Some of you may have seen reference to a study by Traiger & Hinckley by liberals-democrats trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the liberal affordable housing laws were the catalyst to the recession of 2008-2009 (+?). Some go so far as to say the study proves that the affordable housing laws had nothing to do with the economic downturn. Unfortunately these same people appear to just be "grasping" to engage in a debate to defend liberal government intrusion and only give the report a cursory review and do not research more explicit facts, such as:
(1)The "study" has not been published by any economics/financial journal, so without peer review one must read such "white papers" with an open mind concerning its reliability.
(2)Traiger & Hinckley is a law firm, what exactly are their economics credentials? This law firm works for banks by providing them counceling on "fair lending" to obey the affordable housing laws and anti-discrimination laws. This is a conflict of interest: write a paper saying the CRA is just fine and dandy, and get paid by clients who must meet CRA laws that provide the client base to the legal firm.
(3)The study does not indicate if "CRA banks" have a higher foreclosure rate than banks that did not have branches in CRA "assessment areas". I wonder why?
(4)The study talks about "high cost loans". But a high-cost-loan is not the same thing as a subprime loan. A high-cost-loan as defined in the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 is only a small fraction of total subprime loans. Why did the legal firm only focus on high-cost-loans and not all subprime loans? The answer appears obvious, the results would have negated the biased conclusion of the study.
(5)The study focuses on things as obscure as a relationship between foreclosure rates on high-cost-loans with concentration of bank branches. This is a subtle sign of "grasping" for ways to deflect the attention away from the damning facts.
The Traiger & Hinckley study does not relieve the democrats of the blame for creating the catalysts for this recession: the affordable housing laws, the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the resistance to regulating Fannie and Freddie.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Liberals Caused the Recession of 2008-2009
Great video on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8
Timeline of the Economic Meltdown of 2008-2009:
1977: Democrat Congress enacts the Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. The law "encourages" banks to "help meet the credit needs of local communities". The Act mandates banks invest in poor urban areas, regardless of credit-worthiness, beginning the decline of the quality of bank loans.
1991: The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 that forces banks to disclose lending records is expanded to allow for comparisons of rejection rates by race.
1995: The administration of Democrat President Bill Clinton makes changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The changes required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to poor communities in the area of the bank. The changes also let community activists like ACORN intervene at yearly bank reviews where they intimidated the banks by threatening bad publicity. The high-risk subprime mortgage loan market is created by these policies. Lenders are forced (by facing costly government penalites) into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making.
1998: Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno encourages enforcement of ambiguous discrimination lawsuits against lenders, stating "I discovered in talking to bankers, that it is better to educate first and then litigate later only if necessary. But you got to be prepared to litigate, and I am prepared to litigate when it's going to be necessary [...]. Since the inception of our fair lending initiative in 1992, the Department has filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits [...]." Lenders become ever more fearful of government lawsuits based on games played by the democrats with lending statistics.
2001: The 4-month old administration of President George Bush produces its 2002 budget, and declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem" because " financial trouble of a large GSE [Government Sponsored Enterprise] could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."
January 2003: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years due to earnings manipulations [cheating on accounting reports].
June 2003: Freddie Mac is the subject of criminal federal securities investigations.
Sept. 2003: The Bush administration recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan scandal, only to be thwarted by democrats in Congress, in particular representative Barney Frank. Mr. Frank stated "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country [...] I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness that in fact exists."
As reported in the NY Times: "The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings-and-loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Dept to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their balloning portfolios. [...] A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
The NY Times continued: "Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and the congressional Democrats who fear the tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. 'These two entitites, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis' said representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking democrat on the Financial Services Committee. 'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'
Oct. 2003: Fannie and Freddie control 50% of the mortgage market in the USA (quasi socialism now truly in effect since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored entities).
June 2004: Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Samuel Bodman repeats the Bush administration call for "a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."
