/PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued today by Scott Syphax, president and CEO of the Nehemiah Corporation of America in response to H.R. 600, a bill introduced in Congress that would reinstate seller-funded downpayment assistance (DPA). Prior to the October 1, 2008 ban on DPA, Nehemiah was the oldest and largest provider of downpayment assistance.
"With foreclosures on the rise and banks maintaining their stranglehold on credit, we commend Congressman Al Green for recognizing the important role downpayment assistance can play in the market's recovery. Through H.R. 600, DPA offers a simple solution that can empower thousands of worthy families to take advantage of depressed home prices therefore reducing the glut of homes on the market. Further, it does so without spending a single government or taxpayer dime according to the Congressional Budget Office. Creating opportunities for sustainable homeownership will be a cornerstone to strengthening a crumbling housing market and breathing life back into the economy. As the Obama Administration takes the reins tomorrow, we call on Congress to reach across the aisle and prioritize broadening opportunities for responsible homeownership in America by reinstating DPA."
-----
Monday, January 19, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Gen. McCaffrey Notes Inappropriateness of New York Times Reporter Today Covering DOD IG Report Refuting Reporter's Own Earlier Stories
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- General Barry McCaffrey (ret) issued the following statement today on the inappropriateness of New York Times reporter David Barstow being allowed to write the paper's story today on DOD's Inspector General Report refuting Barstow's earlier stories referencing Gen. McCaffrey:
Gen. McCaffrey stated:
"Disappointing and slanted coverage of this DOD IG Report by the NYT Editor who cleared Barstow to write this news piece. Barstow should not have been allowed to defend his own flawed reporting in the face of contrary sworn official evidence to his central argument. The DOD Inspector General report mentions me and other retired military analysts and notes that 'extensive searches found no instance. to achieve a competitive advantage' and stated that there was 'no conflict.'
"Barstow notes 'articles in the New York Times.' He fails to state that he was the sole author of 'these articles' -- or note that he is now part of the story. These were his by-line articles that have been apparently refuted by this DOD IG Report.
"Barstow also notes, '(The report) documented one instance in which an analyst had lost access because of critical war commentary.' How could he not publicly reveal to his readers that I was the one that the report mentioned by name as having been dropped from this group of analysts?
"This is Journalism 101. Barstow fails to reveal a central inconvenient fact which undermines his entire 5000+ word attack in his subsequent article.
"The Washington Post and other media wrote their normal, objective, balanced news story about the DOD IG Report in today's editions. I make no case for or against the DOD IG investigation -- which, however, does dispute Barstow's entire story.
"Suggest the New York Times should not have allowed Barstow to selectively mine the DOD IG report to defend his articles -- and again attack me. How could he not mention sworn testimony from a senior defense official that noted DOD anger at my criticism of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon?
"All of America expects excellence from the New York Times. This article
today by Barstow is journalism which lacks integrity," McCaffrey
concluded.
Gen. McCaffrey stated:
"Disappointing and slanted coverage of this DOD IG Report by the NYT Editor who cleared Barstow to write this news piece. Barstow should not have been allowed to defend his own flawed reporting in the face of contrary sworn official evidence to his central argument. The DOD Inspector General report mentions me and other retired military analysts and notes that 'extensive searches found no instance. to achieve a competitive advantage' and stated that there was 'no conflict.'
"Barstow notes 'articles in the New York Times.' He fails to state that he was the sole author of 'these articles' -- or note that he is now part of the story. These were his by-line articles that have been apparently refuted by this DOD IG Report.
"Barstow also notes, '(The report) documented one instance in which an analyst had lost access because of critical war commentary.' How could he not publicly reveal to his readers that I was the one that the report mentioned by name as having been dropped from this group of analysts?
"This is Journalism 101. Barstow fails to reveal a central inconvenient fact which undermines his entire 5000+ word attack in his subsequent article.
"The Washington Post and other media wrote their normal, objective, balanced news story about the DOD IG Report in today's editions. I make no case for or against the DOD IG investigation -- which, however, does dispute Barstow's entire story.
"Suggest the New York Times should not have allowed Barstow to selectively mine the DOD IG report to defend his articles -- and again attack me. How could he not mention sworn testimony from a senior defense official that noted DOD anger at my criticism of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon?
"All of America expects excellence from the New York Times. This article
today by Barstow is journalism which lacks integrity," McCaffrey
concluded.
