OBOF SS & MORE PART 31

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
!!SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	AUG. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug.  29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011
SS & MORE PART 20	Sept. 26, 2011
SS & MORE PART 21	Oct.   10, 2011
SS & MORE PART 22	Oct.  24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 22 EXTRA	Nov.  04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 23	Nov.  07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 24	Nov.  21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 25	Dec.  05, 2011
SS & MORE PART 26	DEC.  19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 27	JAN.  03, 2012
SS & MORE PART 27A	JAN.  05, 2012
SS & MORE PART 28	JAN.  17, 2012
SS & MORE PART 29	JAN.  31, 2012
SS & MORE PART 30	Feb.  14,2012
SS & MORE PART CL1	Feb.  21, 2012
SS & MORE PART 30 EXTRA	Feb.  23, 2012
SS & MORE PART 31	Feb.  28, 2012

IN  THIS  ISSUE

1.  THE FAB GROUP

          Against war on women.

          Occupy the SEC.

          Missiles pointed at Social Security.

          White House "Tipsheet."

2.  A courageous family.

3. Former Marine arrested protesting his house foreclosure.

4.  Ideological Hypocrites.

5,  Parting thoughts.

~~~

"VOTE  AN  EDUCATED  VOTE"

What is an educated vote?  It is one that has been made with as much knowledge, based on facts, not misinformation, that an individual can obtain.

~~~

"THE FAB  GROUP"

What is "THE FAB GROUP?"  Very simply, it is a group of short news items that provide more varied amounts of news, which I think we all will be interested in, without long detailed commentary.  More news - less reading.

Why "FAB?"  My name is Floyd Austin Bowman -  (FAB), and these are a goup of items that I have chosen, thus "THE FAB GROUP,"  pronounced "FAB."

500,000 Strong Against the Republican War on Women

In the last week, you’ve broken nearly every DCCC petition record. Over 445,000 of you have told Republicans that women must never be silenced when discussing women’s health care issues. Your tremendous response is making news from the Wall Street Journal to the Huffington Post.

Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student that Republicans refused to let testify at an all-male birth control hearing, finally had her chance to speak on Capitol Hill this week. However, Republicans changed the rules at the last minute to deny Sandra the right to have her testimony televised by Congressional cameras. It’s inexcusable.

Help us reach 500,000 standing strong against the Republican War on Women by adding your name to our petition >>

Thanks for fighting alongside us,

Rep. Steve Israel
DCCC Chairman (Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee)

Occupy the SEC: Former Wall Street Workers Defend Volcker Rule Against Banks’ Anti-Regulatory Push

The latest off-shoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement — Occupy the SEC — has submitted a 325-page comment to the Securities and Exchange Commission that calls on regulators to resist the financial industry’s lobbying efforts to water down the Volcker Rule, a section in the Dodd--Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, that aims to prevent large banks from making certain kinds of risky, speculative investments. The group is made up of former Wall Street professionals who once worked at many of the largest financial firms in the industry

MISSILES POINTED AT SOCIAL SECURITY

In OBOF PART 30 EXTRA there was an article with the above title.  I had posted some comments at the end and, while they were accurate, I present a little bit of a negative feeling that would be felt at the end of the FICA reduction.  I still feel that it will be used by the Republicans as a reason to get rid of SS altogether.  They will later try to say that it contributes to the deficit. 

However, Allen W. Smith Ph.D., whom I mentioned in the previous posting, wrote me an e-mail instead of a comment at the end of the posting.  He, as always, has a real important point and I am including here.  I totally agree with him, but I don't think the Republicans will. 

I do want to point out that he, like 99% of those who talk about the FICA reduction, refer to it as a tax.  I strongly disagree with that characterization.  There is no where in legislation or any legal reference to SS that refers to FICA as a tax.  It is the Federal Insurance Contribution Account.  In Dr. Smith's comments, the word premium in red is my insertion.

Dr. Allen W. Smith's contribution to this subject.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the payroll tax (premium) cuts.  The economy needed the stimulus of a tax (premium) cut on low-income Americans.  Since low income workers pay little or no federal income taxes, cutting income taxes would not have had the desired effect.  Since all workers pay the payroll tax, (premium) cutting it was the only way to give  breaks to those Americans who would spend most of their additional take-home pay and thus stimulate the economy.  

