Consumer: About Making Money

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

The Republican National Committee will soon hold elections to potentially replace its gaffe-prone chairman Michael Steele, and today, FreedomWorks held a forum for those vying for the job. All the candidates present — Steele was conspicuously absent — touted their fundraising ability, but Mike Duncan, a former chairman running for another term, took the opportunity to wax poetic about campaign finance. Despite the recent troubling and unprecedented explosion of money in politics, Duncan called money “the mother’s milk of politics,” and argued, “there is not enough money” in politics:

DUNCAN: Money is the mother’s milk of politics. There is not too much money in politics, there is not enough money. When you consider that we spend $7 billion in this county a year on potato chips. We spend $4 billion, a little over $4 billion, according to the National Retailer Association on Halloween — on costumes and candies.

Watch it:

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, this year’s election saw a flood of money into politics, with corporations, special interests, and wealthy individuals spending like never before. Nearly $4 billion was spent on the 2010 cycle, making it the most expensive midterm in history, with more spent by outside groups this year than during all the midterms since 1990 combined. A disturbingly large portion of this was secret money spent by front groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, which do not have to disclose their donors. This system allows a tiny group of individuals to have an outsize impact on American democracy. For example, in August, an astonishing 91 percent of the millions American Crossroads raised came from just three billionaires. And while the Chamber claims to represent hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small, the vast majority of their funding comes from just 45 mega-corporations.

But it’s not surprising that Duncan would support this flood of special interest money in politics, as Republicans benefited most from secret money, and spent more than Democrats overall. According to a New York Times analysis, eight of the top ten outside political groups were GOP-aligned, including the top four.

However, the American people do not agree with Duncan that there should be more money in politics, especially when it comes to corporate money. A PCCC poll from last week showed that by a double-digit margin, voters would support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and once again restrict corporations from directly spending on elections. Meanwhile, a People for the American Way poll from June found that 85 percent believe that there is too much corporate money in politics. And a poll from the 2008 presidential campaign found that “Americans by 3-1 think too much money is” spent on politics.

It's as if the Fed was functioning in a complete vacuum and has never heard of foreclosure fraud.

WASHINGTON — As Americans continue to lose their homes in record numbers, the Federal Reserve is considering making it much harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures and escape predatory home loans with onerous terms....

Since 1968, the Truth in Lending Act has given homeowners the right to cancel, or rescind illegal loans for up to three years after the transaction was completed if the buyer wasn't provided with proper disclosures at the time of closing.

Attorneys at AARP have used the rescission clause for decades to protect older homeowners stuck in predatory loans with costly terms. The provision is also helping struggling homeowners to fight a wave of foreclosure cases in which faulty and sometimes-fraudulent disclosures were used....

Critics say the proposed change by the Fed would render the rescission clause useless. The Fed proposal would require homeowners who seek a loan rescission through the courts, to pay off the entire loan balance before the lender cancels the lien.

"This, of course, would be almost impossible for most consumers to do because they can't come up with the money until they get out of the loan. And they can't get out of the loan until the lien is released," said Barry Zigas, director of housing and credit policy at the Consumer Federation of America. "None of us are quite sure what purpose is being served by this proposal or what prompted it."

According to the New York Times which ran an editorial against the proposal earlier in the week, the Fed wants to eliminate this protection for homeowners because of their “concern over banks’ compliance costs." Since the Fed certainly can't be concerned about banks fraudulently taking people's homes from them.

What Zach Carter says:

It’s hard to imagine a way for the Fed to disgrace itself any further than it did by failing to rein in the mortgage mess over the past decade. But if it proceeds with this effort to protect banks that engaged in predatory lending, it will not only be guilty of falling down on the job and looking the other way, but of actively encouraging illegal mortgage lending.

bench craft company scam

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

About Making Money

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me