吉布茲說：「如果我有DNA證據，也沒辦法折服不相信他在這裡出生的人，不過我有項消息要告訴各位：總統先生出生於夏威夷檀香山，就是地表上最偉大國家的第50州。他是美國公民。」
他說：「1年半前，我要求把他的出生證明公布在網路上，你也知道，有出生證明又放在網路上，還有什麼好說的？」
夏威夷衛生廳公布經數位掃描過的歐巴馬出生證明，指他在1961年8月4日晚間7時24分出生在檀香山。
立場超然的FactCheck.org，即隸屬賓夕法尼亞州大學安能堡公共政策中心（Annenberg Public Policy Center）的網站，負責替這份出生證明正本進行檢查、處理並拍照，試圖平息爭議。
吉布茲說：「我們總結得出，這符合所有證明美國公民身分的國務院標準。我們的結論是：歐巴馬出生於美國，就如同他向來所言。」
FactCheck.org指出，歐巴馬的美國母親和肯亞父親，1961年8月13日在檀香山報紙上刊登廣告，宣佈兒子誕生消息。
僅管證據確鑿，這項議題依然在右派廣播節目中熱烈討論，指歐巴馬的出生證明經過偽造，以隱藏他在國外出生的事實。（譯者：中央社李威翰）
賀電及回電中，雙方都以「先生」稱呼，不過，馬英九的回電卻以 「 98（2009）年7月27日」顯示日期，省下了「中華民國」，也沒有任何頭銜，遭人批評是自我矮化。
胡錦濤的賀電全文如下：
「台北
中國國民黨中央委員會
馬英九先生：
值此先生當選中國國民黨主席之際，謹致祝賀。由衷期望貴我兩黨繼續推動兩岸關係和平發展，進一步深化政治互信，不斷為兩岸同胞謀福祉，開創中華民族的偉大復興。
中國共產黨中央委員會總書記 胡錦濤 二○○九年七月二十七日」
馬英九的回電全文如下
「北京
中國共產黨中央委員會總書記 胡錦濤先生惠鑒：
今日賀電敬悉，謹致謝忱。
四年來，經過貴我兩黨的共同努力，當前兩岸關係已在「九二共識」的基礎上，走上和平發展、穩定共榮的大道，既符合兩岸人民的期望，也贏得世界各國的肯定。
今後，仍須雙方順應民意，繼續在「正視現實、建立互信、擱置爭議、共創雙贏」的原則下，不斷努力，以鞏固海峽和平、重建區域穩定、促進兩岸持續發展與繁榮。耑此奉復，敬頌 時祺
馬英九 敬啟 98（2009）年7月27日」2009/07/28
財務長季理安（John Killian）在法說會中指出，威瑞森計劃進一步裁減有線電話部門人力；這個部門的業務正被無線和資料通訊服務蠶食鯨吞。
他說：「我們需要更大刀闊斧地，在未來12到18個月降低有線部門的成本結構。」
「我們計劃在下半年，裁減8000多名正職和約聘員工。」
總部位於紐約的威瑞森表示，第2季淨獲利下滑至31.6億美元，或每股盈餘52美分，低於去年同期的34億美元，或美股盈餘66美分。（譯者：中央社李威翰）
（中央社台北28日綜合外電報導）投資名人羅傑斯(Jim Rogers)表示，他從去年11月起就沒再買進陸股，因為陸股漲勢過速，恐有「崩盤」之虞。
羅傑斯在新加坡接受彭博電視專訪時表示：「我比較喜歡在崩盤時撿便宜。」上證綜合指數自去年11月4日迄今漲幅達倍，改寫2008年6月以來高點。羅傑斯說，「這通常不是好預兆。」
羅傑斯指出，他投資商品，作為股市以外的另類選擇，因為中國「必須要有商品」才能維持經濟成長。羅傑斯並不同意美財長蓋特納 (Timothy Geithner)所說，中國消費者應該擴大支出、拼經濟。
他說，中國消費者現在已經比以前消費更多。要他們花錢而不要存錢，但目前經濟之所以這麼好，正是因為他們拼命儲蓄，同時也扮演投資金主的角色。
羅傑斯表示，他從1988年開始投資陸股迄今，沒有賣出陸股任何一張股票。(譯者：中央社劉淑琴)
The Taipei College of Maritime Technology announced yesterday that its venture with the Global Gambling Research Center from the former Portuguese territory to train new croupiers had resulted in full registrations for the classes.
At the opening of the college's gambling education center yesterday, Vice President Chiu Shao-yi said most of the tour guides who graduated from his school had no knowledge of gambling operations and therefore needed to take the new classes.
However, he added that the school didn't want to promote gambling as such, and had thus restricted the number of students who could take the classes.
A representative from the GGRC said his organization would cooperate with other Taiwanese schools as well, though the viability of the sector would eventually depend on how many licenses the government issued for official croupiers.
The college said 25 students had paid the full fee of nearly NT$100,000 for the study program because they were confident it would be easy to find a casino job as croupier with a starting salary of NT$50,000 a month.
The courses included both theory and practical elements such as different card games, the college said.
