Why the Two-Party System is Pure Mythology

My Twitter timeline is growing more and more libertarian all the time. And, truth be told, so am I. There was a time when I accepted the reality of the two-party tradition in America. Today it is little more than slight distinctions about which party's candidates can convince us they can manage the intricacies of big government better.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Sadly, while I still like Paul Ryan a lot, the release of his latest version of the budget features only a slightly lower baseline over the next ten years than the trajectory of the Senate's version, released last week by the Senate's budget chairperson, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Give her credit - at least she came up with the first Senate budget in over 1400 days. That said, we have yet to pass a federal budget during the administration of Barack Obama, much less seriously consider balancing one. Finally, last week Barack Obama admitted he has no intention of balancing the budget nor reducing the deficit during his remaining term. At least now we know where he stands, since he no longer is accountable to voters. His budget "proposal" merely calls for more taxes and more spending.

According to Ryan’s version of what he would advocate (these numbers are lifted straight from his proposal) we would reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP from 22.2 percent this year to 19.1 percent in 2023. That is at least a start in the right direction, but hardly draconian in its import. However, if you believe what the Democrat/progressive/liberal elements tell us, such a brutal meat cleaver reduction in the federal spending projections over the next ten years would inflict almost incomprehensible pain on Americans.

Here's what caught my attention from Ryan's CPAC speech last week: “We don’t see the debt as an excuse to cut with abandon, to shirk our obligations. We see it as an opportunity to reform government, to make it cleaner and more effective. That’s what conservatives stand for.”

But here's the rub. Isn't that exactly what Democrats believe too? Aren't they always proclaiming their efforts are designed to give us more effective and efficient government too?

I studied Ryan’s proposal to see if I could find anything that would forever end the federal government’s involvement in education. We've been talking about that since the days of Reagan who wanted to close the doors on the Department of Education. No sign of that in Ryan's budget. All the federal programs that sponsor job training are still there in the Ryan budget. There is nothing to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and all the rest. There are so many bloated federal agencies that could be eliminated presidential candidate Rick Perry stumbled during a debate on his recitation of the list of agencies he would cut and it cost him the nomination. But nowhere in the latest Ryan budget do you find provisions for cutting them out.

There is a plus, however. Ryan's budget calls for ending Obamacare, but that isn't going to happen now as that train left the station and is picking up speed on the implementation rails as it rumbles into an insurance plan near you soon. But even if that were a successful legislative coup (and it won't be) the Ryan budget fails to eliminate the federal government’s involvement in health care. At least Ryan wants to cap higher education subsidies, but that doesn't terminate the federal government’s involvement in education. Well, you get the idea. The core problem is simple: More efficient government isn’t the same as limited government. That's the important Constitutional mandate we have bargained away over the years as both political parties have given us more and more government. Whether the federal government is efficient or effective is a debate I don't even care about. I'm becoming more libertarian because it's the only option left to us.

I'm just old enough to remember when we thought we could believe a two-party political system consisting of Republicans and Democrats representing vastly different values and objectives existed. However, true patriots who value liberty and freedom from tyranny, those who are accurately informed, well researched and historically astute know otherwise. Now I see things much differently. The thin veneer of political differentiation has finally peeled away. By the time George W. Bush and Henry Paulson at the end of the Bush era decided to bail out Wall Street and bankers, the illusion was forever evaporated. Government can only fund solutions with money it collects from taxpayers, and so far there seems to be insufficient angst among voters to stop it from escalating.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

Something extraordinary happened a couple of weeks ago on the Senate floor. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster over an issue that barely aroused any interest among Americans, yet it clearly illuminated this rising tide of awareness of the thinly-veiled differences between the establishment powers in both political parties. What stunned me was the reaction by certain members of the Republican party we must not minimize. I happen to like the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only because it's about the little guy who dares to take on the establishment against all odds. Rand Paul's filibuster was a throw-back to earlier times. Here's at least one man (and there are growing numbers) who still recognizes the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land. I include Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in that group. John McCain called them "wacko birds." Then he thought better of the comment and apologized. That defiant act of filibuster by one man had much deeper meaning on many more levels than the topic at hand. When "wackos" are people who believe in limited government and liberty, then I choose to stand with the wackos.