Friday, January 16, 2009
President Bush Forgot to Acknowledge His Greatest Achievement
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Riki Ellison, Chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/ paid tribute to President George W. Bush today for the development and deployment of our nation's missile defense system. His commentary is as follows:
"As President George W. Bush concludes his 8 years as the Commander in Chief of our nation it is with due respect that one of his most positive achievements and a lasting legacy are the achievements that have taken place over his Presidency with missile defense. The United States withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty and the decision to deploy a missile defense system at the beginning of his first term, to having a limited missile defense capability deployed during the ballistic missile launches by North Korea, to expanding missile defense in cooperative agreements with 18 countries, highlighted by the signings of the Czech Republic and Poland to host a European Missile Defense site at the end of his term."
"The missile defense systems developed and deployed during his Presidency are of land and sea based interceptors and sensors that have had 27 successful test intercepts and a real missile defense intercept of a falling toxic satellite last February."
"Most significantly during President Bush's years, the U.S. has deployed missile defense systems that have helped bring stability and security in the Far East Asia Region as North Korea moved forward with attaining nuclear weapons."
"Today, due to President Bush, our nation, our troops and our allies are safer from ballistic missile threats."
Ellison concluded his tribute by saying: "Thank You Mr. President."
"As President George W. Bush concludes his 8 years as the Commander in Chief of our nation it is with due respect that one of his most positive achievements and a lasting legacy are the achievements that have taken place over his Presidency with missile defense. The United States withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty and the decision to deploy a missile defense system at the beginning of his first term, to having a limited missile defense capability deployed during the ballistic missile launches by North Korea, to expanding missile defense in cooperative agreements with 18 countries, highlighted by the signings of the Czech Republic and Poland to host a European Missile Defense site at the end of his term."
"The missile defense systems developed and deployed during his Presidency are of land and sea based interceptors and sensors that have had 27 successful test intercepts and a real missile defense intercept of a falling toxic satellite last February."
"Most significantly during President Bush's years, the U.S. has deployed missile defense systems that have helped bring stability and security in the Far East Asia Region as North Korea moved forward with attaining nuclear weapons."
"Today, due to President Bush, our nation, our troops and our allies are safer from ballistic missile threats."
Ellison concluded his tribute by saying: "Thank You Mr. President."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Economic Stimulus Package Could Impinge on Americans' Health Privacy
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Before increasing federal spending on health IT, Congress should first fix the already-outdated 1996 HIPAA privacy rule to ensure individuals have control over their personal health information," says Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom (IHF). "Right now, the HIPAA privacy rule has too many loopholes to ensure true patient privacy," Blevins stresses.
IHF released the following analyses regarding proposed federal spending on health IT and its impact on health privacy:
What does Barack Obama's economic stimulus package have to do with your health privacy? A lot! If Obama creates electronic medical records for most Americans (as he's proposing) without first fixing the federal health privacy rule (to ensure patient consent), everyone would end up losing control over his or her personal health information. That's because the rule gives many entities the legal authority to share information without patients' consent for purposes related to healthcare treatment, payment, and overseeing the healthcare system. (See "What Every American Needs to Know about the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule": www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Privacy/PrivacyUpdatedNov2008.html.)
Obama is seeking support for a massive emergency spending package, warning that the U.S. recession could stretch on for years unless such steps are taken. A January 8 Reuters report noted that "Obama also wants to spend to help the healthcare industry create electronic medical records. Well over $100 billion could be spent on the various [electronic medical records] projects." CNNMoney.com reports that Obama's "audacious plan" is to "computerize all health records within five years." Obama would thus be advancing the health IT goals of the Bush administration. Its last budget set access to electronic health records as an objective to be achieved by 2014.
Moreover, the current HIPAA law would govern a nationally linked database. It is important to understand, however, that "HIPAA was never intended for the digital age, because the [1996 HIPAA law] never anticipated the emergence of Web-based records," according to David Brailer, former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
The bottom line is that Obama's spending plans may impinge on your privacy. There's a lot at stake with electronically transferring health data and paying claims within the $2.2 trillion healthcare industry. Concerned Americans should voice their concerns to their members of Congress and to Barack Obama.