I believe the temporary payroll tax (premium) cuts are the primary contributor to the improved economy.  The argument that a short reprieve from paying full FICA taxes will somehow undermine Social Security is not valid.  For the past 25 years, Social Security contributions, that were supposed to be saved, have been transferred to the Treasury and spent on other programs.  Transferring small amounts of money from the Treasury back to Social Security to make up for the lost revenue resulting from the temporary payroll tax (premium) cuts will not even make a dent in the $2.6 trillion debt that the Treasury owes to Social Security.

Dr. Smith, I thank you so much for your well stated enlightenment.    Floyd

WHITE HOUSE "TIPSHEET"

The White House, from time to time, posts a "Tipsheet."  They plan to do it weekly, however this is the first one and we'll just have to see how often they get it out.  This one was released on Feb. 24.

Mitt Romney spoke in front of 65,000 empty seats at Ford Field in Detroit today to outline his economic plan. With all eyes on the Michigan primary next week, this is a critical time to spread the truth.

The differences between his plan and President Obama's go much farther than the fact that he would've "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." We've laid out a few in this week's tipsheet.

#1 KEEPING HIS WORD: THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY

As Romney speaks in Detroit, folks shouldn't forget that he and every other GOP candidate opposed the auto recovery, preferring to let the industry go bankrupt. From Day One, President Obama has stood with the American auto industry, saying, "We cannot, and must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish." He's kept his word: More than 1.4 million American auto industry jobs have been saved, 200,000 created, and more than 150,000 are expected in the next few years. Make sure folks know who's on the right side of this one. Pass it on:

#2 GOP CANDIDATES ANNOUNCE TAX PLANS THAT WOULD EXPLODE DEFICIT

Not a day goes by without hearing Romney and Santorum push for cutting the corporate tax rate. But what you don't hear is how they'll pay for it. President Obama plans to make our businesses more competitive by cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent -- and closing special-interest loopholes and subsidies to cover the difference. Romney and Santorum want to cut it, too, but they're sure not willing to close any special loopholes to do it. They actually offer no plan to make up the difference, meaning these corporate savings add straight to the deficit. Keep these self-proclaimed budget hawks honest:

#3 MITT FIGHTS TO KEEP THE CARRIED INTEREST TAX LOOPHOLE

Carried interest is tax jargon for letting Wall Street private equity and hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans -- and Mitt Romney is determined to protect it. Why? Maybe because he's earned $13 million from it the past two years, and paid a 15 percent rate when his normal income would be taxed at more than double. President Obama recently announced he'd close this loophole, saving $13 billion in the next 10 years. Folks need to know that when the President's working towards a system where everyone pays their fair share, Mitt Romney's working to protect millionaires and billionaires. Read more on carried interest, and tell others, too:

#4 ROMNEY HEADLINES KOCH BROTHERS EVENT

Tomorrow, Mitt Romney will be speaking at an event sponsored by the Koch brothers. These are the same guys who made their billions by jacking up prices at the pump -- and have already spent millions spreading lies about climate change science. It's good to remember that, while President Obama has outlined a strategy to ease gas prices, Mitt Romney quintupled a tax on gas as governor -- on top of the gas tax Massachusetts motorists were already paying. Get the truth here -- and spread the word:

#5 MITT ROMNEY: THE MOST EXTREME ON IMMIGRATION

In case you missed Wednesday's GOP debate, Mitt Romney reaffirmed his position as the most extreme GOP candidate on immigration. He praised Arizona's radical anti-immigration law, SB 1070, which forces all immigrants to carry "alien registration" documents and allows police to question them at any time, with or without cause. Add this to his support of encouraging "self-deportation" and promise to veto the DREAM Act, and you can see why he wins at being most extreme. Make sure folks know he actually called Arizona's immigration law a model for the nation. Spread the word now:

~~~

IN  OBOF  PART  30

In part 30 I posted an article regarding the red headline listed directly under this sentence.

MORTGAGE  SETTLEMENT  WITH  BANKS

THE  FOLLOWING  SHOULD  BE  OF  SOME  HELP  FOR  ARTURO DE LOS SANTOS.  IT  WILL  BE  INTERESTING  TO  SEE  IF  IT  DOES.

Before that article, I had posted the story that follows.  Even though you may have read about the De Los Santos family in part 30, it is short and I am going to list it again as it leads into what has happened since the MORTGAGE SETTLEMENT WITH BANKS.  In part 30, as you see above, I questioned what would happen and now the next step has happened.  It follows in full after the original article that was in Part 30.

~~~

A courageous family is taking on the big banks to

save their home   

Arturo de los Santos is a 46-year-old former Marine who lives with his wife and four children in Riverside, CA.  For almost a decade, Arturo and his family have lived in their three-bedroom house next door to their kids' elementary school, a dream made possible by Arturo's job as a supervisor in a Santa Ana metal factory, where he has worked for over 21 years.

But in 2008, as a result of the economic crash, business at Arturo's factory plummeted and Arturo's hours were sharply reduced.  Like millions of Americans, Arturo's reduced income made it difficult for him to make monthly payments, forcing him to apply for a modification to his loan, which is owned by Freddie Mac and serviced by giant Wall Street bank JP Morgan Chase.

The bank gave Arturo the runaround in a cruel way.  In order to get the loan modification, he was instructed to deliberately fall behind on his payments.  Then, because he had followed these instructions, Chase foreclosed Arturo's home and last year evicted his family -- even after Arturo notified the bank that his income had recovered and that he was able to make the original payments.  By this point, Arturo had applied three times -- and been rejected three times -- for a loan modification that he qualified for.

After watching their house sit vacant for months with no buyers, Arturo and his family decided to move back into their home in December and enroll their children back into their school. Their situation is dicey -- they could be re-evicted at any moment.

~~~

FORMER  MARINE  ARRESTED  IN  CALIFORNIA  FOR  PROTESTING  BANK FORECLOSURE  ON  HIS  HOME,  NOW  FACES  IMMINENT  EVICTION.

TRAVIS WALDRON

Published: Sunday 26 February 2012

De los Santos was served with another eviction notice last week, asking him to vacate the property by 6:01 a.m. yesterday, but said he would not comply with the notice.

More than 200 pro­test­ers have been fight­ing to save the home of Ar­turo de los San­tos, an ex-Ma­rine

 (My note:  There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.  Once a Marine you are always a Marine.  I am a Marine even though I am 88 years old.  I was an active Marine during WWII.) 

 who went into fore­clo­sure after Chase Bank ad­vised him to skip pay­ments to speed up a loan mod­i­fi­ca­tion he never re­ceived. In early Feb­ru­ary, amid ru­mors that River­side, Cal­i­for­nia sher­iff’s deputies could serve pa­pers on the home at any time, or­ga­niz­ers from the Al­liance of Cal­i­for­ni­ans for Com­mu­nity Em­pow­er­ment and other groups sur­rounded the home, and de los San­tos pe­ti­tioned the sher­iff to pre­vent evic­tion.

At the time, de los San­tos said he was pre­pared to get ar­rested to save his home, and last Thurs­day, he was, ac­cord­ing to The New Bot­tom Line:

Ar­turo de los San­tos, his fam­ily, and scores of sup­porters went to the Los An­ge­les head­quar­ters of Fred­die Mac on Thurs­day, Feb­ru­ary 16 to protest his fore­clo­sure and evic­tion, to ask Fred­die to re­store his mort­gage, and to let his fam­ily keep their home. After re­fus­ing to leave the lobby of the of­fice, the po­lice were called and Ar­turo was ar­rested.

De los San­tos took his case to Fred­die Mac be­cause it in­sured his orig­i­nal mort­gage and is thus ser­vic­ing the fore­clo­sure. Be­fore tak­ing his case to Fred­die Mac, de los San­tos of­fered to make the pay­ments he had been ad­vised to miss, but Chase re­fused his money. “Chase told me to talk to Fred­die Mac, be­cause they were only ser­vic­ing the loan and Fred­die un­der­wrote it, but Fred­die told me to talk to Chase,” he told the Huff­in­g­ton Post.

De los San­tos was served with an­other evic­tion no­tice last week, ask­ing him to va­cate the prop­erty by 6:01 a.m. yes­ter­day, but said he would not com­ply with the no­tice. Though the dead­line passed more than 24 hours ago, de los San­tos, his wife, and their four chil­dren are still in the home and have not been evicted, ac­cord­ing to those with knowl­edge of the sit­u­a­tion.

The prob­lems fac­ing de los San­tos’ mort­gage are not unique. Banks have come under fire for il­le­gal, mis­taken, and fraud­u­lent fore­clo­sures — the same day de los San­tos was ar­rested, an ex­am­i­na­tion of 400 San Fran­cisco-area fore­clo­sures found that nearly all of them had legal is­sues, and 84 per­cent had “one or more clear vi­o­la­tions of law.”

The home mod­i­fi­ca­tion pro­grams, meant to help strug­gling home­own­ers like de los San­tos, mean­while, have fallen woe­fully short of their goals.

MY NOTE:  The real sad part of this is that the same thing is happening to literally thousands of others like De Los Santos.  I tell you folks, the corruption and fraud, which of course is corruption, is running so unchecked, so unrestrained, so uncontrolled, and so unbridled that it is truly scary.  How has it gotten this way?  There is no question about the answer - - the Republicans.

In no way, am I saying that all Democrats are Saints and Angels, but from my viewpoint, I see no answer, except to get a total Democratic rule at the federal level.  I'm not suggesting that that would stop all corruption, but I think it would go a long way in getting it more under control.  It would go a long way toward solving, not all, but, a lot of our country's problems.  PLEASE TALK WITH ANYONE YOU CAN TO TRY TO SHOW THEM THAT  WE JUST HAVE TO GET DEMOCRATS BACK.   