After years of controversy, Taiwan approved casino gambling last year, but only to help stimulate the economy of its outlying islands. Penghu will host the first-ever legal casino in Taiwan if its residents approve the move in a referendum expected later this year.
（中國‧北京）中國中央電視台晨早新聞報導《朝聞天下》週一（7月27日）煥然一新，打響央視新聞頻道改版的“頭炮”。改革最明顯的是節目包裝，畫面設計近似美國有線新聞網（CNN），主持也換成了一位酷似女星范冰冰的新聞小花，大打“美女牌”。
此次改版在主持人和包裝上都有了較大改動。和男主播長嘯搭檔的是一個新面孔──年僅26歲的美女主播胡蝶。
明星主播一炮而紅
長相甜美的胡蝶曾是北京電視台一群女主播，2007年奪得央視主持人大賽第一名後，順利進入央視，成為國際頻道《今日（週二，7月28日）亞洲》的主持人。
由於貌似范冰冰，胡蝶在加盟央視之前，曝光率便很高，被網民選為“央視最美主持”，成立“迷蝶香”粉絲俱樂部。
但有網民今年初在網上找到她成名前的照片，與現在的形象大不同，一時間傳出“整容疑雲”。
《朝聞天下》的改版引起網民熱議。“感覺像CNN”是網民的一致看法。搜狐網的調查發現，有半數人對改版後的《朝聞天下》持好評態度，讚這是“中國版的CNN”。
中共撥450億助中央媒體變陣
中共總書記胡錦濤在去年6月20日視察《人民日報》，對宣傳工作提出意見後，中共高層即撥款450億元人民幣，協助中央媒體變陣。
‧《人民日報》：7月1日起由原來每日16版增至20版；駐國內外72個記者站升格為分社
‧新華社：加強即時新聞，掌握話事權；7月1日起網上試播英語新聞，12月31日正式啟播
‧中央電視台：新聞頻道大改版；加強英語頻道；開辦阿拉伯語頻道和俄語頻道
‧中央人民廣播電台：年初已開始改版，新聞內容由原來40%增至75%以上
（美國‧華盛頓）稱為“birthers”的陰謀論者聲稱奧巴馬並非美國公民，不具資格當總統的言論，激怒了白宮。
指奧巴馬是在肯雅而非夏威夷出生的說法，早就在總統競選活動期間傳出，但在此刻的夏季“缺乏新聞期間”獲得更多媒體的關注。
一名記者週一（7月27日）在一項匯報會上向白宮發言人吉布斯問道：“你可以說些甚麼回應birthers的說法嗎？”
吉布斯看來被激怒，他回答道：“就算我握有（總統）的DNA，它也不會緩和那些不相信他在這裡出生的人。但我有項消息向他們以及所有人宣佈：總統在地球表面上最大國家的第50個州──夏威夷的檀香山出生。”
他說：“一年半前，我已要求將出生證明書刊登在網絡上，出生證明書已放到網上，還有甚麼好爭議的？”
透過數碼掃描，由夏威夷衛生部發出的“出生證明書”副本顯示，奧巴馬於1961年8月4日出生於檀香山。
（印尼‧雅加達）印尼正副總統直選2組落敗候選人──梅加瓦蒂和卡拉，分別入稟法院挑戰蘇西洛勝選的大選結果。
新國會或難產
在此之際，印尼新國會的議席分配也充滿變數，最高法院早前裁決，取消中選會關於第二階段議席分配指南的條例，引發政黨之間激烈紛爭，有可能導致新國會延遲誕生。
現任副總統卡拉組合，週一（7月27日）通過律師小組入稟憲法法院，控告中央選舉委員會違法，前總統梅加瓦蒂也於今日（週二，7月28日）提出同樣控告。
根據總統大選法規定，憲法法院須於14天內作出裁決。一名書記表示，首次審訊預定8月4日展開。
梅加瓦蒂的法律顧問阿爾特利亞表示：“首先，我們要求進行第二輪的總統選舉投票，蘇西洛至少須與我們再次競選，以挽回民眾的信任。”
阿爾特利亞指出：“第二，如果無法再度舉行投票，我們要求重新算票。第3，我們已證實，25個省區的投票過程出現問題，我們要求25個省區再次投票。”
指大選許多違規行為
62歲的梅加瓦蒂也投訴，大選出現許多違規行為。
卡拉也向憲法法院挑戰大選結果，指數百萬人民的名字沒有出現在選民名冊上。
選舉委員會（KPU）上週六（7月25日）公佈大選正式結果顯示，蘇西洛得到壓倒性的60.8%選票，梅加瓦蒂只獲得26.8%票數，卡拉僅僅得到12.4%支持。
（新加坡）兩週前剛調低的汽油和柴油零售價週一（7月27日）又回升，每公升售價調高3分至6分。
蜆殼週一下午1時起調高油價，95辛烷值汽油售價調高5分，每公升賣1.767元；98辛烷值汽油每公升賣1.880，調高6分；柴油每公升售價調高3分，賣1.293元。
經營加德士油站的雪佛龍石油公司在2個小時後跟進，漲幅和蜆殼一樣。它也把92辛烷值汽油售價調高6分，每公升賣1.697元。
蜆殼已停賣這類等級最低的汽油。
（新加坡）楊志恆今日（週二，7月28日）在庭上承認，他向曼陀羅佛教用品貸款5萬元（約馬幣12萬令吉）的事，除了他和明義知情，仁慈醫院沒有任何人知道。
他也在接受控方盤問時承認，雖然他欠了5萬元貸款，可是在欠債期間，卻還是照樣揮霍刷卡刷到爆。
周祥泰副檢察司指出，因為記錄上只注明是仁慈貸款給曼陀羅，而完全沒提到楊志恆向曼陀羅貸款的事，所以除了他和明義，沒有任何人知道這回事，而要是有人想知道，能問的也只有他們兩個。
