20 issues trump birth certificate circus

In the wake of the much-discussed release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had this to say:

"Instead of wasting so much ink on this birther story, the press should be giving a lot more attention to the many real disasters of the Obama administration. The Libertarian Party recently released a list of '20 Obama problems, 20 Libertarian solutions.'

"Of course, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are only part of the problem equation. The Republicans deserve an equal share of the blame, for their unwillingness to cut military spending or entitlements, their addiction to government programs like farm subsidies, and their big-spending compromise bills of December 2010 and April 2011.

"I wonder if Obama and the Republicans might just be conspiring to keep this birther stuff alive, to distract everyone from all the real problems they're causing. The president might have been worried that the birther talk was about to die down.

"When you consider that we're involved in three foreign wars, our entitlement state is crumbling, we have record-level spending and deficits, unemployment is high, and inflation is growing, the president's birth certificate seems less significant somehow.

"We need to be more focused on the fact that massive debt is driving our government toward bankruptcy -- something Republican birther Donald Trump would know a lot about.

"Nearly two years ago, one of our junior staffers mocked this very issue:

Socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The DHS, NSA, TSA police state is expanding, the Drug War is still being pursued by an arrogant, ignorant government and Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan! Frankly we have got bigger problems to pursue than blogging endlessly about where the President was born.

"Hopefully Americans will worry less about long-form birth certificates, and more about thousand-page spending bills."

-----

Libertarians speak against Obama's War on Poker

Following the Obama administration Justice Department's April 15 shutdown of three online poker sites and indictment of their executives, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said, "The Obama administration has just trampled on the rights of millions of Americans."

Hinkle continued, "This is also a scary reminder of President Obama's vision of a government with the power to shut down websites it doesn't like, before a trial has even started.

"Even worse, shutting down this peaceful, honest commerce further weakens our economy.

"We Libertarians believe that adults have the right to gamble with their own money. Government has no business interfering. The Obama administration should drop these charges and restore the websites. Congress should repeal the laws that prohibit gambling, whatever the format."

Obama Makes Super False Tax Claim: 'I Didn't Raise Taxes Once'

/PRNewswire/ -- Today, Americans for Tax Reform issued the following:

On Sunday, in a live, nationally televised interview just prior to the Super Bowl, President Obama made the following claim:

"I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."

Let's break down the statement, starting with Obama's "I didn't raise taxes once" claim. This assertion is blatantly false, as President Obama has signed into law at least two dozen tax increases:

Feb. 4, 2009 – Obama signs federal tobacco tax hike: Just sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco – a hike of 62 cents per pack. Obama's signature on this tax hike was a violation of his central campaign promise – a "firm pledge" that no American making less than $250,000 would see "any form of tax increase." The median income of smokers is just over $36,000.

March 23, 2010 – Obama signs the healthcare bill into law: Obama's signature on the healthcare bill enacted two dozen new or higher taxes (at least seven of which violate his "firm pledge" on taxes), including but not limited to:

* Individual Mandate Excise Tax
* Employer Mandate Excise Tax
* Small business 1099-MISC Information Reporting
* Surtax on Investment Income
* Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
* Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
* Medicine Cabinet Tax
* HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
* Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka "Special Needs Kids Tax"
* Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
* "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
* Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
* Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage
* Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
* Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
* Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
* Tax on Health Insurers
* Biofuel "black liquor" tax hike
* Codification of the "economic substance doctrine"


Now let's turn to the second part of Obama's claim: "I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."

* President Obama's entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax relief he has signed into law. The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent. In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts
* Over 90% of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary
* 100% of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent
* Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion

Obama's State of the Union Talks New Jobs While Policies Destroy Them, says FACES of Coal

/PRNewswire -- An internal report obtained by the Associated Press reveals that soon-to-be proposed rules affecting surface and underground coal mining nationwide will cost thousands of jobs across the country. The job and production losses are outlined in an Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Reclamation and Enforcement document. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations, which the agency never implemented. The OSM has submitted the proposal to coal producing states for their feedback before it finalizes any new regulations. The proposal - part of a draft environmental impact statement - would affect coal mines from Appalachia to Alaska.

