This weeks IUC data shows a drop to 367,000. Last week was adjusted (up) to 379,000.
The weekly numbers have been consistent in their inconsistency, and the four-week average has been holding steady. Still way over the "normal" of 300,000-325,000 new claims per week, but the swings to be getting smaller..
A U.S. Justice Department source has told The Daily Caller that at least two DOJ prosecutors accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives who were indicted under court seal within the past 13 months, but never arrested or prosecuted.
The sitting governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, his attorney general and an unspecified number of Virgin Islands legislators also accepted bribes, the source said, adding that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is aware prosecutors and elected officials were bribed and otherwise compromised, but has not held anyone accountable.
The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.
That source said that until the summer of 2011, the two compromised prosecutors were part of a team of more than 25 federal prosecutors pursuing a financial crime ring, and at least five other prosecutors tasked to the case were also compromised by the criminal suspects they were investigating, without being bribed.
Maybe at the next GOP debate, a moderator could ask about this, and not what Romney's tax rate is?
Just sayin'.
DOJ leadership has been fretting internally, the source said, about how to handle the story when the news breaks because it represents a new level of corruption in the Obama administration. The Holder Justice Department is concerned about the appearance that it lacks the competence to enforce the laws in which Obama has shown political interest, including those related to corruption and other financial crimes.
“This housing crisis struck right at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America: our homes,” Obama said in the text of remarks he’s delivering in the Washington suburb of Falls Church, Virginia. “We need to do everything in our power to repair the damage and make responsible families whole.”
The president said his plan would make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages into current low interest rates, which are now below 4 percent. Borrowers, even those who owe more than their homes are worth, would be able to refinance into government-guaranteed Federal Housing Administration Loans.
...
The announcement adds to a mosaic of existing programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.
The FHA refinancing idea, if it wins funding from Congress, would help borrowers cut “through the red tape” and limit paperwork. Appraisals and tax returns would not be required, according to the White House fact sheet.
“A lender need only confirm that the borrower is employed,” according to the document. Unemployed borrowers might qualify for the loans if they meet other credit requirements.
Nope, no reason to think there might be any fraud or problems here. It's so easy! No red tape! No documentation needed! Just sign here, it doesn't cost a thing!
The proposal could save borrowers an average of $3,000 a year, according to the document. The program is open to “responsible” homeowners current on their payments and with no more than one delinquency in the previous six months.
Loan applicants must have a credit score of 580 or higher to be eligible and occupy the property they want to finance.
Loans must not exceed FHA lending limits, which range from $271,050 to $729,750, depending on the location of the purchase property. Borrowers who are underwater, or owe more than their home is worth, would be eligible to apply for the loans if they met other requirements.
I can't imagine any opportunity for unscrupulous folks to visit the homes of poor people, charge them a "nominal fee" to "help" them do the paperwork, and then go on to their next victim.
I bet you are asking "Ok, WAMK, since you are so smart, what would YOU suggest?".
I'm glad you asked.
I'd modify the interest rate, but keep your payment the same. The money saved would be put into an escrow account that cannot be touched by the homeowner for a set time period (say five years). The homeowner would be able to borrow against that amount for specific uses (to pay bills in case of a layoff, health emergency, etc).
Say you have a total mortgage payment of $1500 right now. With lower interest rates, your payment drops to $1200 (the Administration has said that the average homeowner would save around $350 per month with a modified mortgage). The homeowner continues to pay $1500, and the $300 per month goes into an account (invested in bonds and T-bills, no NYSE) that gains interest.
After one month, the homeowner has a $300 "savings account". After a year, it's $3600 (plus any accrued compounding interest). Just like your 401(k) with your employer, you are able to borrow against a certain percentage of your "savings" balance, if needed.
At the end of the year, you have the option to designate all (or a portion) of your "savings" to the principal balance of your mortgage.
The problem with the Obama "solution" is that it doesn't protect the Taxpayer enough. If a person is scraping by because their mortgage is too high, and they get a $300 monthly reduction, where is that "new found" money going to go? To pay down personal debt? Nope. New iPhone. New car. New clothes.
Sure, it would stimulate the economy in the short run, but very quickly we would find that people are once again unable to pay their now-reduced mortgage, because they now have higher insurance to pay on their new car, have to pay for gas to fill up that gas tank, have a monthly bill for that new iPhone, etc.
In other words, it doesn't change the behavior of those that got into trouble in the first place. Which means the cycle will repeat (as it always does) sometime down the road, and we'll be in trouble again.
