Foreclosures and Missing Mortgages

       During this recession, there is not only a problem with homes being foreclosed upon, but also with documents surrounding the mortgage and who really owns them. The recovery from the foreclosure crisis is slowed by these missing promissory notes-- the original document that is legal proof of who the loan holder is and that the loan holder is entitled either to be repaid or to take back the house. Many cases of the million homes that have gone into foreclosure this year are challenged because of insufficient or lack of proper documentation.
         Many corporations, such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, have acknowledged that their systems were very flawed and have actually suspended their foreclosures while they review them. But their attempts to fix the problem now do not help with the millions of foreclosures that already occurred. This problem would not have occurred had the financial institutions not failed to process loans properly. Many of the documents are missing because of the process of securization, in which mortgage bond are made and then sold to investors. As is the case with many foreclosures, the mortgage changed hands so many times and so quickly that the promissory note could not make it to all destinations or was filed away in a warehouse instead of being sent to the next place. More problems occurred when the banks themselves were trying to stay afloat and save money, or were being dissolved or taken over by a different corporation. "In early 2007, Washington Mutual shipped 1 million loan files from a document warehouse in Houston that it was shutting down to save money. The documents were supposed to go to Juarez, but according to a local news report at the time, WaMu lost track of 100,000 files during the move to Mexico" (Stepen Gandel). This situation was made yet worse by the fact that the files backed-up and saved in the Mortgage Electronic Registry cannot be used in foreclosure cases because its replacement of paper documents was deemed illegal under the Constitution.  This is good news for the homeowners of foreclosed homes but bad for the financial institutions and the economy because many of the foreclosure cases cannot make it through court. Now the banks may have to buy back billions of dollars worth of faulty mortgages which would just further halt the recovery from the recession.

Foreclosures in 2007 (above). Foreclosures in late 2008 (below).

Are American Motivated By Self-Interest or Will They Make Sacrifices?

         In the past few years, as we all know, the economic sector of our society has come under increased scrutiny. The woes of the economy reached an all-time low, in 2008, with the housing crisis and the concurrent recession. Now in 2010, the government is struggling to agree upon and adopt measure through which the economy and society at large can be healed, both in the short term and long term. The deficit-reduction commission recently published their ideas and opinions on the most effective and popular means to achieve stability in the economy.
         As a people, Americans have an "appetite for government benefits that greatly exceeds their appetite for taxes" (Fareed Zakaria). As a result, the country has borrowed vast sums of money to bandage up this issue. The government will not be able to simply patch thing up for much longer, because in 75 years benefits from entitlement programs will be over the government revenue by about $50 trillion, and the deficit, if not attended to, will be equivalnet to about 24% of GDP in 2040 (Time). If the deficit of the economy is allowed to reach these levels, then 2 cures for the economy would be 70% tax hikes or 50% spending cuts which would just harm the country even more. The inequities between the capacity of the economy and its spending must be resolved now and not later. 
         These problems that are a part of the American economy and society today can be remedied by a combination of the measures the deficit-reduction commission recommends. No matter how many programs are cut, a significantly large amount of revenue must be generated. A sound measure to generate more revenue is a national sales tax. Not only would it be efficient, it would also be applied to what any person bought and therefore would be fair to all classes. Another possibility is, in 2050, to raise the social security retirement age by just one year. Even being one of the millions of current young people who would be affected by the measure, I am in support of it. I am willing to make that personal sacrifice, even though many people would be unwilling to sacrifice some of their own personal comforts or luxuries for the benefit of their society. There needs to be a different mindset in the United States, if any new agenda or measure is going to work. I know people are motivated ultimately by self-interest, but when did the health of one's society and the welfare of its people stop being a matter of personal interest?        