"This Administration says it's for job creation, yet its regulatory actions reflect just the opposite," said Bryan Brown, West Virginia Executive Director of FACES of Coal. "I, like most Americans, heard the President last night commit to reducing regulations that take people's jobs. In reality, these internal documents project how many jobs the OSM is going to destroy. This is outrageous. Coal states need their leaders in Washington, D.C. now more than ever to stand up for our jobs and communities by stopping this bureaucratic abuse."

The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal) is an alliance of more than 70,000 people from all walks of life who are joining forces to educate lawmakers and the general public about the importance of coal and coal mining to our local and national economies and to our nation's energy security. In addition to keeping tens of thousands of people employed in good-paying jobs, coal is the lifeblood of our domestic energy supply, generating nearly half the electricity consumed in the United States today.

Judicial Watch Details Ambitious Investigative Agenda for 112th Congress

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its list of investigative priorities for the new 112th Congress. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.

Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.

Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.

Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.

Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.

National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.

Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."

Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.

Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.

Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.

White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.

"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."

Libertarian chair "sort of" commends Obama's Cuba decision

Mark Hinkle, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, sort of commends President Obama for his decision to just barely ease travel restrictions and restrictions on sending private financial assistance to the people suffering under the socialist government of Cuba.

Hinkle said, "The president has shown less-than-tremendous courage here. I suppose it's a tiny positive step that our government will permit Americans to send $500 to a Cuban every three months. And churches will be allowed to arrange trips to Cuba, as long as they jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops first.

"However, it's such a small improvement in such an awful policy, that I'm not sure the president really deserves a compliment.

"It's absurd that the U.S. government prohibits travel and trade with Cuba. In addition to being an unjust violation of Americans' rights, it's bone-headed policy. If the goal was to topple the Castro regime, then the policy has been a spectacular failure. The embargo has probably strengthened, not weakened, the Castro dictatorship.

"Libertarians call for unrestricted access to travel to Cuba and complete freedom for Americans to engage in economic activity there.

"Unrestricted access to the world markets will help Cubans lift themselves out of their disastrous socialist economy. Libertarians know that free trade and free travel are a fast-track ticket to prosperity.

"Next time, Mr. President, try to do something a little more impressive."

The Libertarian Party platform says the following on free trade and migration:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration


We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) Calls on Obama Administration to Identify Greatest Threat in History to Our Democracy

/PRNewswire/ -- Family Security Matters' Contributing Editor, Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt, has called on the Obama administration to clearly identify what he terms "the greatest threat in history to our democracy." He further identifies clearly that threat to be the one "posed by Islamic extremism."

Lt. Col. Zumwalt, author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will - Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," strongly believes that earlier generations of free societies were able to recognize, understand and defeat earlier threats to their existence posed by Nazism and Communism because those threats were made clear to them. But, the threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a President unwilling to call it what it is. He states the irony of the president's position when he says, "Obfuscating a threat seeking the destruction of our way of life shows unbelievable naivete by our President, underscored by a determined unwillingness to call Islamists 'the enemy' at the same time he freely attaches such a label to his political opponents."

In comparison, Lt. Col. Zumwalt points to the utter failure of South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" which sought a soft policy of political and economic interaction with Pyongyang, thinking it would reap more benefit. Under cover of that policy, Pyongyang—using other assets it garnered under the policy and the millions of dollars paid by the South in 2000—aggressively pursued its nuclear arms program, and other aggressions which culminated in the sinking of a destroyer and artillery attack on a South Korean island. The Sunshine Program was abandoned in 2008 under the new presidency of Lee Myung-bak.

Similarly, while acts/plots of domestic terrorism by Islamists in the U.S. were low between 2001 and 2008, the number had doubled by 2009, a time during which this administration removed all reference to "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" so as not to risk offending moderate Muslims.

