This piece is forthcoming in The Lincoln Eagle.
Andrew Cuomo
is the reason you're poor and going to get poorer. In fact, if you voted for a Democrat or a Republican
for president, then you voted for a candidate who makes you poor and will make
you and your children poorer. The reason
is that both parties favor the current monetary system and Federal Reserve
notes, worthless, green slips of paper that say: "This note is legal
tender for all debts public and private."
Federal Reserve notes sport pictures of dead presidents, several of
whom, like Andrew Jackson ($20 bill) and Thomas Jefferson ($2 bill), opposed the
money we now have because it hurts people like you.
The greenback
dollar is counterfeit, and as the Fed prints more at your expense, it lends them
to big banks, which in turn lend them to Wall Street. When Lehman Brothers
collapsed, it was in debt for over half a trillion dollars, more than 60
percent of the total money supply at that time. (The money supply is the sum of
cash plus checking accounts; in 2008 it was $1.5 trillion; now, four yearslater, it is over $2.5 trillion).
Of all the
politicians in America who have harmed you economically, and virtually everyone
you've voted for has, among the worst is Andrew Cuomo. As the head of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development under President Clinton, Cuomo pushed for a policy whereby
FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC, the spearheads of the 2008 real estate collapse,
had to invest one half of their loan portfolios in subprime (low-income) real
estate. FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC, and the
Housing Authority (FHA) hold 90 percent of mortgages in the country.
If you were
lied to and believe that free markets caused the housing collapse, consider
that none of the three agencies, FANNIE, FREDDIE, and FHA, is a free market
institution; FANNIE and FREDDIE are public-private partnerships. The banks that generated the low-income
mortgages are among the most heavily regulated businesses, and they responded
to regulation.
Why do the
media and universities say that free markets and deregulation caused the
millennial housing bubble and collapse?
Because the big banks that lend to big media benefit from
government. They also contribute to the
dominant universities. Princeton's
endowment is $26 billion. Small wonder that Princeton professor Paul Krugman
favored the Wall Street bailout:
Princeton was a chief, albeit indirect, beneficiary. The building that
houses Harvard Business School is Morgan Hall; the modern medical school would
not exist without donations from Maryland merchant Johns Hopkins, JP Morgan,
and one of the first major investment bankers and Johns Hopkins's and JS and JP
Morgan's mentor, Baltimore-and-London-based George Peabody.
Wall Street
would not exist in its current form without the Federal Reserve Bank and
without government regulation, and that is why, since the days of Alexander
Hamilton, big government and regulation have been policies that favor the
super-rich. Jefferson, who favored the
productive class, paid off the federal debt; Hamilton, who favored speculators
(as did Franklin Roosevelt), favored a national debt. Have Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg,
and the late David Rockefeller advocated regulation because they are
altruists? Most billionaires favor
regulation, but the public has been duped into thinking that regulation helps it.
There are virtually no libertarian billionaires; the exceptions, Charles and
David Koch, are discussed endlessly. Left-wing and Progressive Republican
billionaires like Gates, Soros, Buffett, Bloomberg, and Rockefeller, are
ignored.
In his book The Financial Crisis and the Free Market
Cure, John A. Allison, president of the Cato Institute and former president
of BB&T bank, describes how Andrew
Cuomo was the inspiration of the housing collapse of 2008. In 1993, when Cuomo was head of HUD, he mandated
that the two public-private partnerships, FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC, invest half
their portfolios in sub-prime mortgages.
At first FANNIE, FREDDIE, and the FHA, ignored Cuomo's mandate, but in
1999 President Clinton began to enforce Cuomo's 50 percent requirement. Even the pro-Wall Street New York Times recognized that the Cuomo policy was
self-destructive, and on September 30, 1999 The
Times ran an article criticizing the policy; the article predicted that
Cuomo's policy would generate a housing collapse. Proving that it is the newspaper of economic
decline, The Times backed Cuomo in
the last election despite the path of economic destruction that Cuomo has left.
In his book
Allison shows that HUD, FREDDIE, FANNIE, and FHA were incompetently run, that
the latter three had taken on risky mortgage portfolios in order to make
results seem good before 1999, and that the three took on a suicidal degree of
risk after 1999. This was in part because FANNIE chief Franklin Raines, Bill
Clinton's crony, did not understand how financial institutions work.
Allison suggests
that the only Democrat who was smart enough to understand that the policies he
was advocating would lead to economic chaos was Barney Frank; the rest,
including Andrew Cuomo, were and are too uninformed to assess the policies that
they advocate. Cuomo helped make you poorer because he is an incompetent who
has been put in jobs over his head. Because of his father, Cuomo was born on
third base, and New York voters have pushed him toward home plate even though
he is dumb enough to persist in running toward the dugout.
It is not
surprising that Cuomo would now set his sights on taking away your right to
defend yourself. Through the wanton use of drones, the Obama administration has
murdered nearly 200 children; since 1960 the Democratic Party has murdered in
excess of 250,000 children in Vietnam and elsewhere. The Democrats and Republicans, like
Republican Dean Skelos, are eager to take away your right to bear arms so that
after they impoverish you some Democratic Party renegade dictator can murder
you with impunity. Incompetents like
Cuomo don't worry about the long term effects of the policies that they
advocate.
Mitchell
Langbert is political editor of The
Lincoln Eagle.
3 comments:
The doctrine of public - private separation is fundamental. I wonder if there is a good law book that explains this doctrine and why it is so important and what happened to Moussolini for creating public-private partnerships.
I have not yet run into anything from the enlightenment period on this topic, I just downloaded the anti-federalist papers yesterday.
Mitchell - where are the best anti-fed papers to be found ?
Doug, I have the 1996 reprint of Jackson Turner Main's "The Anti-Federalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788." It was: "Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London). In the Edward Countryman's Foreword there is a detailed discussion on the literature on that subject to that point in time.
Do you agree that this is a key concept for what we face today ?
I'm going to write that book reference down. I still have the other references you gave me. I'm just still stuck on Kant and will not give up.
Post a Comment