Medal of Honor, Representative of Disgrace

        Oh, the society that we live in. At the same time that the Medal of Honor is is given out for the first time in decades, a member of the House of Representatives is reelected and then found guilty of 11 counts of ethics violations. Never can there be a time of just pride and honor in the United States, there is always a shadow looming. Although nothing came be taken away from the event of receiving the Medal of Honor, its reflection on the country can be diminished by the conviction of Charles Rangel.
        On November 16th, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta. The recipient still says that even with his new title he will never be more than Sal to those that are truly important to him. He is just a simple and humble 25-year-old from Iowa, but when his country needed him, he grew into "a soldier as humble as he is heroic" (President Barrack Obama). At the age of 22 in 2007, he ran into enemy fire to help and rescue fellows soldiers when his team was ambushed by insurgents. He continued to complete 2 tours in Afghanistan. He is the first living person to receive the award since the Vietnam War.What he chose to do for his comrades and his country is heroic in and of itself and is made even more so amidst all the skepticism and doubts about the morality and motives behind the mission. He was willing to sacrifice his safety and his life, and did not respect anything in return.  In witnessing his devotion to his country and his mission, I was able to accept the conflict in Afghanistan as more valid then I ever have before. To me, the fact that he was willing to literally put himself in harm's way to protect others, gives more support to the efforts in Afghanistan; because if the American soldiers involved, who have actually witnessed what is going on are willing to do that, then the war must be valid.

      It is just sad to me that something was taken away from the pride that should accompany this event because of what Charles Rangel chose to do and how he betrayed the trust of the country. It is all just in a week of America, I suppose.

How Long Will The Tea Boil?

         

          Recently, an evangelization of the Tea Party agenda has occurred. It is essentially a revolt against the Washington government, large governmental spending, and even the Republican Party. One must ask what they can accomplish by themselves. Well, a good number of them, including Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, got themselves elected last week. They saluted the movement that fueled their victory and the people who voted them in and said “We’ve come to take our government back” (Rand Paul). But just how will they do that, because actually achieving change in government is a lot harder than just decrying the previous Congress and administration. Up to this point they have acted as a mob trying to enrage the people to rally behind their cause, without offering any coherent, legitimate or reasonable means to actually achieve their goals. Will the movement be different now that they actually have members in positions of some kind of power in government? Will they actually achieve change? Will they have to abandon some of their principles to do so? The nation will have to wait and see.

          What the new government must do to actually change the current state of the government and the country are, many times, contrary to what the Tea Party activists have proclaimed as the only means they would be willing to adopt. All through the recent campaigning season leading up to the election on November 4^th, Tea Party candidates were advocating lower taxes and spending cuts but they did not say how they would take action.  To save the economy, as any reasonably- minded person knows, the government must raise taxes and encourage spending by its people in order to increase revenue for the government, but also lower its own spending. Are they will to do these things, even though it would most likely turn their volatile support base against them? They must be willing to raise the taxes on the very same people that elected them, because the deficit will just keep widening if they don’t. They must be prepared to cut middle-class entitlements, such as Medicare and Social Security, against the efforts of almost all democrats. They must be ready to take on the Pentagon, as well, because its spending, at $717 billion, accounts for “half of all discretionary spending” (Fareed Zakaria, Time).  They also must be ready to make concessions to the president; otherwise they will have to work over him which would surely cause major problems. They must work hard to halt a government shutdown, like that of 1995. They must refuse any and all earmarks that could further curtail funds from the national government. They need to weary and work hard to reduce the national debt, because it is getting close to the $ 14.3 trillion national debt ceiling. If not dealt with quickly and effectively, and if the ceiling is not increased, it has the potential to cause a global financial crisis. The current situation of the United States has a very grave potential, made all the worse by the national government’s history with bipartisanship. “If this looks like a prescription for gridlock, it is. It could leave independent voters disappointed that Washington isn’t delivering solutions. And it could leave the Tea Party’s activist base as frustrated with the pace of change as the hopeful democrats who preceded them” (Michael Crowley, Time). Hopefully this will not happen again.

Only In America...