楊志恆表示同意，但重申，他只是忘了記錄在曼陀羅的賬簿內，可他並沒有把那5萬元當禮物，而且一直沒有忘記那是貸款，一定得還。
控方對這點提出質疑，並指出，楊志恆在拿到那5萬元後，在拖欠期間卻照樣在各地奢侈消費，常常利用明義的附屬卡買名牌高檔貨，刷到卡爆，超出頂限。
對此，楊志恆表示，他有收入，又收到父母給他的生日紅包，因此雖然沒法一次還清，卻可以分階段還給明義。
“那你有沒有想到償還那5萬元呢？“楊志恆這麼答道︰“我一開始就打算一次過還清。”
把錢帶回家收抽屜5天
主控官周祥泰高級副檢察司問︰“04年4月17日到5月22日，你身邊收著5萬元（約馬幣12萬令吉）？你把錢放在哪哩？”
“是的（我身邊有5萬元現款）。我把錢帶回我住的家。把錢收在一個抽屜裡。”
“當時你跟明義一起住的家，你們有討論這筆錢的事嗎？”
“沒有。不過，我在借錢後告訴師父，我會在週末回香港。”
主控官指楊志恆聲稱香港的屋子有問題急於要錢，因此要現金支票是在撒謊，因為他沒有立刻回香港，而是遲至一週才回香港。而且現金支票沒有收款人，要追查很難。
對此，楊志恆矢口否認。
聯名買閣樓主人房有spa
楊志恆口中的“小公寓”，主人房卻設有更衣室和面向陽台的開放式spa。
控方在盤問楊志恆有關他與明義聯名買下的閣樓時，指出，他們買下的第二間房子，價錢比第一間貴，因此他們是在“提昇”，對此，楊志恆表示︰“這間比較小，是間小公寓”。
對此，周祥泰副檢察司引述楊志恆在07年3月間指示房產經紀銷售那間閣樓時打的廣告詞︰‧精美設計的整層閣樓。
‧寬大寬敞的客廳和飯廳，俯瞰戶外大陽台。
‧超大廚房，還有隔開的臨時飲食間。
‧特大主人房附設更衣室以及面向陽台的開放式spa。
‧另2間房都有壁柜和開放式陽台。
‧私人電梯入口。
‧可從車房入電梯。
‧可停放3輛車還有足夠存儲空間。
‧商店、餐館和公共交通，只需短程步行即可抵達。
以上種種對閣樓的描述，楊志恆都一一承認。
承認關係密切共車上庭
楊志恆承認跟明義的關係仍然密切，至今來回法庭都坐同一輛車。
主控官問他，願意放棄空少薪水和香港的安逸生活來新，是因為敬仰明義法師？
楊志恆回說，他尊敬明義法師，知道明義在香港和新加坡置業。他想為佛教做一些事，因此願意接受來新這個大轉變。
他也澄清，雖然幫忙安排明義的會議和接見訪客，但任何人要見明義還是可以直接找師父，無需通過他。
主控官接著問︰“你跟明義的關係密切是嗎？”
“是的。”
“直到週二關係還是密切？”
“是的。”
“你現在還住在福海禪寺，你們每天坐同一輛車來法庭同一輛車回去？這是你在新時一慣的做法？”
“是的。”
主控官以楊志恆的信用卡開支，進一步說明他與明義關係密切。楊志恆一一承認︰
‧與明義一起出國住宿酒店時同房。
‧與明義旅行時一起上高級餐廳進餐。
‧與明義在澳洲有聯名銀行戶頭（04年）、也聯名買賣過兩個房地產，以及各擁寶馬轎車。
Get ready for another round of bad reporting:
The $8,000 Fed tax credit (1st time buyers) and a $10,000 California tax credit (new homes only) likely helped out in NHS this month. Falling prices are also contributing to sales activity of the sector, which represents about 15% of the overall housing market.
Here is the official New Home Sales:
Sales of new one-family houses in June 2009 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 384,000, according to estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is 11.0 percent (±13.2%)* above the revised May rate of 346,000, but is 21.3 percent (±11.4%) below the June 2008 estimate of 488,000.
Thus, we in fact know that Sales fell from last year. They were down 21.3%, a number greater than the margin of error.
The monthly data, on the other hand, is not statistically significant. Therefore we DO NOT KNOW what the change was from last month, as the margin of error is greater than the reported data point.
The usual suspects got it wrong, as they do every month.