IHF released the following analyses regarding proposed federal spending on health IT and its impact on health privacy:
What does Barack Obama's economic stimulus package have to do with your health privacy? A lot! If Obama creates electronic medical records for most Americans (as he's proposing) without first fixing the federal health privacy rule (to ensure patient consent), everyone would end up losing control over his or her personal health information. That's because the rule gives many entities the legal authority to share information without patients' consent for purposes related to healthcare treatment, payment, and overseeing the healthcare system. (See "What Every American Needs to Know about the HIPAA Medical Privacy Rule": www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Privacy/PrivacyUpdatedNov2008.html.)
Obama is seeking support for a massive emergency spending package, warning that the U.S. recession could stretch on for years unless such steps are taken. A January 8 Reuters report noted that "Obama also wants to spend to help the healthcare industry create electronic medical records. Well over $100 billion could be spent on the various [electronic medical records] projects." CNNMoney.com reports that Obama's "audacious plan" is to "computerize all health records within five years." Obama would thus be advancing the health IT goals of the Bush administration. Its last budget set access to electronic health records as an objective to be achieved by 2014.
Moreover, the current HIPAA law would govern a nationally linked database. It is important to understand, however, that "HIPAA was never intended for the digital age, because the [1996 HIPAA law] never anticipated the emergence of Web-based records," according to David Brailer, former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
The bottom line is that Obama's spending plans may impinge on your privacy. There's a lot at stake with electronically transferring health data and paying claims within the $2.2 trillion healthcare industry. Concerned Americans should voice their concerns to their members of Congress and to Barack Obama.
TARP Inspector General Asked to Investigate Citigroup and Bank of America Donations to Rainbow/PUSH; Bailout Recipients Headline Jackson Fundraiser
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) asked Neil M. Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), for a formal review of the sponsorship by Bank of America and Citigroup of the Rainbow/PUSH Wall Street Conference currently taking place in New York City. The January 13-16 event is one of two of Jesse Jackson's annual fundraisers.
According to official conference materials, Citigroup is a "Gold Sponsor," a designation costing $50,000. Bank of America is identified as a "Silver Sponsor," a designation costing $30,000.
Both Citigroup and Bank of America are major recipients of TARP funds. Taxpayers are now Citigroup's largest shareholder after infusions of $45 billion. Bank of America has already received $25 billion. According to today's Wall Street Journal, it is seeking billions more in order to make possible its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
NLPC's Complaint reads, in part:
"When the TARP was presented to Congress, Secretary Henry Paulson and others argued that the situation was dire, and that the failure of major financial institutions posed a systemic risk to our economy. The stated goal was to unfreeze credit so that banks can make loans to businesses and individuals. It was never contemplated that banks use their capital to make donations to organizations founded by a controversial figure like Jesse Jackson.
It should be noted that shareholders have made objections to corporate donations to Rainbow/PUSH and the so-called Citizenship Education Fund (CEF) even before the onset of the financial crisis. CEF is a 501(c)(3) organization founded by Jesse Jackson that co-sponsors the Wall Street Conference. In recognition of these objections, the New York Stock Exchange itself ended its financial sponsorship of the event in 2005.
Citigroup's management and board of directors cannot claim that it is unaware of the donations to Jesse Jackson's groups, or that they have not sparked controversy. Indeed, in remarks at the company's annual meetings in 2006 and 2007, I vigorously raised the issue in connection to our shareholder proposals asking for disclosure of Citigroup's charitable contributions, a resolution management opposed.
It should be further noted that Citigroup's relationship with Jesse Jackson began under questionable circumstances that have contributed in part to Citigroup's present problems and its need to seek taxpayer support. When Travelers and Citicorp sought to merge in 1998, Jesse Jackson said he would oppose the merger. Citigroup initiated financial support to his organizations. Jesse Jackson changed his position and supported the merger. It was speculated in the media that Citigroup's 'charitable' giving to Jesse Jackson's groups did have a business purpose.
As shareholders, we have protested corporate support for Jesse Jackson's organizations. Now that all taxpayers are shareholders in both Citigroup and Bank of America, these donations are completely objectionable, and should not be allowed. Unless you undertake a swift review of this matter, and take appropriate action, public cynicism about the use of TARP funds for their intended purpose will only increase."
According to official conference materials, Citigroup is a "Gold Sponsor," a designation costing $50,000. Bank of America is identified as a "Silver Sponsor," a designation costing $30,000.