      Only in America could it be viewed as a good thing to be a political candidate with no previous ties to the national or any level of government. Even though this seems like a complete paradox to me, not to mention bad critical thinking, many candidates are endorsing this title, and what's more, it seems to be helping them in their races.
      Why would any American citizen want a mayor, representative, senator, or governor with no political experience? Is it because they believe successfully running a multi-billion dollar corporation  warrants them the abilities needed to be elected on principle alone? Or, is it because being wealthy automatically means one is wise and trustworthy?
     The truth of the matter, whether one is conservative or liberal, is that in these challenging and awesome economic times, our society needs governmental leaders who are experienced and have exhibited loyalty  and dedication to our governmental system. Candidates such as Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have not done this. They decry the woes of the present status of our society, but fail to offer legitimate and sound plans to help our states and country recover. Should not this be a warning sign of their inadequate knowledge of how to correctly  govern?
      I am by no means saying that having been previously active in politics  warrants one an automatic spot in  government, but it does lend to their knowledge of what to and not to do in government. I do believe that if someone wishes to be elected to government, he or she should have at least consistently voted in past elections which Meg Whitman has not. He or she should also have showed concern for those that they have previously been in control of which, when they were CEOs of EBAY and HP, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina did not do. I could go on and on, but I will not.
      In conclusion, citizens should be weary of newcomers to government who have no experience to back-up their assurances that they will make great political leaders who will guide us in the right direction; they have no evidence that they will! Citizens need to truly research all their political candidates, and propositions, for that matter,  so that they will be able to adequately choose the right candidate for their community.

Don't Be A Goat

      I am not all that surprised that all the thingspeople want to hear from the candidates are about America's decline, jobs, and the economy. People just want simple, clear responses to the extremely complex issues that are present in our society. This is the wrong view to have. People must stick with the government and support it the best they can, if they want things to get better in our society.
      People currently have a completely wrong view of government and believe that they are completely right in that view, even though they only have a remedial understanding of it. People do not want to elect individuals who have been present in Washington government recently, or even government at all, because of what has happened in society lately. But one would think, citizens would want elected officials with as much experience as possible. At least, I would. Another bothersome and rather annoying thing about American society at large is that they forget that they are the reason that the country has the government that it does. If they had not previously elected the people who elected those officials, they would not be in government and in control of the country.
      Finally, here is my appeal to my fellow democrats out there... Historically, when a president's rating have been low (like right now), the president's party has lost a significant number of seats in both the House and the Senate. Also Tea Party messages and candidates are pretty popular among all conservatives and are likely to win. But that can all be changed if democrats, especially the younger ones, get out and go vote. If this does not happen democratic views will not be as well represented in the government, and the programs and policies that we cherish could be endangered. And no democrats would be able to complain, because every democrats would be at fault. So, as a democrat who is too young to vote, I really hope that everyone who is able to will take advantage of this privilege and get out to vote.  

Thank God For DNA Testing and Civil Rights Cases

  
     Since 1989, DNA exoneration has freed 248 prisoners, and 17 who were serving on death row (Innocent Project). Just think, what if those people had not been released? What if some, if not all, of the death row inmates had been killed? What about all those that did not have the privilege of DNA testing??
      With those two simple statistics above, I cannot believe that there are still people who do not think that Hank Skinner, a inmate on death row in Texas, has the right to have all the evidence from the crime scene tested. The worst part is that he is not even asking to be freed, he simply wants to have the results; he just does not want to be killed. I do not know who would have the right to argue with that, although I guess someone does. I think that people forget that, even though he is a convicted murderer, he is still a human being who deserves some dignity. I know that the Texas D.A. does not think the same way I do.
      The main reason that the Texas District Attorney said no to Hank Skinner's request is that he did not entirely meet all of the requirements to get DNA testing done. According to Texas's post-conviction testing law, a convicted criminal can only get the evidence questioned if the inmate had not been at fault for the evidence not having been tested for the trial. Since Skinner's lawyer, not him, by the way, would not allow the evidence to be tested, the Texas D. A. says that he is a fault and cannot receive the testing. The evidence that is in question is DNA found on the knife used to kill to of the victims and from a rape-kit used on the last victim. This evidence seems like it could really possibly help Skinner and that he should have a right, not just a privilege, to it. This is the case that Skinner's present lawyer is making for his case, whose claim is that Skinner's due process right is being violated. I do not see what the harm could possibly be in letting a human being try and save his own life, especially since it could prove that he did not end three other lives.