Carol Taber, president of FamilySecurityMatters.org , where Lt. Col. Zumwalt's article "Obfuscating the National Security Threat" appears said, "The threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a political leadership unwilling to call it what it is. Thank God some of our other leaders, such as Lt. Col. Zumwalt, do not lack that courage."

Third National Poll Confirms: Americans' Concern About Nasty Politics Continues to Climb

/PRNewswire/ -- Building on its April 2010 survey on the growing incivility in politics, the Center for Political Participation (CPP) at Allegheny College, in conjunction with Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW), today released the findings of new polling data that suggests Americans see politics as increasingly nasty and that the current political tone may be harmful to our democracy. Still, an overwhelming majority believe that passionate but respectful campaigning is possible.

Some 63 percent of respondents in the latest civility poll, conducted during the last four days leading up to the November midterm elections, believe politics has become less civil since President Barack Obama took office nearly two years ago. This is up from 48 percent in the April survey, and up from 58 percent in a second poll conducted in September, two full months before the midterms.

"You have to remember," said Professor Daniel M. Shea, director of the CPP, "our first wave of polling was done immediately following the health care reform vote. Things were rather hot in Washington. The dramatic increase in the perceptions of negativity since then is stunning. Things have gotten even worse."

A full 46 percent of registered American voters in the November poll said this year's election was the "most negative they had ever seen." An additional 26 percent said that it was "more negative than in the past," but they had seen worse. Only 4 percent said that campaigns were more positive than in the past.

"Sure, memories are short and it's common for all of us to think the most recent election was the worst," said Shea. "But these polling results are powerful. Nearly three out of four people believe this election was one of the nastiest they have ever seen."

A majority of voters (64 percent) polled in November said that the degenerating tone of politics is unhealthy for our democracy. Only 17 percent think the tone of campaigns is healthy for our democracy, while 14 percent think the tone has little impact on democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats who viewed 2010 as the most negative election said that incivility in politics hurts our democracy. Independents and Republicans also see a detrimental effect, with independents at 78 percent and Republicans at 72 percent.

Although a majority of African Americans and Hispanics believe the negative tone of campaigns hurts our democracy, these groups (55 percent black, 50 percent Hispanic) were less likely than whites (67 percent) to consider this as harmful to democracy.

Even so, the November poll finds that voters remain optimistic about candidates' ability to run positive campaigns. Nine out of 10 registered voters believe it is "possible for candidates to run for office in aggressive, but in respectful ways."

"This percentage actually grew by 5 percent from our mid-September poll," said Michael Wolf of Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, co-author of the study. "Just because the public views campaigns as brutal, particularly this year's, doesn't mean they think it has to be that way. At least for now there remains some optimism out there."

Does their perception of negativity in politics have an impact on voters' willingness to get involved? Thirty percent of all registered voters questioned in the poll reported that the tone of the midterm elections made them less interested in becoming engaged in the process. Independents and Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say they were less interested due to the tone. Indeed, a majority of Republicans who said that the 2010 election was the most negative they had ever seen said the uncivil tone would actually push them to participate. Additionally, African-Americans—who on the whole are loyal to Democrats—were much more likely than all Americans to say that negative campaigning made them more interested in getting involved in elections.

Another sore subject for voters was the role that so-called "outside money" – through which interest groups not located in a particular district flood a race with ads, mailings and phone calls -- has played in campaigning. Just less than 60 percent of respondents oppose this practice. Democratic respondents were more opposed to outside money (69 percent) than independents (57 percent opposed). A majority of Republicans (51 percent) also oppose this practice.

"It's a bit early to know with certainty, but early evidence suggests a strong majority of outside money was aimed at helping the GOP retake control of Congress, and a vast majority of these ads were hard-hitting and negative," Shea said. "It would make sense that some of these ads actually revved up GOP voters."