~~~

IDEOLOGICAL  HYPOCRITES

 “Can conservatives finally face the fact that they actually want quite a lot from government, and that they are simply unwilling to raise taxes to pay for it?”

By E. J. Dionne Jr.  -  NATIONofCHANGE   Published Sunday Feb. 26

When we talk about hypocrisy in pol­i­tics, we usu­ally high­light per­sonal be­hav­ior. The se­ri­ally-mar­ried politi­cian who pro­claims “fam­ily val­ues” while also hav­ing af­fairs is now a rather dreary stock fig­ure in our cam­paign nar­ra­tives.

But the hypocrisy that mat­ters far more is the gap be­tween ide­ol­ogy and prac­tice that has reached a cri­sis point in Amer­i­can con­ser­vatism. This Re­pub­li­can pres­i­den­tial cam­paign is demon­strat­ing con­clu­sively that there is an un­bridge­able di­vide be­tween the philo­soph­i­cal com­mit­ments con­ser­v­a­tive can­di­dates make be­fore they are elected and what they will have to do when faced with the day-to-day de­mands of prac­ti­cal gov­er­nance. Con­ser­v­a­tives in power have never been — and can never be — as anti-gov­ern­ment as they are in a cam­paign.

Begin by ask­ing your­self why so many con­ser­v­a­tive politi­cians say they’re anti-gov­ern­ment but spend long ca­reers in of­fice draw­ing pay­checks from the tax­pay­ers. Also: Why do they bash gov­ern­ment largesse while seek­ing as much of it as they can get for their con­stituents and friendly in­ter­est groups?

Why do they crit­i­cize “en­ti­tle­ments” and “big gov­ern­ment” while promis­ing today’s se­nior cit­i­zens — an im­por­tant part of the con­ser­v­a­tive base — never, ever to cut their Medicare or So­cial Se­cu­rity? Why do they claim that they want gov­ern­ment out of the mar­ket­place while not only re­ject­ing cuts in de­fense but also laud­ing large de­fense con­tracts that are an enor­mous in­tru­sion in the op­er­a­tion of the “free mar­ket”?

