes. Not necessarily a feminist. The essence of feminism is refusing to tolerate victimization of women in any area – economic, social, health, education, opportunity.
The GOP team would work to ban all abortion, "even in the case of rape," Sarah Palin said. There is no area where women have been more victimized than in rape. Rape cases are seriously under-reported because the survivors are unwilling to face the common disbelief, and the subsequent trial, when their entire life history might be put on display and questioned as if they were the person on trial.
A friend tells me that when she was raped and beaten nearly to death 30 years ago in Vallejo, the detective handling the case said to her, "A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can run with his pants down around his ankles." That's a fairly mild example of the disdain, disbelief and humiliation that women reporting rape often have to endure.
Palin did her best to increase the victimization while she was mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, from 1996 to 2002.
A story in the Mat-Su Frontiersman on May 23, 2000, reported that Wasilla was charging women who reported being raped $300 to $1,200 for the forensic exam kit used in the investigations. It was picked up by America Blog (http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/wasilla-charged-rape-victims-for-their.html) a couple of days ago and has since been reported on television.
Alaska Governor Tony Knowles had signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime. The Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies covered the cost of exams, but Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon didn't agree with the new legislation. He said the new law would cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases. He was Palin's appointee, after she fired the former chief who didn't fully support the policies.
The Anchorage Daily News reported that at the time the city was paying a lobbyist, hired by Palin, $40,500 yearly to seek earmark funding in Washington, DC (www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/194505.html).
Spin me any yarn you want about what a good mother she is, how she managed to fight the Good Ol' Boys while getting their support, why she had to charge the state for overnights in her own home (a 30-mile commute from her state office in Anchorage) or why she even bothered to talk to the city librarian about banning books – just don't try to tell me she's a feminist, OK?
Sophie Annan Jensen is a retired journalist. She lives in Lucerne.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}