This recent wave of polling for Allegheny and IPFW was conducted by SurveyUSA between Oct. 28 and Nov. 1, 2010. In all, 1,252 registered voters were contacted, yielding a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

For a complete set of the data, along with cross tabulations and graphic displays of the results, see: http://www.allegheny.edu/novemberpoll. The survey findings from the September poll, along with charts and cross tabulations, can be accessed at: www.allegheny.edu/septemberpoll. The April 2010 survey, "Nastiness, Name-calling & Negativity," is available at www.allegheny.edu/civility.

Libertarians oppose abusive TSA strip-search machines

Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle commented today (November 5) on the Transportation Security Administration's use of strip-search machines at airports.

Hinkle said, "The TSA should end the strip-search machine program immediately.

"We've reached a point where our government has no qualms about humiliating us.

"Everyone who cares about civil liberties should be outraged that the Obama administration has shown no respect for travelers' privacy or their right to be free from unreasonable searches. The fact that I want to travel on an airplane does not make me a threat, and it does not allow anyone to conduct a warrantless search under my clothing. The Obama administration apparently agrees with the neoconservative philosophy that there are no limits on government power in the areas of security and terrorism.

"Terrorists win when they provoke our government into overreacting. Apparently they have manipulated our government into chipping away at our rights and privacy. We should not let them get away with it."

American Pilots Association president Dave Bates recently spoke out against the strip-search machines, expressing concern about the possibly harmful radiation they emit.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed the opening brief in its lawsuit against the program. EPIC says that the machines violate the federal Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC's president called the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective."

Hinkle continued, "We can ignore the government's assurances that images will not be stored. Regardless of policy, some security personnel will want to store the images, and they will find ways to do it. This is already reported to have happened in Florida, where U.S. Marshalls stored thousands of images from a courthouse scanner.

"Many airlines are probably relieved to have the federal government assume responsibility for security. But it's the airlines who ought to be responsible, and they should bear the liability for what happens on their flights. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the government, passengers and airlines should be free to work together to determine what methods and levels of security fit their needs best.

"We encourage Americans to call their newly-elected members of Congress and tell them that they don't want this expensive, worthless, intrusive, unconstitutional program."

President Obama Is Playing Politics With Domestic Violence Issue, Groups Warn

/PRNewswire/ -- Domestic Violence experts are criticizing President Obama's pre-election unveiling of a new domestic violence initiative, saying the effort represents a concoction of unproven strategies that betray the needs of women.

The Obama plan will promote wider use of restraining orders -- but research shows such orders are flatly ineffective in preventing future violence: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse

The Independent Women's Forum has said such orders "lull women into a false sense of security," since a piece of paper is unlikely to deter a batterer intent on maiming a victim. Former Judge Milton Raphaelson of Massachusetts notes, "Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuing therefrom."

According to a report issued Tuesday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, lesbian and gay persons are nearly twice as likely to experience domestic violence as persons in heterosexual relationships. The report also documents cases of discriminatory practices and "verbal and sexual harassment of shelter staff towards lesbian clients:" http://www.avp.org/documents/2009DV-IPVREPORTFINAL2.pdf

"American women and men who face the grim reality of domestic violence in their daily lives are unlikely to be impressed by President Obama's plan," according to SAVE spokesperson Teri Stoddard. "Domestic violence programs should be based on solid evidence and research, and not consist of a series of disjointed efforts cobbled together on Election Eve."

An increase in female-initiated abuse has been documented in government surveys, but Obama's initiative is insensitive to a woman's request for counseling and treatment, or the needs of male victims. According to a 2007 Centers for Disease Control study, women commit 7 out of 10 acts of one-way partner violence.

Last week, former Playboy Playmate Angela Dorian took a handgun and shot her boyfriend in their Hollywood apartment. The 66-year-old Dorian was arrested Saturday night. Bail was set at $1,000,000.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) has developed a Domestic Violence Fact Sheet: http://saveservices.org/pdf/Seven-Facts-Every-American-Should-Know-About-DV.pdf

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments -- SAVE -- is a national 501c3 organization dedicated to ending intimate partner violence through public awareness, training, and evidence-based policy: www.saveservices.org

Health Insurers Push Last-Minute Loopholes to Gut Rules Requiring Premiums Be Spent on Health Care, Not Overhead -- Watchdogs Ask President for Rate Freeze

/PRNewswire -- As the insurance industry lobbies state insurance commissioners in Orlando to weaken modest regulations on health insurance premiums, Consumer Watchdog's leaders reiterated their call for President Obama to place a moratorium on premium increases, articulated this week in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.