The WAMKMortgage Adjustment Plan works because the homeowner still gets the benefits of the lower interest rate, but the actual funds are kept out of their hands in the immediate short term. You could even make it like a 401(k), and have the funds fully vest over a five-year period. You could even make it a shorter time period, like five quarters, and get the benefit of a short-term stimulus, and a long-term savings plan.
The WAMK Plan also protects the Taxpayers that are paying for this whole thing. Under the Obama Plan, cash is immediately available, with no repercussions. The WAMK Plan allows the reserves to build up over a short time frame, and then with the "vesting" option, allow those funds to enter the Market down the road. People will piss away $300 in a month without thinking twice. Having a lump sum of $900 after three months makes most people think twice before blowing an amount like that in a quick manner.
Am I naive enough to thing there wouldn't be fraud under the WAMK Plan? Of course not. But by creating a system in where the homeowner gets some relief, but there is a "middle man" before they can get that cash, it limits it dramatically.
The Obama Plan is no different than handing out Katrina FEMA cards.
And for those of you out there that don't have a mortgage? Thanks for taking care of a portion of mine. I'm sure that will play well with voters.
Should we really be surprised this will happen, based on our lack of a claerly defined mission from our Commander in Chief?
The U.S. military said in a secret report the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw from the country, raising the prospect of a major failure of western policy after a costly war.
Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, confirmed the existence of the document, reported by Britain's Times newspaper and the BBC. But he said it was not a strategic study.
"The classified document in question is a compilation of Taliban detainee opinions," he said. "It's not an analysis, nor is it meant to be considered an analysis."
Nevertheless, it could be interpreted as a damning assessment of the war, now dragging into its eleventh year and aimed at blocking a Taliban return to power.
It could also be seen as an admission of defeat and could reinforce the view of Taliban hardliners that they should not negotiate with the United States and President Hamid Karzai's unpopular government while in a position of strength.
Yet another failure Barack Obama can add to his Presidential resume.
California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers today.
The announcement is surprising since lawmakers previously believed the state had enough cash to last through the fiscal year that ends in June.
But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on.
So revenue projections were too rosy, and the State spent almost 3 billion dollars more than they budgeted for?
Great job, California. Keep electing those smart Democrats!
The "solution" for California is to borrow even more money, and then delay payments (a fancy way of saying "borrow money") to schools and Medi-Cal recipients (those are the folks that need help the most, for my readers in Tuscon).
The Assembly budget committee approved a bill today that would enable $865 million of borrowing from existing state accounts, Senate Bill 95. Chiang, after consultation with the Department of Finance and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, is also seeking about $2.4 billion in delayed payments to universities, counties and Medi-Cal, as well as additional borrowing from outside investors.
I'm so confused, because whenever Republicans talk about cutting costs, the Left screams how we don't care about education and healthcare. So why is it okay for those to be cut now, Lefties?
House Republicans are expanding their probe into the Obama administration's energy programs, investigating $500 million in green job training grants that placed just 10% of trainees in jobs, according to a government report.
The program's goal was to train 124,893 people and put 79,854 in jobs. But 17 months later, 52,762 were trained and 8,035, or roughly 1 in 10, had jobs. Those numbers come from an audit by the Department of Labor's inspector general, which recommended that the administration end the program and return unspent money.
President Obama has made green jobs a cornerstone of his economic agenda. In his first 2012 campaign ad this month, he said clean energy industries created 2.7 million jobs and were "expanding rapidly." But Republicans have pounced on failures, such as the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar panel maker backed with a Department of Energy loan guarantee.
Citing what he calls "abysmal results" in the job training program, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is demanding answers about how the Department of Labor awarded the grants, which were funded out of the 2009 stimulus bill.
But Assistant Secretary of Labor Jane Oates defends the initiative, saying the inspector general's audit used old numbers and that it was never designed to provide immediate results.
"It's like coming to me three days after I join Weight Watchers and yelling at me because I didn't lose 62 pounds yet," she said. More recent numbers are still being compiled, Oates said.
Good point, Ms. Oates. The only flaw in your logic is that these Companies have had our money for 17 months, not three days.
One group Issa singled out is the Pathstone Corp., a Rochester, N.Y. non-profit that spent $2.3 million of its $8 million grant and had trained only 25 people — far short of its 660 goal, auditors found.
Those numbers are "extremely outdated," said Pathstone's Jeffrey Lewis. But he conceded that job placements have been much slower than anyone would have liked. "This grant came just as the recession heightened," he said.
So Pathstone has spent over 25% of the money, yet has only hired 3.7% of the employees it promised. And wasn't the money provided to help Companies like Pathstone weather the storm of the recession in the first place? Where did the money go, Mr. Lewis, if it didn't go towards training new employees?
Recent Comments