If New Home Sales are so strong, then can anyone explain why prices are still plummeting? Median home prices dropped 12% year-over-year, and 5.8% from the prior month.
>
Chart via Calculated Risk
>
Previously:
New Home Sales Data: Don’t rely On It Either (November 30th, 2005)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2005/11/new-home-sales-data-dont-rely-on-it-either/
Source:
NEW RESIDENTIAL SALES IN JUNE 2009
Census, HUD, JULY 27, 2009 AT 10:00 A.M. EDT
http://www.census.gov/const/newressales.pdf
With any more spinning we would be in a financial carousel. New home sales data was released on Monday and showed a “whopping” increase in sales. This is the primary headline on all mainstream reports. Little is mentioned that the median price of a new home fell to $206,200 in June from $219,000 in May (small caveat). A drop of over $13,000 in one month apparently is not important enough to discuss.
This is pure economics with prices falling you will expect new home sales to increase especially in the spring and summer months which are normally stronger. So even if we may be reaching a bottom nationwide in terms of months of inventory the coming wave of Alt-A and option ARM toxic waste will guarantee that we have years of pricing pressure on the downside. In the last 2 weeks, the S&P 500 has rallied by over 11 percent. What would constitute an above average year in terms of gains was accomplished in two weeks. Not because of spectacular earnings but because people want to believe in the financial idols of Wall Street. Mixed earnings is not reason enough for this massive rally but Wall Street as you may have noticed does not reflect main street reality.
Let us however focus on housing. The increase in sales is good but is largely being driven by massive price discounts and foreclosures which dominate in many markets including California:
A couple of things we should highlight. Existing home sales make up the bulk of sales at any given point. Existing home sales look like they have stabilized but keep in mind that 30 to 40 percent of all homes sold for the past few months have been foreclosure resales (in California the number is more like 40 to 50 percent). So prices have been falling like a lead balloon and we have yet to experience the Alt-A and option ARM hit that will take down more prime locations in areas in California but also in places like Florida. The next thing to understand is historical context. The jump in new home sales is largely a price driven jump based on tax incentives and a deep cut in prices. Even with that, you can see from the chart above that the jump merely highlights that we aren’t starring into the abyss. Yet this increase does not mean happy days are around the corner. It is simply a reflection that housing prices aren’t going to fall to zero yet many market observers somehow think we are back on solid ground. What about rising unemployment? Over $3 trillion in commercial real estate debt? State budget deficits? All minor trifles to the Wall Street crowd. You have many states like California with budget deficits that are being patched up for the short-term but will only solve the issues on a temporary basis.
The headline on Monday should read:
“New home sales increase because of steep price cuts.”
But that would be honest reporting. There is nothing more distressing to the housing market than foreclosures. And nationwide foreclosures are still in record territory:
What we are seeing is foreclosures keeping a lid on any sort of pricing power on the upside. Foreclosures are the kryptonite to any housing recovery. And until the foreclosure situation stabilizes, it is much too premature to call a housing bottom especially in a state like California. As we have highlighted, the foreclosures are now starting to hit higher priced homes in more prime locations like:
Santa Monica , Culver City , Palms , Rancho Park
And much of this has to do with the Alt-A and option ARM wave that is now striking. Let us first take an overall look at the California housing market:
First, 76 percent of owner-occupied homes have a mortgage. This is higher than national data which comes in at 68 percent. Also, there isn’t a large amount of newly built homes in the state. In many of the prime areas homes are multiple decades old; in some cases homes were built prior to the Great Depression. So the dynamics of the California housing market are unique. But what is also important is to look at the makeup of those 5,381,874 mortgages. Let us dig deeper:
Subprime loans still active in CA: 345,505
Average balance: $321,745
Alt-A loans still active in CA: 632,215
Average balance: $443,223
Total toxic mortgages still active: 977,720
This is where you should take pause. 18 percent of all current mortgages in California are toxic waste or near toxic waste. That is a gigantic number. This isn’t including the many jumbo “prime” mortgages out in the market which are equally at risk. So when we talk about the Alt-A and option ARM tsunami this is what we are talking about. The only place you will find a new home in California for $200,000 is out in the Inland Empire or Central Valley but those areas unfortunately are facing massive economic problems. The state itself is in tatters but these areas are reeling. That is the new home market for California and it is a small subset.
And the home vacancy rate for California is still trending higher:
The vacancy rate is the highest it’s ever been for California since data was first tracked starting in 1985. So that trend is unmistakable. This is in large part due to the massive amount of foreclosures the state is seeing (or not seeing depending on how lenders are hoarding inventory). Either way, the data is rather telling. California home prices will be falling for mid to upper priced regions in the upcoming months. But don’t expect to read that in the headlines.
by Dr. Housing Bubble’s Blog"The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion," says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in a report released today on the government's efforts to fix the financial system.
Yes, $23.7 trillion.
"The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn't even imaginable," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn't even come close to just $1 trillion -- $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure."
To be sure, we aren't there yet.
The government has about 50 different programs to fight the current recession, including programs to bail out ailing banks and automakers, boost lending and beat back the housing crisis. So far they've cost taxpayers around $4 trillion.