"Health insurance companies have declared war on President Obama's healthcare plan," argues Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, author of "The Progressive's Guide To Raising Hell." "The struggling middle class cannot afford more double-digit premium hikes, and federal law says we are owed an explanation before having to pay them. Obama should forbid premium hikes until the companies comply with pricing provisions of the new federal law."

Read the Los Angeles Times op-ed calling for an executive order freezing rates: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=36580

On Thursday, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is expected to take a final vote on new health reform rules requiring insurers to spend at least 80-85% of consumers' premiums on health care. State regulators continue to discuss how much information health insurance companies must disclose about unreasonable premium increases.

The insurance industry is pushing a series of last-minute amendments at the meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners this week that would weaken regulation under the health reform law, including measures that would allow them to:

- Maintain low spending on health care in some states if they spend a higher percentage in other states. This "aggregation" of medical spending across states will nullify the new medical spending rules for the very consumers they are meant to help - those whose insurance plans spend too much on administration and profits.

- Artificially boost the amount that insurers report spending on medical care. "Credibility" adjustments are meant to account for fluctuations in health care spending for plans with fewer customers by increasing the reported medical loss ratio. Insurance companies' proposal could allow insurers to get away with intentionally low medical spending, said Consumer Watchdog.

- Falsely identify administrative costs – including broker commissions, fraud prevention, claims handling and denials – as medical spending.

Public scrutiny of unreasonable premiums is the health reform law's only check on rate increases. However, because regulations are still being written, insurance companies are not currently justifying unreasonable increases. President Obama has the obligation to issue an Executive Order freezing premiums until insurers begin complying with the law, said Consumer Watchdog.

"Insurance commissioners have a choice. Send the current modest version of medical spending regulations to HHS, or give insurers free rein to continue spending too much money on bloated profits and paper-pushers and not enough on actual health care," said Carmen Balber, Washington DC director for Consumer Watchdog. "In the meantime, insurers rush to raise premiums now just in case they have to rein in spending tomorrow. President Obama has the power to protect consumers from arbitrary price hikes by freezing premiums until insurers explain how they're spent in the full light of day."

Insurance companies have lobbied to limit the information made public in the rate justification considered by state regulators today. Consumer Watchdog argued for more disclosure to explain how insurers spend customer premiums, including:

- Lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions;

- Advertising and marketing expenditures; and

- Transactions and transfers of funds to affiliates.

Obama's FHA Short Refinance Program: Roy Oppenheim Says Too Little Too Late

/PRNewswire/ -- First loan modifications, then short sales ... now it's the short refi. Officially known as the FHA Short Refinance Program, it's the latest band-aid in Obama's bailout plans aimed at resuscitating Florida's underwater homeowners facing foreclosure. Oppenheim Law helps homeowners understand the "short refi" pros and cons.

The FHA Short Refinance Plan now offers aid to people who owe more than their mortgage is worth. Will it bring life back to the real estate market and stimulate the economy? This is the question market analysts and legal bloggers like Florida Attorney Roy Oppenheim are debating.

One of the biggest dangers facing the housing market is the glut of underwater homeowners who could default if their financial situations or home prices worsen. About 11 million borrowers, or 23% of households with a mortgage, were underwater as of June 30, 2010, according to CoreLogic Inc. That number is expected to double next year.

"This is a much needed program, but just might be a case of too little, too late," says Oppenheim, who continues to help Florida homeowners navigate through the tides of the real estate market. "Servicers will not be highly motivated and sometimes inclined to steer towards foreclosure." In addition, the Program, at best, is designed to help about four million homeowners according to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Website.