October 2004: Democrat Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, testifies before Congress' House Financial Services Committee that his company's assets are so risk free that the capital for holding them should be under 2% (commercial banks ususally have 4% to 8%). This reduction entices large banks to buy up trillions of dollars worth of Fannie Mae sub-prime mortgages.
2004: The US Dept of Housing and Urban Dev (HUD) requires Fannie and Freddie to increase their purchase by tenfold (x10) - hundreds of billions ($434 billion in 2004-2006) - in securities backed by SUBPRIME LOANS. This decision was later determined to be an abject failure to regulate their actions. Freddie Mac spokeswoman Sharon McHale indicates higher goals by HUD "forced" Freddie to go into the subprime market to levels never seen before.
April 2006: Freddie Mac pays $3,800,000 in fines to the Federal Election Commission for violating political campaign laws. Freddie Mac executives used corporate resources to facilitate political contributions, a no-no. They were trying to influence politicians on the House Financial Services Committee.
May 2006: A federal regulator of Fannie Mae reports that Fannie overstated income and capital by a whopping $10,600,000,000. Senator John McCain (republican) calls for GSE regulations, warning "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." Too bad Mr. McCain did not brag about this enough in 2008, i dont think middle of the road voters had any idea?
November 2006: Democrats win majorities in both the federal House and Senate. At that moment, the US economy is growing at almost 3%, unemployment is at 4.5%, and inflation is under 2%. Now watch what happens.
June 2007: Two Bear Sterns hedge funds go kaput due to their mortgage investments, and the liberals-inspired sub-prime mortgage assets turn cancerous due to many defaults.
August 2007: President Bush asks Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but is ignored by the democrat-controlled chambers. President Bush warns Congress publicly again in December to reform the GSEs. And again in March 2008 at the Economic Club of New York meeting. And again in April, May, and June, President Bush issues pleas to Congress to reform Freddie and Fannie.
July 2008: Democrat Senator Chris Dodd states "There's sort of a panic going on today, and that's not what ought to be. The facts don't warrant that reaction, in my opinion [...] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom-feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that." If sub-prime loans and lax credit standards are not bottom-feeding, than what is?
July 2008: Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson (a Goldman Sachs guy) asks Congress to grant him authority to TAKE OVER Fannie and Freddie because of their imminent collapse. Why did President Bush appoint this guy, Goldman execs tend to be democrats. Paulson (the Treasury Dept) give Fannie and Freddie $25,000,000,000 to prop them up and keep them operating. [author's note: we should dissolve Fannie and Freddie and the affordable housing laws as soon as the economy recovers].
Sept. 2008: Investment Bank Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt. Senate majority leader Democrat Harry Reid acknowledges that the democrat Congress does not know the solution, stating "no one knows what to do". The stock market tumbles and many citizens and foreign investors draw down their money market accounts as well. Paulson and Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke outline the $700,000,000,000 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to bail out the financial system. Passed in October by the democrats and unfortunately some republican senators, along with $112,000,000,000 in unrelated pork spending.
Nov. 2008: Federal Government Secretary of the Treasury Paulson changes the TARP rules and instead of purchasing bad assets, buys shares of troubled banks to spur lending (true socialism now taking hold). $308,000,000,000 of taxpayer money is poured into Citibank.
December 2008: Democrat Congress agrees to "bail out" US auto companies.
February 2009: President Obama's new US Federal Treasury Dept Secretary Tim "the tax cheat" Geithner unveils the administration's $2,000,000,000,000 (that is right, trillion) TARP 2 idea, and the investor class responds by dropping the Dow Jones I.A. 382 points. President Obama signs the $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill, aka "Porkulus bill".
March 2009: Dow Jones I.A. hits bottom at 6500. 7000 points lower than when the democrats took over Congress in February 2007. Some small recovery is expected from federally funded construction projects and "green" development projects, but higher energy costs from anticipated cap-and-trade laws and restrictions to domestic development of oil and gas resources, and higher interest rates from trying to sell bonds to foreign investors to finance the massive deficit spending are expected to perpetuate the recession until the republican party's fiscal conservatives are put in control (possibly elected in 2010 and 2012?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8
Timeline of the Economic Meltdown of 2008-2009:
1977: Democrat Congress enacts the Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. The law "encourages" banks to "help meet the credit needs of local communities". The Act mandates banks invest in poor urban areas, regardless of credit-worthiness, beginning the decline of the quality of bank loans.