But Barofsky says if each federal agency spent the maximum potential amount involved in these initiatives, taxpayers could be on the hook for trillions more.
The staggering $23.7 trillion estimate elicited concern from members of Congress and a sharp rebuke from the Treasury Department after the report was leaked late Monday.
Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams called the estimate "inflated," saying it "does not provide a useful framework for evaluating the potential cost of these programs."
He said utilization of the department's financial rescue programs has begun to decline, and some banks have already repaid $70 billion in TARP funds.
Other financial experts also questioned the significance of Barofsky's potential TARP price tag.
"I'm not sure how you could come up with a number like [$23.7 trillion] without lots of assumptions involved," said Kevin Petrasic, a private financial services lawyer with broad government experience.
"Throwing out a number you can't provide a tremendous amount of insight about: what's in that? You just get a headline. Why do we even need to know that this number, in a worst case scenario, is the number? What is gained from that?"
In his appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Barofsky insisted his report provides a valuable accounting of taxpayer dollars.
"We take offense to [Treasury's] comments," he said. "These numbers are from the government."
He said the $23.7 trillion figure in his quarterly report was derived from publicly available data on allocations to the government's various bailout programs.
"We've explained the number does include some programs that have terminated… and it isn't that the taxpayer is on the hook for $23.7 trillion – we don't say it, we don't suggest it," Barofsky said. "The actual potential for losses," he says, "is likely to be lower."
The watchdog also warned today that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost if the government does not increase the transparency of the TARP program, which he says has grown to an unprecedented scope and scale.
"TARP has become a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money, have still not been told how much their substantial investments are worth, and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested," Barofsky says in the report.
"Does Treasury ask what TARP recipients do with the money?" Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., asked the special inspector general.
"No," replied Barofsky. "They say that information is not meaningful or reliable… But if it's meaningless, why do they do it in respect to Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG?"
Requiring TARP recipients to report on how government funds are used is among the recommendations urged by Barofsky. He also wants the department to report on the values of its TARP portfolio so taxpayers know about the value of their investments; disclose the identity of any TALF borrowers; and disclose tradings, holdings and valuations of assets of the public-private investment funds that will be buying toxic assets from banks.
"[Convicted financier Bernard] Madoff said 'Trust us. We have high returns,'" said Ranking Member Rep. Darrell Issa. "Treasury is now saying the same thing."
This public-private investment program is a key source of concern for the watchdog. In the program, a handful of selected funds will purchase toxic assets -- like mortgage-backed securities -- from banks in an effort to cleanse their balance sheets and help them increase lending.
In his last quarterly report in April, Barofsky cautioned that many aspects of the toxic asset program left it vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, such as conflicts of interest for fund managers, collusion with fund managers, money laundering and misuse with the Fed's lending program, known as the TALF.
Since then, Treasury has incorporated many of the watchdog's recommendations, so now "the program has a significantly improved compliance and fraud-prevention regime than that initially proposed," Barofsky says. However, he warns that "there remain some significant areas in which Treasury's plan for PPIP falls short."
One such area is the lack of an informational barrier -- or a wall -- between fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the program and employees of the fund management company who manage funds that are not part of the program. A fund manager, Barofsky warns, "could generate massive profits in its non-PPIF funds as a result of an unfair advantage."
Treasury has declined to put such a wall in place.
"Failure to impose a wall will leave Treasury vulnerable to an accusation that has already been leveled against it -- that Treasury is using TARP to pick winners and losers and that, by granting certain firms PPIF manager status, it is benefiting a chosen few at the expense of the dozens of firms that were rejected, of the market as a whole, and of the American taxpayer," Barofsky says.
"The reputational risk is not one that can be readily measured in dollars and cents, but is rather a risk that could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their government."
Barofsky also wants the department to increase the disclosure of trading activities and holdings of the program's investment funds."
"Such transparency not only dissuades misconduct and promotes sound management but also promotes a better understanding of PPIP and thus enhances the credibility of PPIP and TARP more broadly," he says.
"Even more importantly, the most significant investors in each PPIF, the American taxpayers, have a right to know the status of their investments. The lack of transparency as to what use TARP funds were put by recipients in other TARP programs, in SIGTARP's view, has damaged the credibility of TARP and therefore may have threatened its viability. Treasury should not repeat that apparent error with PPIP."
However, the department, Barofsky says, plans to disclose "no more than the bare minimum required by statute."
With nearly $24 trillion potentially flying out of federal coffers, the watchdog wants the government to do a lot more than just "the bare minimum."
In a separate report released Monday, Barofsky said he obtained responses from banks on what they did with TARP funds, something that the Treasury Department has refused to do. Many of the banks, he said, used some funds to make investments, buy other banks and pay off debts.
"This administration promised an 'unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise," Issa said in a statement. "In fact, the Treasury Department is actively obstructing transparency. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent -- especially considering they are the ones who are footing the bill."
The committee plans to invite Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify and explain why several SIGTARP recommendations have not been enacted. Chairman Edolphus Towns also says he may subpoena information about Treasury's TARP portfolio which has not been made public.