Criteria for FHA Short Refi Program

-- Must occupy subject property as their primary residence
-- Must be current in your mortgage loan
-- Must be in a non-FHA loan
-- Credit score must be at least 500
-- Bank must agree to write off at least 10% of principal and
-- Second mortgage must be willing to cooperate (if applicable)


For two years, Oppenheim Law has advocated a much broader and bolder refi program pushing for an FDR-style program modeled after the Homeowner's Loan Corporation that assisted underwater homeowners during the Depression.

"History proves it's always the refinance market leading the country out of recession. This time, because the banks have absolutely no incentive to refi, they will not," said Oppenheim. "A strong government program could easily and quickly pump $50 billion back into the economy."

William H. Gross, managing director at Pimco, a giant manager of bond funds, has also proposed the government refinance millions of mortgages at lower rates.

"A more comprehensive short refi program would increase jobs and improve consumer sentiment," noted Oppenheim.

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit to Obtain Records of Phoenix Police Chief's Involvement in Obama Administration Lawsuit Challenging SB 1070

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on August 4, 2010, against the City of Phoenix pursuant to Arizona Public Records Law to obtain records related to Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris' sworn declaration in the Obama administration's lawsuit challenging Arizona immigration law SB 1070 (Judicial Watch v. City of Phoenix, Case No. CV 2010 052443 (Superior Court of AZ Maricopa County)).

Judicial Watch is seeking the following records: "Any and all records concerning or relating to the preparation or submission of the Declaration of Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, dated June 25, 2010, in the matter captioned United States of America v. State of Arizona, Case No. 2:10-cv-01413-SRB (D. District of Arizona)..." Judicial Watch is also seeking documents regarding communications between Harris and the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice. The Phoenix Police Department received Judicial Watch's request on July 13, 2010, but has failed to produce any documents or indicate when documents will be forthcoming.

On or before June 25, 2010, Chief Harris prepared and/or signed a declaration to be submitted on behalf of the U.S. government in its lawsuit challenging SB 1070. On July 6, 2010, the U.S. government attached Chief Harris' declaration to its motion in support of a preliminary injunction.

The Phoenix City Council, however, made the decision in May 2010 to stay neutral in the legal battle between the State of Arizona and the federal government over SB 1070. According to the Arizona Daily Star, in response to a threat by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon to challenge the new illegal immigration law, "Phoenix City Attorney Gary Verburg said only the City Council has the power to authorize lawsuits." The City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation (AR) 2.16 specifically states: "It is the public policy of the City, reflected in this AR, that...Employees not engage in activities that are inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or are harmful to their duties as City employees."

"Chief Harris had no business sticking his nose in the middle of the federal government's lawsuit against the State of Arizona. The City of Phoenix adopted a position of neutrality regarding the litigation. And as a City employee, Police Chief Harris was required to stay out of it. The City of Phoenix has an obligation to shed light on Chief Harris' declaration and it can start by releasing these records," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In October 2009, Judicial Watch filed a taxpayer lawsuit against the Phoenix Police Pension Board, its five members, and City of Phoenix Chief of Police Harris to stop the illegal payment of pension benefits to Chief Harris valued at approximately $90,000 per year.

Judicial Watch's Arizona counsel is Todd Feltus of the firm Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC.

Geithner is Wrong: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Tax Hike is Not a 'Return to the 1990s'

/PRNewswire/ -- In advance of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's major economic address today Americans for Tax Reform released the following:

In a speech today at the Center for American Progress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will say that the largest tax hike in American history (coming this January) is a return to the "pro-growth" fiscal policies of the 1990s. This is patently absurd. Here is why:

1. The tax rates scheduled under current law and the Obama budget are higher than those of the Clinton years. Everyone forgets that Obamacare imposes a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and raises the top Medicare payroll tax rate to 3.8 percent in 2013. That means that the top tax rates on the table are higher than they were in the 1990s:

Obama     Current
               Clinton/     Budget       Law
                  GOP
               Congress
  Capital
   Gains              20%      23.8%       23.8%
  Dividends         39.6%      23.8%       43.4%
  Majority
   of Small
   Business
   Profits          42.5%      43.4%       43.4%

2. We can't afford to raise tax rates while other countries have been cutting them. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world (39 percent when states are factored in). The average in the developed world is 26 percent. Back in 1995, the developed world's average was nearly 37 percent, and the U.S. level was the same as today. So the corporate tax rate around the world has been slashed, and the United States has stayed the same. We can't afford to raise taxes at the same time as other countries have been cutting them.