Senator Paul asked for a simple response about the potential use of drones on American citizens on American soil from the Attorney General who represents the Executive branch of our government. Attorney General Eric Holder did not respond, so Senator Paul took to the Senate floor and spoke for 13 hours. As painful as it was for the Executive and Judicial branches and their media surrogates to even acknowledge Senator Paul’s persistence, his actions eventually generated a response. A short letter signed by Attorney General Holder was begrudgingly released. The answer was “no.” As remote as the possibility may seem to some, at least this administration is now on the record if that means anything.

Every freedom-loving American should be heralding Senator Rand Paul for what he did. It was evidence that every American who still cares about the rule of law and our God-given rights as enumerated in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights has at least one voice who speaks for them on the Senate floor. One would think that kind of issue would resonate throughout America without regard to political party. But he received nothing but ridicule for what some claimed was a cheap political grandstanding maneuver. I saw it as much more.

I consider myself a Conservative. I used to think I was a "moderate" Conservative. I find I must distinguish what that means to me and what it means to Paul Ryan, however. My loyalty is to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm increasingly more interested in like-minded individuals who share that desire above party label. To stand for only a better-managed big government is now bordering on tyrannical and treasonous in my mind.

On the morning of the 9/11 attacks, I watched in horror as the Twin Towers collapsed and the realization we were attacked by foreign enemies slowly sank in that morning. Looking back on the aftermath of that day, I think I supported wholeheartedly, as many Americans did, the passage of legislation that formed even more agencies of the federal government. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are only two examples. Now I believe I was wrong in my initial embrace of those moves. In the subsequent bursting of the bubble of Wall Street excesses with securitized mortgages and other dicey investment vehicles, there came clarity. I have discerned we were then, and still are to an increasing rate, being lied to by elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum. The "BIG LIE" is that we are going to be okay with the status quo they so desperately seem determined to perpetuate.

I've stopped listening to the so-called "Conservative" talk radio pundits and the TV talking heads. Like an old soap opera where you can tune out for months at a time, then tune in for a few minutes, the story lines never change and the themes are repetitive. The search for truth is paramount in these last days. And the truth cannot be found in the political realm.

Jesus Christ laments over Jerusalem

You are either loyal to God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, or you are not. It really won't matter much which political logos you're wearing when the elements melt down in the fervent heat yet to come. What will matter instead is your allegiance to God and our Constitution and Bill of Rights in America. As Christ was rejected of His own in His day, so He is being rejected once again in our day. I surmise He laments over Washington D.C. today as He once did over Jerusalem. The imperial government, the pervasive institution to which we are all being asked to pledge allegiance and to turn for sustenance, has forsaken her birthright. These are values our great nation once represented. There is no political party left, however, to claim the crown of champion for those values. Both parties have been corrupted. As long as I live I will resist any and all attempts by others to impose a godless theocracy upon us. If America fails, there will be no other contender left on earth in the running among the super powers to champion the cause of freedom.

Merely proposing that the federal government borrow and spend less than what is currently projected is certainly better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending we are not in a spending and debt crisis. But those who accept Paul Ryan's version of the proposed federal budget cannot be serious if their goal is limited government. We must come to a point where we must find the collective will as free citizens to impose limits all the areas where government has intruded on our rights.

Some people worry what will happen if draconian measures are taken to cut federal spending. Think of the "safety net" suddenly being snatched out from underneath everyone. Think of all the unemployment if federal employment for millions of Americans suddenly terminates. In the garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve firmly clutching their Social Security checks and food stamps? When did we lose sight of working by the sweat of our own brows? There were no promises then, and there are none now. Ryan is defending a mythological fantasy when he says he can ensure the promises their government has made to Americans in the years ahead. What he's really saying is I can do it better than Democrats, when both have moved this country beyond the ability to deliver on those promises without severe cutbacks in the status quo. That's a political agenda politicians don't dare enunciate for fear of losing the next election.