Both Citigroup and Bank of America are major recipients of TARP funds. Taxpayers are now Citigroup's largest shareholder after infusions of $45 billion. Bank of America has already received $25 billion. According to today's Wall Street Journal, it is seeking billions more in order to make possible its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
NLPC's Complaint reads, in part:
"When the TARP was presented to Congress, Secretary Henry Paulson and others argued that the situation was dire, and that the failure of major financial institutions posed a systemic risk to our economy. The stated goal was to unfreeze credit so that banks can make loans to businesses and individuals. It was never contemplated that banks use their capital to make donations to organizations founded by a controversial figure like Jesse Jackson.
It should be noted that shareholders have made objections to corporate donations to Rainbow/PUSH and the so-called Citizenship Education Fund (CEF) even before the onset of the financial crisis. CEF is a 501(c)(3) organization founded by Jesse Jackson that co-sponsors the Wall Street Conference. In recognition of these objections, the New York Stock Exchange itself ended its financial sponsorship of the event in 2005.
Citigroup's management and board of directors cannot claim that it is unaware of the donations to Jesse Jackson's groups, or that they have not sparked controversy. Indeed, in remarks at the company's annual meetings in 2006 and 2007, I vigorously raised the issue in connection to our shareholder proposals asking for disclosure of Citigroup's charitable contributions, a resolution management opposed.
It should be further noted that Citigroup's relationship with Jesse Jackson began under questionable circumstances that have contributed in part to Citigroup's present problems and its need to seek taxpayer support. When Travelers and Citicorp sought to merge in 1998, Jesse Jackson said he would oppose the merger. Citigroup initiated financial support to his organizations. Jesse Jackson changed his position and supported the merger. It was speculated in the media that Citigroup's 'charitable' giving to Jesse Jackson's groups did have a business purpose.
As shareholders, we have protested corporate support for Jesse Jackson's organizations. Now that all taxpayers are shareholders in both Citigroup and Bank of America, these donations are completely objectionable, and should not be allowed. Unless you undertake a swift review of this matter, and take appropriate action, public cynicism about the use of TARP funds for their intended purpose will only increase."
Obama Windfall Profits Tax on Oil and Gas Industry Could Fund Stimulus Plan
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement from American Small Business League President Lloyd Chapman:
Every day for more than two years President-elect Barack Obama promised voters that if he was elected president, he would enact a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry to fund a $1000 per household energy rebate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A)
Just two days after being elected on November 6, President-elect Obama rolled out his transition website, Change.gov, (http://www.asbl.com/documents/Economy_Change.pdf) which contained all of the policies he intended to implement. The top issue under the "Economy" section of the Obama-Biden Agenda was the enactment of a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry. Two days later on November 8, the windfall profits tax vanished from the website. To this day, President-elect Obama has never personally offered any justification or rationale for the disappearance of one of his biggest campaign promises.
Now, with America in the middle of a historic economic disaster, which could rival the Great Depression, President-elect Obama's windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry might be the perfect vehicle for funding an economic stimulus plan.
President-elect Obama is now proposing to spend up to one trillion tax dollars to stimulate the nation's failing economy. As opposed to spending approximately $300 billion in taxes to fund a $1000 per household tax rebate, now is the perfect time for President-elect Obama to reconsider the windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry to help fund an economic stimulus plan. There is no question the oil and gas industry actually did make windfall profits during the last eight years and will almost certainly continue to do so.
The oil and gas industry's windfall profits began early in the Bush Administration. The Associated Press began reporting on the windfall profits in the oil and gas industry in 2003, when the average price of oil was $30 a barrel.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60862-2004Jan29_2.html)
Since the oil and gas industry has made windfall profits even when the price of oil was as low as $30 dollars a barrel, it is almost certain they will continue to make record profits no matter what the price of oil.
The greed and lack of regulation of the oil and gas industry was obviously a contributing factor to America's current economic crisis. Someone must pay higher taxes eventually to fund the Wall Street bailout, and President-elect Obama's one trillion dollar economic stimulus plan.
The oil and gas industry needs to be controlled in some way. The price of gas at the pump is on the rise again, and more windfall profits at the expense of working families struggling to cope are a virtual certainty.
President-elect Obama's windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry was a great idea; everyone that voted for him thought so. Now is the time for President-elect Obama to enact the windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry as he promised during his campaign. It will ensure energy prices stay low in relationship to the price of oil, and help fund the economic stimulus plan needed to save our nation's economy from what could be the worst economic disaster in American history.