3. The capital gains tax rate in the 1990s was going down, but the Obama budget calls for the rate to go up. The GOP Congress and President Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, lowering the top rate from 28 to 20 percent. However, the combination of the January 2011 tax hike and Obamacare means that today's capital gains tax rate will rise from 15 to nearly 24 percent.

4. Spending was going down in the 1990s, but it is at record-high levels today. That's why the 1990s had surpluses, and this decade has record deficits. Between 1990 and 2000, federal spending fell from 22 percent of the economy to 18 percent of the economy. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending this decade will hover around 23 percent of the economy--each and every year, and far above the historical average of 21 percent. Record-high spending is causing deficits this decade, just as spending restraint caused surpluses in the 1990s. Taxes should not be hiked to pay for massive, deficit-causing spending.

Statement by Governor Jan Brewer Comments Regarding Federal Border Security Efforts

"Part of my rationale for signing S.B. 1070 was to get the federal government to do its job and secure the border. Despite the mantra by the Obama administration that the border is 'as secure as ever,' in Arizona both Republicans and Democrats recognize they have failed. Their failure to date is borne out by today's announcement of more federal resources. While the announcement of more resources is welcomed, it does not appear to be enough, or tied to a strategy to comprehensively defeat the increasingly violent drug and alien smuggling cartels that operate in Arizona on a daily basis. We need the implementation of a federal plan to achieve victory over these brutal cartels and the porous nature of our open border."

Governor Jan Brewer
July 19, 2010

Libertarians say government shares blame with BP for oil spill

Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement June 18:

"The federal government and BP share the blame for the large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"When the CEO of BP appeared at a Congressional hearing yesterday, Republicans and Democrats predictably engaged in finger-pointing and blame-ducking, trying to score political points. Their fingers should have been pointed at themselves.

"When President Obama gave his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, there was one important word missing: the word 'liability.' The president never mentioned that, thanks to liability caps provided by the federal government, BP was able to engage in riskier activities than it would have otherwise. If BP had known in advance that it would be fully liable for all damages related to an oil spill, it probably would have taken greater safeguards. When you know that your liability will be strictly limited, cutting corners becomes a lot more attractive.

"The spill will cause a lot of damage to the property and livelihood of people living along the Gulf. We have a well-developed system of civil courts to help people obtain compensation. Unfortunately, the legislative and executive branches have inappropriately trampled on this territory, and they seem to be trying to take the place of the courts.

"The president has apparently convinced BP to put $20 billion in some kind of compensation account. He said in his speech that it will be 'administered by an independent third party.' Will this third party be able to decide what 'legitimate claims' are, and how much they should receive? Assessing damages should be done by courts, not by political bureaucrats appointed in backroom deals between the president and a large corporation.

"The president could have taken the opportunity to talk about getting government out of the energy industry, and allowing the free market to guide the future of energy production. Unfortunately, he instead blamed the free market for government failures, and discussed his hopes of increasing government interference in the energy industry.

"For decades, Libertarians have warned against putting trust in government regulatory bureaucracies like the Minerals Management Service (MMS). While costing the taxpayers a lot of money, these agencies generally fail to deliver the kind of protections they promise, they tend to become corrupt, and they discourage vigilance on the part of citizens by lulling them into a false sense of security.

"When large companies and the government start working together, the results can be disastrous. Congressional liability caps, the MMS bureaucracy, and BP have all cooperated to create a costly disaster that should never have happened."