1991: The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 that forces banks to disclose lending records is expanded to allow for comparisons of rejection rates by race.
1995: The administration of Democrat President Bill Clinton makes changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The changes required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to poor communities in the area of the bank. The changes also let community activists like ACORN intervene at yearly bank reviews where they intimidated the banks by threatening bad publicity. The high-risk subprime mortgage loan market is created by these policies. Lenders are forced (by facing costly government penalites) into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making.
1998: Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno encourages enforcement of ambiguous discrimination lawsuits against lenders, stating "I discovered in talking to bankers, that it is better to educate first and then litigate later only if necessary. But you got to be prepared to litigate, and I am prepared to litigate when it's going to be necessary [...]. Since the inception of our fair lending initiative in 1992, the Department has filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits [...]." Lenders become ever more fearful of government lawsuits based on games played by the democrats with lending statistics.
2001: The 4-month old administration of President George Bush produces its 2002 budget, and declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem" because " financial trouble of a large GSE [Government Sponsored Enterprise] could cause strong repercussions in financial markets."
January 2003: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years due to earnings manipulations [cheating on accounting reports].
June 2003: Freddie Mac is the subject of criminal federal securities investigations.
Sept. 2003: The Bush administration recommends the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan scandal, only to be thwarted by democrats in Congress, in particular representative Barney Frank. Mr. Frank stated "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country [...] I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness that in fact exists."
As reported in the NY Times: "The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings-and-loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Dept to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their balloning portfolios. [...] A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
The NY Times continued: "Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and the congressional Democrats who fear the tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. 'These two entitites, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis' said representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking democrat on the Financial Services Committee. 'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'
Oct. 2003: Fannie and Freddie control 50% of the mortgage market in the USA (quasi socialism now truly in effect since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored entities).
June 2004: Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Samuel Bodman repeats the Bush administration call for "a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."
October 2004: Democrat Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, testifies before Congress' House Financial Services Committee that his company's assets are so risk free that the capital for holding them should be under 2% (commercial banks ususally have 4% to 8%). This reduction entices large banks to buy up trillions of dollars worth of Fannie Mae sub-prime mortgages.
2004: The US Dept of Housing and Urban Dev (HUD) requires Fannie and Freddie to increase their purchase by tenfold (x10) - hundreds of billions ($434 billion in 2004-2006) - in securities backed by SUBPRIME LOANS. This decision was later determined to be an abject failure to regulate their actions. Freddie Mac spokeswoman Sharon McHale indicates higher goals by HUD "forced" Freddie to go into the subprime market to levels never seen before.
April 2006: Freddie Mac pays $3,800,000 in fines to the Federal Election Commission for violating political campaign laws. Freddie Mac executives used corporate resources to facilitate political contributions, a no-no. They were trying to influence politicians on the House Financial Services Committee.
May 2006: A federal regulator of Fannie Mae reports that Fannie overstated income and capital by a whopping $10,600,000,000. Senator John McCain (republican) calls for GSE regulations, warning "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." Too bad Mr. McCain did not brag about this enough in 2008, i dont think middle of the road voters had any idea?
November 2006: Democrats win majorities in both the federal House and Senate. At that moment, the US economy is growing at almost 3%, unemployment is at 4.5%, and inflation is under 2%. Now watch what happens.
June 2007: Two Bear Sterns hedge funds go kaput due to their mortgage investments, and the liberals-inspired sub-prime mortgage assets turn cancerous due to many defaults.
August 2007: President Bush asks Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but is ignored by the democrat-controlled chambers. President Bush warns Congress publicly again in December to reform the GSEs. And again in March 2008 at the Economic Club of New York meeting. And again in April, May, and June, President Bush issues pleas to Congress to reform Freddie and Fannie.