I've heard the list of horribles of what might happen if we take control of our own debt and spending now, but what if we are already at the tipping point where the collapse is imminent anyway? Isn't the path we are on amply demonstrated by now to be unsustainable? Seems to me we must prune back the spending and debt bushes voluntarily now, or the pruning will be imposed at a time not of our own choosing and by circumstances we cannot possibly foresee or control.

I'm happy for the thought and preparation that has gone into Ryan’s latest budget proposal. But it only represents a step toward a slightly cheaper big government in a time when what is needed is a return to limited government we can actually afford.

Why Bank of America MIGHT Modify Your Mortgage

I am happy to report there is an update on my saga with BoA in securing a permanent mortgage modification. I have an insider's point of view, because I've been at this as part of the first wave of mortgages that had been securitized, but went south when the bottom fell out of the financial markets. My three-year battle with BoA started in January, 2009, but in the interest of fairness and full disclosure I will always give credit where credit is due.

Over a month ago I was invited to attend an "outreach" event sponsored by BoA here in Salt Lake. I have had such varied and sporadic communications from BoA over the last three years, and can confirm they have given me such scant evidence they had their act together, I almost didn't go. I was again being asked to gather all my supporting documentation (bank statements, tax returns, W-2, etc.), and I thought wearily to myself this would be the fourth submission. I have kept in touch with one person from BoA with whom I met last September. My meeting with her, while pleasant and helpful on a personal level, produced no tangible results. When I asked for her opinion about whether this would be yet another exercise in futility, she strongly recommended that I attend, so I did.

I was amazed, and I'll admit it. For the first time in my experience with BoA, they had a team of fifty people populating various stations in the Grand Ballroom at the Grand America Hotel, and they had organized themselves very well. I secured the first appointment of the day, thinking I could get in and get out quickly. I chit-chatted with two security officers, both of whom are personally trying to get their mortgages modified, who had been hired for the event in case there were some disgruntled borrowers. I saw more anger from them than I did from anyone else, and that was an ironic start to my day. There was no evidence of anger or frustration from anyone else. I got to interact with many borrowers that day, and while each had a sad tale of woe to share, I met no one who had been at it for three years like I have.

We all had one thing in common - no one had filed a lawsuit against BoA, and they were all trying to work things out in good faith with their mortgage servicer.

Computers were synced to underwriters in real time, and as documents were reviewed and cross-checked against long check lists, they were then scanned and handed back to me in sequence. We were each assigned a number (no names were used), and the process was orderly and sequential. With each step as documents were checked, double-checked and scanned, there was a well-defined method, and very little madness. It was impressive, given what I've experienced with BoA in the past.

As the list of additional documentation and letters of explanation continued to mount, I was escorted and checked out of the event, then re-admitted and escorted three separate times during the day. I came to know many of these people on a first-name basis. It was an exhaustive day (I started at 7:30 a.m., and didn't leave until 8:30 that night), and the assembling of supporting documents and letters of explanation for the underwriters continued into the next day.

The good news was that I received a call back on my cell phone on Saturday morning to tell me they had all the documentation assembled and subject to verification (an estimated 7-10 business days), they would be getting back to me with an offer for a permanent mortgage modification because it appears I meet the requirements for something called HAMP ("Home Affordable Modification Program"), or some variation thereof. The discussions about its moral underpinnings continue: Should the federal government (read the Obama Administration) forgive and reduce principal balances in order to rewrite new mortgages? Fannie Mae, despite the billions already received to keep it afloat, is digging in its heels, according to Edward DeMarco, the acting head of Federal Housing Finance Agency. They won't do it voluntarily without more cash infusions from the taxpayers, which the administration seems more than willing to do.

The "negotiators" referenced in my past communications with BoA are a thing of the past. When I asked what their role was the explanation was they were negotiating for terms on my behalf with Fannie Mae, the entity that owns virtually every mortgage under the sun, and now Fannie Mae has created various "buckets" into which mortgage modifications will fit. You either meet those criteria for relief or you don't, and there is no longer a "negotiation." It appears I do meet the new criteria.

Yes, it is an election year, and yes the government is dictating terms to Fannie Mae, and yes, there is no other game in town since the collapse. It has taken this long because of the government's intervention into the mortgage markets to work through the maze to develop programs for certain circumstances that meet their criteria.