The con­test be­tween Mitt Rom­ney and Rick San­to­rum is un­earthing all sorts of dou­ble stan­dards of this sort, and I salute each of them for draw­ing at­ten­tion to the other’s in­con­stan­cies.

San­to­rum scored a di­rect hit on Rom­ney last Thurs­day in a speech at the De­troit Eco­nomic Club. Both Rom­ney and San­to­rum op­posed Pres­i­dent Obama’s res­cue of the auto in­dus­try, a form of di­rect gov­ern­ment in­ter­ven­tion whose suc­cess Re­pub­li­cans (though not, it ap­pears, Michi­gan’s vot­ers) have a hard time ac­knowl­edg­ing.

But San­to­rum raised a good ques­tion. “Gov­er­nor Rom­ney sup­ported the bailout of Wall Street and de­cided not to sup­port the bailout of De­troit,” San­to­rum said. “My feel­ing was that . . . the gov­ern­ment should not be in­volved in bailouts, pe­riod. I think that’s a much more con­sis­tent po­si­tion.”

In­deed it is. Rom­ney can offer all sorts of ra­tio­nales for the dif­fer­ence be­tween the two bailouts, but once he backed the Wall Street res­cue, he could no longer claim free mar­ket pu­rity. The fi­nan­cial bailout he thought was so vital cre­ated the very “de­pen­dency” and sense of “en­ti­tle­ment” within our priv­i­leged classes that he con­demns when it comes to the less well-off.

Many con­ser­v­a­tives — in­clud­ing, bravely, George W. Bush — pushed for the bank bailout be­cause the al­ter­na­tive was a cat­a­strophic col­lapse of the fi­nan­cial sys­tem. But hav­ing done so, could they please stop claim­ing they are free mar­ket vir­gins? They gave that up long ago.

San­to­rum has a long list of ide­o­log­i­cal here­sies of his own to de­fend. They in­clude his ea­ger­ness to win fed­eral ear­marks, a habit he shares with Rom­ney, as The Wash­ing­ton Post’s Ros­alind Hel­der­man re­cently re­ported.

There is also the cri­tique that Rom­ney’s super PAC is mak­ing in an ad air­ing in ad­vance of Michi­gan’s Feb. 28 pri­mary: It at­tacks San­to­rum for reg­u­larly vot­ing to in­crease the debt ceil­ing when he was a sen­a­tor from Penn­syl­va­nia.

This is the same San­to­rum who sup­ported con­gres­sional con­ser­v­a­tives last year when they blocked a debt-ceil­ing in­crease in pur­suit of more bud­get cuts. “We can­not con­tinue to write blank checks that our na­tion can­not cash,” San­to­rum said — the very blank checks he freely en­dorsed when he was in the Sen­ate. True, both par­ties have played games on the debt ceil­ing, but never to the point of un­der­min­ing the fed­eral gov­ern­ment’s credit stand­ing, as the Re­pub­li­cans did last year.

Of course San­to­rum was only doing the re­spon­si­ble thing when he was a sen­a­tor, but he can­not re­ally de­fend what he did in the past with­out ac­knowl­edg­ing that what he said more re­cently is flatly con­tra­dicted by his own be­hav­ior.

Can con­ser­v­a­tives fi­nally face the fact that they ac­tu­ally want quite a lot from gov­ern­ment, and that they are sim­ply un­will­ing to raise taxes to pay for it?

This is why our po­lit­i­cal sys­tem is so bro­ken. Con­ser­v­a­tives keep pre­tend­ing that they can keep anti-gov­ern­ment promises that they know per­fectly well they are des­tined to break. We won’t have sen­si­ble pol­i­tics again until our friends on the right bring their rhetor­i­cal claims into closer align­ment with what they do — and what it takes to make gov­ern­ment work.

~~~

PARTING  THOUGHT

Age puzzles me.  I thought it was a quiet time.  My seventies were interesting and fairly serene, but my eighties are passionate.  I grow more intense as I age.

Florida Scott-Maxwell

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again with "Contemplating Life" on March 5, 2012 and with OBOF again on March 12, 2012.  God Bless all of you. 

Floyd