July 2008: Democrat Senator Chris Dodd states "There's sort of a panic going on today, and that's not what ought to be. The facts don't warrant that reaction, in my opinion [...] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were never bottom-feeders in the residential mortgage market. People ought to feel comfortable about that." If sub-prime loans and lax credit standards are not bottom-feeding, than what is?
July 2008: Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson (a Goldman Sachs guy) asks Congress to grant him authority to TAKE OVER Fannie and Freddie because of their imminent collapse. Why did President Bush appoint this guy, Goldman execs tend to be democrats. Paulson (the Treasury Dept) give Fannie and Freddie $25,000,000,000 to prop them up and keep them operating. [author's note: we should dissolve Fannie and Freddie and the affordable housing laws as soon as the economy recovers].
Sept. 2008: Investment Bank Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt. Senate majority leader Democrat Harry Reid acknowledges that the democrat Congress does not know the solution, stating "no one knows what to do". The stock market tumbles and many citizens and foreign investors draw down their money market accounts as well. Paulson and Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke outline the $700,000,000,000 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to bail out the financial system. Passed in October by the democrats and unfortunately some republican senators, along with $112,000,000,000 in unrelated pork spending.
Nov. 2008: Federal Government Secretary of the Treasury Paulson changes the TARP rules and instead of purchasing bad assets, buys shares of troubled banks to spur lending (true socialism now taking hold). $308,000,000,000 of taxpayer money is poured into Citibank.
December 2008: Democrat Congress agrees to "bail out" US auto companies.
February 2009: President Obama's new US Federal Treasury Dept Secretary Tim "the tax cheat" Geithner unveils the administration's $2,000,000,000,000 (that is right, trillion) TARP 2 idea, and the investor class responds by dropping the Dow Jones I.A. 382 points. President Obama signs the $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill, aka "Porkulus bill".
March 2009: Dow Jones I.A. hits bottom at 6500. 7000 points lower than when the democrats took over Congress in February 2007. Some small recovery is expected from federally funded construction projects and "green" development projects, but higher energy costs from anticipated cap-and-trade laws and restrictions to domestic development of oil and gas resources, and higher interest rates from trying to sell bonds to foreign investors to finance the massive deficit spending are expected to perpetuate the recession until the republican party's fiscal conservatives are put in control (possibly elected in 2010 and 2012?)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Did you know the "greed" on Wall Street comes from Democrats?
I didnt realize it either until i read this article by Kevin Williamson (published in March 2009 in National Review magazine) titled "Losing Gordon Gecko." Remember Gecko from the movie "Wall Street"? Excellent article. The following are the key excerpts:
"The Democrats - the party of George Soros and dodgy cattle futures - have long profited by denouncing Republicans as the party of Wall Street, a raggedy front for a gang of amoral money-runners pulling the strings of their puppets in Washington. It's a useful narrative for Democrats, but it isn't true. [...] Goldman Sachs is one firm that's learned that politics matters: The sinking investment bank received some $12,000,000,000 in bailout funds while its competitor, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to go bankrupt. Goldman operatives move easily between government and the private sector and have played key roles in both Democrat and Republican administrations. But like the rest of Wall Street, they have tilted heavily democrat of late. Goldman Sachs was the biggest donor to Democrats in 2008 according to a Center for Responsive Politics report. Some 73% of Goldman Sachs' millions in 2006-2008 donations went to Democrats, [...] The banking bailout [...] was marketed by Goldman Sachs alumnus Hank Paulson, who literally begged, on bended knee, for the money. It was managed by Assist. Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs foot soldier Neel Kashkari and was politically nudged along by [President] Bush's Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, another Goldman veteran."
"With Democrats now controlling the elected branches in Washington, Goldman has an even stronger hand: Former chairman Robert Rubin is the dean of the Goldman Sachs Democrats, the group that ran economic policy under the Clinton administration and is doing the same under [President] Obama. [...]."