Here was my takeaway on what you have to do to qualify for a mortgage modification under the current rules: 1) The home must still be your primary residence; 2) you must express the desire to remain in your home; 3) you must have a job and be able to document your income; 4) you must have a current tax return that can be verified; 5) you must have encountered a hardship that can be documented and adequately explained; and 6) there is a demonstrable high probability you will be able to sustain the new mortgage if granted.

We won't believe it until the ink is dry on the modification papers we now anticipate receiving, but I can at least report BoA is making a start and they are to be commended. They frankly admitted to me they know their brand has been severely damaged. Their top management is conducting weekly webinars to keep the employees on the front lines informed about their future direction. One of the mortgage counselors at the event estimated at the rate they are moving it will take five years to untangle this Gordian knot, and that's based upon what they know they have in the backlog today, barring another wave of foreclosures in the future.

I have to salute BoA, however, for making a start. The Fannie Mae programs are so new the employees of BoA are still in training on them. However, the people who came representing BoA to the three-day event where they served about 200 people in a personal and professional way, were knowledgeable and forthcoming with answers to all my questions. They gave me every indication they were sincerely interested in my outcome. When I asked what metric they were using to measure the success of the event, they indicated if they could modify 50% of the mortgages they worked on, or 100, they would consider it a success worth doing. You can do the math for yourselves. They take this three-day road show into every city in America every weekend between now and infinity, and at the rate of 100 per city, it will take FOREVER to complete.

This has been a long three-year odyssey for us. I'm hoping that soon I will be able to report a happy ending. My advice to others is to stay in constant contact with BoA. Write letters, place phone calls, take the initiative, don't wait for them to act - you act first. Talk with whomever you can, even if it's a person with no authority who is reading from a script. I was delighted to find they had my complete file on record, and when we reviewed it together all my attempts at resolution had been logged and I was given credit and lauded by the team for continuing to do the right thing to get it resolved.

BoA is not the monolithic behemoth I once feared it was. I met real people this time around. They have suffered right along with the public. One lady who had worked for BoA for 33 years has lost lifelong friendships with people who got behind in their mortgages and she was powerless to help them. This will go down as a long, sad chapter in American history, but like most things in life if you persist and you remain constant in your desire to make a resolution, things eventually have a way of working out in a positive way.

Oh, and P.S., they even explained why I was eventually turned down the first time without explanation. In the file there was a notation that the loan calculation for the modification was an "NPV" - negative present value. Why no one ever told me that was not explained, but the person with whom I met that day showed me the file. This time, however, all the calculations were done in advance before the file was submitted to underwriting. I have a feeling this time they are going to get it right.

At least one can hope. . . stay tuned and I'll let you know what happens as soon as I do. I would like to become the poster child for a successful loan modification. I'm hoping BoA would like to cross the finish line and snap my picture for that poster.

Thanks 53ers - Now I Finally Know Who I Am

First we had the tea party, and in 2010 they changed the electoral map nationwide from blue to red in a dramatic "take back" of the People's House - the U.S. House of Representatives.

Most observers speculated they were a flash in the pan that would quickly fade and have no staying power.

However, taking a page from the tea party, a more recent populist response has arisen, labeling themselves as "the 99." They claim they are the "rest of the country" not represented by the privileged class in America who comprise the top 1 percent. Their claims are legitimate. Corporate greed has never been more obvious than it has been the last few years. Workers unite!! Overthrow the system!! Down with capitalism!! At least one observer thinks it's coming right out of the Communist Party play book.

Contrasted with the peaceful demonstrations of the tea party (no, they are not racist, bigoted, rowdy or fanatics), they have been seeking a more representative voice in Washington, and they made huge strides toward that goal in 2010. Many would be surprised to learn the goals of the 99ers and the tea party are not that divergent when it comes to change we can really believe in, as opposed to the change Obama gave us. Political change within the system without anarchy is what everyone is aiming for. Overthrowing the government by violent means isn't really the aim of anyone, or is it?