Every day for more than two years President-elect Barack Obama promised voters that if he was elected president, he would enact a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry to fund a $1000 per household energy rebate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A)
Just two days after being elected on November 6, President-elect Obama rolled out his transition website, Change.gov, (http://www.asbl.com/documents/Economy_Change.pdf) which contained all of the policies he intended to implement. The top issue under the "Economy" section of the Obama-Biden Agenda was the enactment of a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry. Two days later on November 8, the windfall profits tax vanished from the website. To this day, President-elect Obama has never personally offered any justification or rationale for the disappearance of one of his biggest campaign promises.
Now, with America in the middle of a historic economic disaster, which could rival the Great Depression, President-elect Obama's windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry might be the perfect vehicle for funding an economic stimulus plan.
President-elect Obama is now proposing to spend up to one trillion tax dollars to stimulate the nation's failing economy. As opposed to spending approximately $300 billion in taxes to fund a $1000 per household tax rebate, now is the perfect time for President-elect Obama to reconsider the windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry to help fund an economic stimulus plan. There is no question the oil and gas industry actually did make windfall profits during the last eight years and will almost certainly continue to do so.
The oil and gas industry's windfall profits began early in the Bush Administration. The Associated Press began reporting on the windfall profits in the oil and gas industry in 2003, when the average price of oil was $30 a barrel.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60862-2004Jan29_2.html)
Since the oil and gas industry has made windfall profits even when the price of oil was as low as $30 dollars a barrel, it is almost certain they will continue to make record profits no matter what the price of oil.
The greed and lack of regulation of the oil and gas industry was obviously a contributing factor to America's current economic crisis. Someone must pay higher taxes eventually to fund the Wall Street bailout, and President-elect Obama's one trillion dollar economic stimulus plan.
The oil and gas industry needs to be controlled in some way. The price of gas at the pump is on the rise again, and more windfall profits at the expense of working families struggling to cope are a virtual certainty.
President-elect Obama's windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry was a great idea; everyone that voted for him thought so. Now is the time for President-elect Obama to enact the windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry as he promised during his campaign. It will ensure energy prices stay low in relationship to the price of oil, and help fund the economic stimulus plan needed to save our nation's economy from what could be the worst economic disaster in American history.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Major Media Excuse Obama Nominee's Failure to Pay Taxes
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Rather than provide a check on the abuses of those in power, Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid says the media are making excuses for Obama Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner's failure over the years to pay a variety of taxes and to make sure those he hired as domestic help had legal status in the U.S. The media, Kincaid argues, are functioning as arms of the Obama Transition office. The most popular excuse, first put forward by the Obama office, is that Geithner just made "honest mistakes." This excuse has been picked up by the media, he notes.
In a column on the subject, Kincaid says, "based on the documents that have come out, he [Geithner] is either a tax cheat or a dummy when it comes to his basic personal finances and tax matters. Do we want either one as head of the Treasury Department?"
Kincaid suggests poor coverage of the scandal by NBC News may be related to the fact that Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of NBC parent company General Electric (GE), is on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose president is Timothy Geithner. "It is also interesting to note that a subsidiary of GE, GE Capital, is getting some of the federal bailout money that Geithner, if he is confirmed, will have a role in managing," Kincaid notes. He asks, "Conflict of interest, anyone?"
He adds, "Another member of the board of the New York Fed is Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who serves on the board of the Washington Post Company. This is the media conglomerate whose media properties include the Washington Post newspaper, Newsweek, and Slate."
"Connections like this help explain why Geithner's tax problems won't become a scandal or even much of a controversy for major elements of the media," the AIM editor concludes.
In a column on the subject, Kincaid says, "based on the documents that have come out, he [Geithner] is either a tax cheat or a dummy when it comes to his basic personal finances and tax matters. Do we want either one as head of the Treasury Department?"
Kincaid suggests poor coverage of the scandal by NBC News may be related to the fact that Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of NBC parent company General Electric (GE), is on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose president is Timothy Geithner. "It is also interesting to note that a subsidiary of GE, GE Capital, is getting some of the federal bailout money that Geithner, if he is confirmed, will have a role in managing," Kincaid notes. He asks, "Conflict of interest, anyone?"
He adds, "Another member of the board of the New York Fed is Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who serves on the board of the Washington Post Company. This is the media conglomerate whose media properties include the Washington Post newspaper, Newsweek, and Slate."
"Connections like this help explain why Geithner's tax problems won't become a scandal or even much of a controversy for major elements of the media," the AIM editor concludes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