"Other major nodes on the Goldman-Democratic nexus include Al Gore's London-based private-equity firm, Generation Investment Management, which was founded with assistance from former Goldman boss Paulson and includes in its ranks a half dozen prominent Goldman veterans. Former Goldman Sachs Asset Management CEO David Blood is its CEO, earning the firm its nickname, 'Blood for Gore.' Goldman Sachs is a significant investor in E+Co, Blue Source, and APX, all firms positioned to profit from the cap-and-trade schemes that are at the heart of Gore's global warming crusade."
"[...] Senator Schumer, the New York grandee who sits on the Senate finance and banking committees, and who is infamous for his aggressive methods of shaking campaign contributions out of the money movers, raised $6 million from Wall Street for his last race - a pro forma campaign against an obscure Republican with one-tenth the cash. Schumer's tactics for extracting campaign money from Wall Street when he was head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee were so aggressive that Senator Arlen Specter accused him of using congressional inquiries in part as a fundraising tool. But it's hard to weep for Wall Street when it is getting such a rich return on its political investments: Schumer drove a stake through the heart of tax-code changes that would have treated 'carried interest' - the source of many private equity fortunes - as regular income for tax purposes, instead of taxing it as a capital gain. As it stands, a private-equity manager who makes a billion dollars pays 15% in taxes on carried interest, while a guy earning a salary of $34,000 is in the 25% tax bracket."
"In 2006 to 2008 Wall Street poured money on Democrats. Big Wall Street firms that made major political contributions - including Citi Group, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Lehman - gave the majority of their contributions to Democrats. The hedge funds followed suit [...]."
"The Democrats have figured out that they can keep Wall Street in their coalition by offering them easygoing social liberalism, a few sweet tax breaks, and good access to government revenue streams. [...] The Republicans' philosophy is informed by free-market idealists who celebrate the wonders of Schumpeterian 'creative destruction', but the guys flying business class would much rather sink into a nice warm bailout and let capitalism creatively destroy somebody else's money - the tax payers' money for instance. The bankers are the last guys who want free markets right now, and so it's no surprise to find them writing big checks to the Democrats. But against all evidence, Republicans remain the party of Wall Street in the public imagination. 'That's the irony of it all' says David Smick, a financial market adviser, 'but really, isn't that the job of a CEO, in addition to managing, to get a special deal? To get yourself protection? That's what you do, whether it's a monopoly, or the ultimate backstop, the ultimate hedge: the taxpayer.' Welcome to the hedge-fund racket America." Welcome to politics and greed as usual, this time from the Congressional Democrats.
Vote the bums out 2010.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Peter Schiff predicted this whole economic mess...
If i ever get elected to congress i am inviting this gentleman to be my primary economic advisor ! He understands economics, and predicted the current recession of 2008-2009 back in November 2006 when he gave this speech ! (6 parts but worth listening to if you want to be educated). Brilliant understanding of the market and effects of government intrusion.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVEiTo7tDE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZheV24ofw8
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmx1usUWZ3E
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o5dCkYfdM4
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcH3Ok2hRas
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3OmLk-woFY
Yes Peter, "governments destroy countries", very well said (Part 6). Harvard gets it wrong in their forecast if you listen to the end of Part 6; so much for the superiority of ivy league.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVEiTo7tDE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZheV24ofw8
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmx1usUWZ3E
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o5dCkYfdM4
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcH3Ok2hRas
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3OmLk-woFY
Yes Peter, "governments destroy countries", very well said (Part 6). Harvard gets it wrong in their forecast if you listen to the end of Part 6; so much for the superiority of ivy league.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama arrives in Arizona...
President Obama visited Arizona on Feb. 18, and when he visited a local school he was greeted by 300 protestors kept 200+ feet away.....this sign was one of the best, the girl on the right has it correct, and the girl on the left wants some freebies too so we can all share in the bankrupting of our economy.....Great job democrats, spend like there is no tomorrow, this is 10 times worse then the spending under Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)