The 99'ers, aligned with something called "Occupy Wall Street," have filled up public squares all over the United States with their vitriol. Camped out for days at a time they have left behind garbage and filth, and I'm not referring to their language or their antics. The iconic symbol of this development is a picture of a protester defecating on a police car in New York. Nice image.

They claim this country has treated them unfairly. They collect their welfare checks, their unemployment benefits, their Medicare and Medicaid, and they are railing against the fat cats because they aren't. They aren't likely to become such with their protests, unless the goal (which it could be argued is the goal) is to simply destroy the capitalism they detest, which would give them the jobs they claim they want. But what they really would prefer is living on the government checks they receive. The government in their view is the benevolent dictator for which they seek. Level the playing field, equalize the income, redistribute the wealth, reach for the Utopian society capitalism denies them.

It's complicated, I know, but try to keep up.

If the socialist government we have created in this country does not collect enough taxes, it is free to borrow from foreign nations to sustain the socialist giveaways. Try asking them sometime where all the money comes from that funds the government, then wait for their response. Their simplistic view is that we need to tax the rich, redistribute the wealth of the fat cats and presto, problem solved! They rarely mention the debt this government has racked up, nor do they believe government spending must be curtailed. If you really believe in the socialist agenda, you'll have to look somewhere else for direction; you certainly won't find it here.

Now comes something called "the 53-percent." These folks are pushing back against the 99 with their own stories. They pay taxes, these 53 percent, because they are working and trying to stay ahead of the economic tsunami that has overtaken the world's financial markets. Many lost jobs, certainly their medical benefits, their retirement investments, and some on the cusp of old age now find themselves wondering what all their hard work of a lifetime has gotten them. I met a neighbor the other day in his 70s working the drive-up window at Arby's, but he refuses to give up or retire.

Here's the one thing they won't do - they refuse to blame anyone for their plight.

Somebody's got to pay for this according to the 99ers!! Followers of the 53-percenters' site created on Tumblr have been posting photos of their faces next to pieces of paper detailing the workaday sob stories that are their lives. But who are they blaming for their difficulties? Not the fat cat capitalists, nor the communist progressive liberals who are driving this country into the ditch.

The 53-percenters might be pushed to blaming themselves for electing career politicians, but that's generally as far as they will go in playing the blame game with others. They say we did it to ourselves. They're right in the middle of the American electorate where I reside. And in most cases they would be right. It's the folks in the middle who tend to be more independent.

Here's one guy's story who caught my eye today:

"I don't blame Wall Street because it doesn't matter what Wall Street or anyone else does. I am responsible for my own destiny because of me and me ALONE."

Here's another one:

"I don't have health insurance, but I don't blame Wall Street. Stop whining, suck it up, and God bless the U.S.A."

The 53-percent Tumblr is run by Mike Wilson, the same guy who made "Michael Moore Hates America," and his friends.

I don't need to sign up my story on the 53-percent. I wrote my views recently to the Bank of America in my "hardship letter" as part of a request for a modification of my mortgage (almost a three-year odyssey now):

"I love the game of golf. I love it because no matter what external influences come to bear on you during a round, there is only you, the ball, your club selection and the hole up ahead. You alone are responsible and accountable for the outcome in a round of golf. Only you take the swings that produce either a good or a bad shot. You can kick the ball to improve your lie, you can shave strokes off your scorecard, and you can brag about your exploits after the round is over as you describe it to others, but in the end only you know the truth about the round. You can't blame the weather, the wind, your playing partner, or even the condition of the greens. Once you learn the truth that no one's a very good golfer, you can accept responsibility and take it all in stride.

"I signed a mortgage agreement years ago with a mortgage broker and the loan was sold to Countrywide. Then Countrywide was taken over by Bank of America. In a transaction to which I was not a party that mortgage was securitized along the way. But none of that changes the fact that someone in the capitalist system in America eleven years ago provided me with money to buy my home. I made a promise I would pay it back with interest. Certainly since then the financial winds have blown at gale force, the economic rain has fallen in torrents and I lost my means of providing financially for my wife and family. All my savings were consumed and my assets sold to stay alive.

"I reinvented myself to compensate. Three years later I am still alive, in good health and I can still work hard every day.