Small Business Employees Won't Be Able Keep the Health Coverage They Currently Have

/PRNewswire/ -- Today, Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) issued the following statement regarding new regulations from the Obama Administration that outline how existing health plans will be forced to change under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and how this impacts health coverage for small businesses:

"Basic common sense made clear that ObamaCare would present major cost problems and lost insurance coverage and choices for small businesses and their employees. While the President and his supporters denied or ignored these facts during the debate over health care legislation, now internal administration documents confirm reality. Up to 80% of all small businesses may be forced to switch health care plans in order to conform to government requirements. This is staggering, and we anticipate that the costs of these plans will be much higher given the vast array of new requirements that are required by the new health care law.

"The bottom line is clear and was predictable during the debate over ObamaCare: Insurance costs will rise for small businesses, innovative choices will be eliminated, and many individuals will lose their employer-based coverage. That's the economic reality, which flies directly in the face of what President Obama and congressional leaders promised."

The SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group that works to protect small business and promote entrepreneurship. For more information, please visit: www.sbecouncil.org.

NYT: Obama's Economic Team Already Calculating VAT Revenue

/PRNewswire/ -- President Barack Obama's economic team is already calculating government revenues from a possible Value Added Tax (VAT), according to the New York Times.

Article excerpt:

But since any Social Security plan would probably preserve benefits for those nearing retirement, it would not help the administration achieve its goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product, from 10 percent, within a decade.

One way to reach that 3 percent goal, by the calculations of Mr. Obama's economic team: a 5 percent value-added tax, which would generate enough revenue to simultaneously permit the reduction in corporate tax rates Republicans favor.

The reported VAT calculations may explain President Obama's recent attempts to alter the terms of his central campaign promise - a promise that no family making less than $250,000 per year would see "any form of tax increase".

Twice in the past ten days, Obama has claimed his pledge applied only to income taxes. In his April 10 Weekly Radio Address, Obama said:

"And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That's another promise we've kept."

In a speech on the evening of April 15, Obama repeated the truncated promise:

"And one thing we haven't done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year -- another promise that we kept."

In the interest of transparency, Americans for Tax Reform respectfully asks President Obama to immediately release the reported VAT calculations or deny such calculations exist.

Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or by email at jkartch@atr.org.

Judicial Watch Statement Regarding the Pending Retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to today's announcement of the pending retirement of Justice Stevens:

"President Obama needs to replace Justice Stevens with a person who will apply the Constitution strictly and not substitute their own political beliefs for the rule of law. If President Obama nominates an 'empathetic' liberal judicial activist, he will have a fight on his hands. With looming constitutional challenges ranging from Obamacare to new rights for foreign terrorists, the United State Senate should ensure that only a justice who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution is approved. Given the stakes, every U.S. Senator should know that the upcoming Supreme Court vote will be as closely watched as their votes on Obamacare. Tea Party activists ought to be paying close attention to this nomination."

Schlafly: Obama Would Be Foolish to Leave Supreme Court Without A Veteran

/PRNewswire/ -- Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the last military veteran serving on the high court, announced that he will retire:

"The vacancy resulting from Stevens' retirement is significant because it means that the Supreme Court is at risk of being left without a single military veteran. For as long as I can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran.

"Considering President Obama's weak and highly unpopular track record on national defense issues, specifically his decision to try known terrorists in criminal court rather than in military tribunals and his recent announcement about U.S. nuclear disarmament, it is critical that President Obama replace a military veteran judge with another military veteran judge. If President Obama can make this happen, it will certainly be a winner with American voters, but if he does not, it will reinforce his commitment to ideology alone and further erode the American people's confidence in their president."

"In the midst of two wars, we must protect our military from radical, anti-military judicial nominees. President Obama would be foolish to leave the Supreme Court without any veterans."

"The U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans alike, should not allow President Obama to thumb his nose at our armed services by replacing the last decorated veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran. Our brave men and women who risk their lives for our nation's security deserve better."

For more information on Eagle Forum and the courts, please visit www.eagleforum.org.