Here are just a few very good reasons to hate Obamacare:
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
A tip of my hat to my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at the Obamanation called Obamacare. Write, email, fax or call your Senators and your Representative and tell them to vote NO!
The serious ethical, if not legal, concerns surrounding high frequency trading hit Main Street this past Friday with a lead article in the New York Times. I highlighted that article along with my extensive writings on this topic here at Sense on Cents in my piece “Wall Street Has a Problem as High Frequency Trading Moves to Main Street.”
Well, we awaken this morning to see the high frequency trading issue making waves in Washington. The Wall Street Journal reports In a Flash, Schumer Warns SEC:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) told the Securities and Exchange Commission that he will move to limit “flash” orders for stocks if the agency takes no action against them.
The practice routes stock trades through private liquidity pools before being sent onto other exchanges for filling. Critics contend that flash ordering creates a two-tiered system of investors, where those with access get a better price than those without.
“If the SEC fails to curb this practice, I plan to introduce legislation in the U.S. Senate to prohibit the use of flash orders in connection with optional pre-routing programs in order to ensure that trading in U.S. public capital markets is fair and transparent for all market participants,” Sen. Schumer wrote Friday.
While on one hand I commend Schumer for being proactive on this front, I am reminded that he has been one of the largest beneficiaries of campaign contributions and lobbying dollars from the banks and hedge funds engaged in high frequency program trading. Without questioning Schumer’s motivations, is he taking action to curry public favor against his being linked so closely with Wall Street?
Additionally, the fact that Schumer or any other political representative needs to address this issue again brings into question the efficacy of the regulatory bodies charged with protecting investor interests. How can any observer of high frequency program trading believe the investor playing field is anywhere close to being level?
Why has the field sloped? Very simply, as the various stock exchanges compete for business, the officials running the exchanges have traded investor protection and interests for the volume and revenues provided by high frequency program trading.
Who should have been engaged with these exchanges to prevent these abusive trading programs? The SEC and FINRA. Who actually exposed the issues surrounding high frequency program trading? Financial blogs and Joe Saluzzi of Themis Trading. I commend Mr. Saluzzi given his position in the marketplace.
I am excited to apprise our readers and listeners that I will have Mr. Saluzzi as my guest this Sunday evening August 2nd from 8-9pm on my internet radio show, NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle.
Perhaps our elected representatives in Washington along with financial regulators at the SEC and FINRA may care to listen and learn.
by Larry DoyleThe soaring cost of Britain's military campaign in Afghanistan is laid bare today, as a comprehensive analysis reveals that the cost of fighting the Taliban has passed £12bn. An Independent on Sunday assessment of the "hidden costs" of fighting since the Taliban was ousted in 2001 reveals that the bill works out at £190 for every man, woman and child in the UK – and would pay for 23 new hospitals, 60,000 new teachers or 77,000 new nurses.
The £12bn directly funded by taxpayers is swollen still further by millions poured into rebuilding Afghanistan every year by British charities and other non-governmental organisations. As the Ministry of Defence announced yesterday that another British soldier had been killed in Helmand province, there was no sign of an end to the spiralling human and financial costs of the campaign.
The Government has signalled its determination to step up its financial support for the UN-led operation, despite British forces enduring their bloodiest month since the start of the campaign. Former British commanders yesterday warned that the effort may have to continue for years more – but questioned the commitment of politicians to see the job through in the longer term.
By the middle of 2010, the Ministry of Defence will have spent more than £9bn on "Operation Herrick", the multinational Afghan campaign sparked by al-Qa'ida's 9/11 attacks. MoD outlay on fighting the war has risen from £221m in 2001-02 to an estimated £3.49bn this year. The 2009-10 figure will be almost £1bn more than last year and nearly five times the £738m dedicated to Herrick in 2006-07.
The bill has been inflated by a series of costs, including more than £700m for urgent equipment orders, a £2,300 "operational bonus" for thousands of troops – and even more generous allowances for civil servants seconded to the country. In a memo to the defence committee, the MoD blamed "additional security costs required for the local elections, and the costs of around 200 personnel providing counter improvised explosive device (IED) expertise".
Although the MoD's estimates cover spending on logistics such as wages, equipment and transportation, they do not disclose the "hidden" costs of war, such as support for injured troops, veterans and the families of personnel killed in action. Defence experts estimate that up to half the cost of new benefits payments and welfare provision every year will be directly attributable to the campaign in Afghanistan.
One indication of the financial impact of the conflict is the steep increase in claims to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS), which covers injury, illness and death caused by service since 6 April 2005. The value of lump-sum settlements of claims settled under the scheme has risen from £1.27m in its first year of operation to £30.2m last year. But the awards also come with ongoing "guaranteed income payments" costing more than £100m.
MoD figures show that at least 218 soldiers have suffered "life-changing injuries" since April 2006 alone – and more than 50 personnel have undergone amputations following injuries. The latest MoD analysis shows that, of 53 personnel who were seriously injured in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, 41 made claims to the AFCS. Only one of the 23 personnel very seriously injured (VSI) in Afghanistan during 2007 failed to make a compensation claim. The MoD has reported 214 casualties, including VSIs, during Operation Herrick since 2001.