"I know as the servicer for my loan Bank of American cannot even produce the original note I signed because it long ago disappeared into a securitization pool where it was pledged in the collateral pool to investors who bought it, and I later confirmed the note is now owned by Fannie Mae. There is nothing I can do about any of that.

"All I know is I still owe someone the money I borrowed, and I am doing everything I can to repay it. The arrearage that has amounted to a negative amortization of my loan based upon my partial payments of the full amount will have to be addressed. Even that's not totally my fault, since Bank of America's inaction and broken promises have contributed to it. However, I've done everything you've asked me to do as a borrower in distress.

"In the end I am fully responsible and accountable. No politician did this to me. No bank did this to me. No amount of adverse external conditions swirling over my head in the last three years alters in one iota the fact that I made a promise to pay it all back. And I will. With or without Bank of America's offer of a modification. If I can't get there before I die, a life insurance policy will pay it off."

So after all that, here's what I know about myself: I never saw myself as a member of the tea party. There was something about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann that just never clicked with me. I'm sure as heck not a 99'er, so I must be a 53-percenter. The margin of victory in a presidential election is most often narrow. Thirteen months out, no one knows which way the thing will turn out. Half the country will be ecstatic, the other half dismayed.

A related thought to conclude: If the death of Steve Jobs teaches us anything it is that in failure we may someday succeed despite all the odds against us. He didn't just put a "ding" in the universe, he kicked the door down. He was likely a fat cat in the upper 1% by any measurement of financial success. How funny to see one of the protesters the other day in New York answering her iPhone while condemning capitalism's profits. Can you say disconnect?

Now you can correctly label me. #IAmThe53. Here's another version.

Dodd-Frank Financial "Reform"

On a 60-39 Senate vote, Dodd-Frank passed yesterday.

I am still searching in vain for one independent voice out there who finds this latest regulatory boondoggle to be positive.  Then suddenly, this morning I found one -- mind you with tongue firmly planted in cheek.  The Heritage Foundation thinks with one stroke of his pen that President Obama without intending to do it has created more jobs than ever before in the eighteen months of his presidency.

The bill does not bode well for entrepreneurs and small businesses, the backbone of the American economy, however:

"Entrepreneurs take a double hit in the Dodd-Frank bill. First, by forcing banks to raise more capital it will now be more difficult for them to make new loans for small businesses. But more important is the regulatory threat for new products. Across the world mobile device and telecommunications firms are beginning to compete against credit card companies and banks to reshape how consumers buy products and manage their finances. Will the Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even allow these services to come to market? Will cell phone firms have to be regulated exactly like financial firms? Nobody knows the answer to these questions. Here is what we do know: it will be the banks and telco firms with the best lawyers and lobbyists – not the best entrepreneurs – that come out on top in this battle."

The Heritage analysis continues:

"Then there is what the Dodd-Frank does not do: it does nothing to stop future government bailouts. Instead, it makes the TARP bailout system permanent. The bill’s “orderly liquidation” process empowers regulators to seize any firm they deem a threat to our financial system and liquidate them. These powers are subject to insufficient judicial review and do nothing to ensure that the firms’ creditors won’t receive 100% of their irresponsibly lent money back in future taxpayer funded bailouts. And speaking of taxpayer-funded bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose activities were instrumental to the financial crisis."

Most telling is the "job creation" reality associated with this monstronsity:

". . . the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill set in motion 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Each of the 243 rule-makings will employ hundreds of banking lobbyists as they try to shape what the final actual laws will look like. And when the rules are finally written, thousands of lawyers will bill millions of hours as the richest incumbent financial firms that caused the last crisis figure out how to game the new system. Yesterday, the Washington law firm Jones Day snapped up the Securities and Exchange Commission head enforcement division lawyer, and J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the biggest U.S. banks by assets, assigned more than 100 teams to examine the legislation. University of Massachusetts political science professor Thomas Ferguson tells The Christian Science Monitor:

"By delegating so much to the regulators, Congress is inviting everyone interested in the outcome to make more campaign contributions, as they intervene in the regulatory process to influence the regulators. Nothing is settled. It’s a gold mine for members of Congress."