During 2006-08, 34 UK personnel attended field hospital for psychiatric reasons, and 414 were assessed as having a psychological disorder on their return to Britain.
The casualties contribute to an MoD benefits bill which shows spending of more than £1bn a year on war pensions to veterans or their families. The bereaved partner of a member of the armed forces killed in action is entitled to a pension averaging £100 a week.
An MoD source said yesterday that the department feared the Afghan campaign was adding at least £250m a year to their spending on welfare services. But there is no evidence that the knock-on effects of Operation Herrick are going to subside any time soon.
MoD chiefs are also paying out to cover deaths and injury to civilians in Afghanistan. Independent estimates put the toll of Afghan civilians killed in the conflict as high as 30,000, and activists warn that the "collateral damage" of coalition activity is sapping local support.
The MoD is not the only department that is spending taxpayers' money in Afghanistan, however. The Department for International Development (DfID) has recently unveiled an ambitious plan that will push its total spending in the country to £969m between 2001 and 2012. The Foreign Office (FCO) has spent £230m on the Afghan campaign since 2006 alone, more than a third of it on an operation entitled "Strategic Programme Funds: counter-narcotics". In the six years after the Taliban were ousted, production of the opium which produced 90 per cent of the heroin on Britain's streets rose by 150 per cent.
The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, will tomorrow make a keynote speech designed to reinforce the case for the UK staying the course in Afghanistan. Colonel Bob Stewart, former commander of British forces in the Balkans, said the Government had been "confused" about what it wanted to achieve in the area. He said: "The Government needs to have a crystal-clear aim to neutralise Afghanistan so it can't do us any harm either directly or implicitly. We've got to stay the course in Afghanistan."
Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded the 7th Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, said the original objectives – ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida and reconstructing the country – had "gone out the window". He added: "There's no shame in saying we need a rest."
General Sir Hugh Beach, former deputy commander of British Land Forces, warned, "The British Army has done magnificently, but it's a long slog. You don't do it probably in two years or three – it might take five years or 10. Will we have the political will to stay there that long? I very much doubt it."
Afghan conflict in numbers
£12bn
Overall cost of Afghan campaign since 2001. Could have paid for 60,000 teachers, 77,000 nurses or 23 hospitals
400%
Increase in MoD spending on Afghanistan, 2006/07 to 2009/10
30,000
Estimate of the number of Afghan civilians killed as a result of the conflict
189
UK service personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001. The latest death was confirmed yesterday
150%
Increase in Afghan opium production, 2001-07
£100
Average weekly war pension entitlement of widow/widower
4m
Bullets fired by UK forces in Helmand, Aug 2006-Sept 2007
VIRUS
The H1N1 virus is a hybrid of swine flu, which is highly contagious, and avian flu, which is similar in effect to the 1918 so-called "Spanish" flu, plus human influenza. (Maybe it should be called the "When Pigs Fly" flu.) The fatalities are mostly within the 25 to 45 age grouping. Ironically, it is the good health of this young adult population which causes the fatalities as the avian flu triggers a severe immune response which leads to excessive edema. This in turn ruptures the cell walls leading to hemorrhagic symptoms. Patients bleed out into their lungs and drown.
UPDATE: At this time the numbers of infected and dead do not appear to support the excessive media hype about this disease. This appears to be another case of the government that cried "wolf", whether to distract the world from the plunging economy, torture scandal, AIPAC-gate, or simply to sell some of the vaccines sold by companies Congressmembers are invested in. Already we are seeing the financial reporters try to link the continuing economic decline to the flu. We are seeing "Obama was just about to turn this economy around and THIS had to happen" pap start to pour from the same TV media that told us Saddam had 'nookular' bombs!
VACCINES
There is no vaccine known to the public for this particular virus. There are vaccines for related viruses thought to possibly be effective, but this is unreliable information. In response to the problems of the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine which caused neurological damage in patients as well as the more recent Baxter scandal in which live H5N1 virus was mixed in with vaccine materials, the government of Sweden has advised their population NOT to obtain vaccinations at this time. As was demonsterated in the 1976 case, the decision to force vaccines on the public are often made more from a commercial for-profit concern than what is actually best for the population.
In the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak, the vaccine killed fifty times as many people as the flu did!
PREVENTION
At this time it is being claimed that primary infection is skin-to-skin contact, so wash your hands often with a good bacteriological soap. Avoid touching other people. While risk of direct transfer by air is low, according to CDC, the reality is that coughs and sneezes can produce aerosolized secretions in which the virus is surrounded by liquids and able to survive for prolonged periods of time outside the body. If this virus has a lipid coating, that time will be longer.
Disinfection of household surfaces can be accomplished with a dilute (10%) solution of chlorine bleach and water will kill the virus. So will strong light, especially ultra-violet light.
Given the similarity between the avian flu component of this new virus and the 1918 Spanish flu, a possible precaution to take is common household cinnamon from the spice rack. During the 1918 outbreak it was noticed that people who worked at a cinnamon processing factory did not catch the disease. Cinnamon in high doses can be toxic, but a gram a day for adults seems like a reasonable dose.