So once again, we have a bill entitled "Reform" that is anything but . . .  I wonder if anyone "out there" even cares or realizes how potentially devastating this action will yet prove to be.  I hope and pray I'm dead wrong.

More analysis of Dodd-Frank

The negative reactions to Dodd-Frank continue to surface, this analysis from Gary Becker and Richard Posner.  These are smart guys, in whom I have much more confidence than the members of Congress.  I continue searching for some independent voice out there who has a positive view of this pending legislation, but beyond the Senators and Congressmen who are touting it I find few who recommend it.

Like most titles of legislation Washington produces, this title is once again misleading. The so-called “Financial Services Reform” bill is anything but reform. The AP, reports that “Sens. Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown pushed sweeping financial legislation to the edge of final passage Monday, both announcing they intend to support the regulatory overhaul despite initial misgivings.” Gary Becker and Richard Posner write on The Becker-Posner Blog the following 5 faults with this legislation:

1.  “The bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” - This bill is over 2,000 pages in length like Obamacare and is a complete mess of new regulations and the establishment of multiple (not just one) new administrative agencies. Extraneous measures were added to this bill not even related to the systemic causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and that is an outrage. Becker-Posner write that “the bill gives the Fed authority to limit interchange or ’swipe’ fees that merchants pay for each debit-card transaction.” This is nothing more than voodoo politics -- save the masses from a minor fee that touches their lives every day, then allow them to pass it along in some other fee down the road.  It is not beyond the realm of possibility this bill could also trigger more financial crises than it cures.

2.  “The Dodd-Frank bill gives several government agencies considerable additional discretion to try to forestall another crisis, even though they already had the authority to take many actions.” Does anyone you know think that giving the federal government more expansive power is a good idea?  Now is the time to LIMIT government, not expand it.  Who wants to give Treasury and the Fed vast new powers to address a crisis when they already have authority to address whatever they need to with existing powers?  Honestly, Congress is either brain dead or they think we're just stupid lemmings.

3.  “Insufficient capital relative to bank assets was an important cause of the financial.” The bill has a complicated means to require more capital, yet Becker-Posner argue that a simple requirement would have been a better means to require more capital reserves in banks.

4.  “One of the most serious omissions is that the bill essentially says nothing about Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.” This bill does nothing to reform or abolish Freddie and Fannie. The Foundry argued that, “supporters of Sen. Chris Dodd’s financial regulation bill say it will end financial bailouts. In fact, the Senate — anxious to reassure Americans on that fact — even added an amendment last week with a stated purpose ‘[t]o prohibit taxpayers from ever having to bail out the financial sector.’ But someone forgot to tell the folks across town at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Freddie last week announced it had lost $8 billion in the first quarter of the year, and would be asking for another $10.6 in taxpayer help. And today, its twin Fannie announced a $11.5 billion loss, and asked for a further $8.4 billion in aid from taxpayers. That’s in addition to the nearly $145 billion in aid to Fannie and Freddie have already received.” And Dodd and Frank continue to tell the bald-faced lie this bill is “reform” when nothing is being done to abolish an organization that has wasted over hundreds of billions of your tax dollars? They were the chairmen of the respective committees that caused the crisis, and now they would have you believe they are the problem solvers through regulation?  This bill is not reform. Any legislation that purports to conduct reform and does nothing about Fannie and Freddie is not reform. Don’t be fooled by this legislation, because the elites in Washington will do anything to protect friends who have worked at Fannie and Freddie.

5.  “Many proposals in the bill will have highly uncertain impacts on the economy.” Becker-Posner point to new mortgage regulations, hedge fund regulations and consumer “protections” as three examples of new red tape that may slow and already slow economy. Yet again, the elites in Washington think they know better than the experts on Wall Street and have chosen to empower bureaucrats.

This bill is terrible policy, omits real reform and it may harm the economy. Despite fears and warnings, however, once again this legislation is one Senate vote away from a Presidential signing ceremony.

Senator Scott Brown's (R-MA) supporters need to rethink whether he's a real conservative if he ends up voting for this trash.