POSSIBLE ORIGINS
It is entirely possible that this three-way hybrid virus occurred by chance, but there is compelling reason to wonder if maybe this virus is a laboratory accident, or worse, an intentional attempt at de-population.
Here are some of the relevant facts.
Back in 2004, we were being propagandized that Bird Flu was the next pandemic.
CDC was talking about recombinant viruses back in 2005.
Gene studies showed that so-called Bird Flu appeared to be similar to the 1918 Spanish Flu. Other studies showed it was almost identical!
Which is rather nerve-wracking because in 2005 it was admitted that scientists were intentionally recreating the 1918 Spanish Flu virus!
But the predicted pandemic didn't happen because Bird Flu isn't that contagious. It needed to be blended with a more infectious form of flu, like swine flu (Used as a bio-weapon by the CIA against Cuba), to became a real slate-wiper!
In 2006, it was reported that scientists were intentionally creating bird flu and swine flu hybrids in the labs!
Which leads to asking how it is that this new flu epidemic explodes into view right after Fort Detrick admits that some of the nasty little beasties they have been working on went missing!
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Sunday said he engineered the central bank's controversial actions over the past year because "I was not going to be the Federal Reserve chairman who presided over the second Great Depression."
Speaking directly to Americans in a forum to be shown on public television this week, Mr. Bernanke pushed back against Kansas City area residents who suggested he and other government officials were too eager to help big financial institutions before small businesses and common Americans.
"Why don't we just let the behemoths lay down and then make room for the small businesses?" asked Janelle Sjue, who identified herself as a Kansas City mother.
"It wasn't to help the big firms that we intervened," Mr. Bernanke said, diving into a discourse on the damage to the overall economy that can result when financial firms that are "too big to fail" collapse.
"When the elephant falls down, all the grass gets crushed as well," Mr. Bernanke said. He described himself as "disgusted" with the circumstances that led him to rescue a couple of large firms, and called for new laws that would allow financial firms other than banks to fail without going into bankruptcy.
Mr. Bernanke appeared stoic at times as he sought to explain his actions during the financial crisis at the town-hall-style meeting with 190 people at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City hosted by the NewsHour's Jim Lehrer. But he also joked with the crowd, saying "economic forecasting makes weather forecasting look like physics." He quipped that he could face malpractice charges if he offered investment advice -- although he then recommended that a questioner practice diversification and avoid trying to time the stock market.
The hourlong session was the latest unusual forum where the Fed chairman has explained his actions in recent months, including bailouts and massive lending. Mr. Bernanke appeared before the National Press Club in February, agreed to an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" in March and took questions on camera from Morehouse College students in April.
Sunday's setting offered the former Princeton economics professor a chance to speak outside of congressional testimony and speeches to economists, as his tenure leading the central bank faces increasing scrutiny. With just six months left in his term as chairman, Mr. Bernanke will learn in the coming months whether President Barack Obama will reappoint him to another four-year term or replace him.
Mr. Bernanke repeatedly used the frustrations voiced by people in the room to show his limited options during the crisis and reiterate the need for a regulatory overhaul.
David Huston, who called himself a third-generation small-business owner, said he was "very frustrated" to see "billions and billions of dollars" sent to large financial firms and called the government approach "too big to fail, too small to save."
"Small businesses represent the lifeblood of small cities, large cities and our American economy," he said, and they are "getting shortchanged by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and Congress."
Mr. Bernanke responded that "nothing made me more frustrated, more angry, than having to intervene" when firms were "taking wild bets that had forced these companies close to bankruptcy."
More than 20 people asked questions of the Fed chairman, on topics ranging from bailouts to mortgage-regulation practices to the Fed's independence, a topic that drew the most forceful tone from the Fed chairman. Mr. Bernanke suggested that a movement by lawmakers to open the Fed's monetary-policy operations to audits by the Government Accountability Office is misunderstood by the public.
Congress already can look at the Fed's books and loans that could be at risk for taxpayers, he said. Under the proposed law, the GAO would also be able to subpoena information from Fed officials and make judgments about interest-rate decisions based on requests from Congress.
"I don't think that's consistent with independence," he said. "I don't think people want Congress making monetary policy."
After appearing before lawmakers three times last week, Mr. Bernanke broke little new ground in explaining the state of the economy. He said the Fed's expected economic growth rate of 1% in the second half of the year would fall short of what is needed to bring down unemployment, which he sees peaking sometime next year.
"The Federal Reserve has been putting the pedal to the metal," he says. "We hope that's going to get us going next year sometime."
Created during Wilson’s presidency to protect the economy in times of financial turmoil, its real business remains to be discovered.
During the Wilson presidency, the U.S. government sanctions the creation of the Federal Reserve. Thought by many to be a government organization maintained to provide financial accountability in the event of a domestic depression, the actual business of the Fed is shrouded in secrecy.
Many Americans will be shocked to discover that the principle business of the Fed is to print money from nothing, lend it to the U.S. government and charge interest on these loans.
Who keeps the interest? Good question. Find out as the connective tissue between this and other top-secret international organizations is explored and exposed.
Watch the full documentary now
