Under the guise of "stimulating the economy," the terms of the Making Homes Affordable Act is beginning to bear scrutiny.  Just whose economy is the focus of this stimulus?

Due to many recent reports in the mainstream media with respect to Obama's foreclosure rescue and remedy under this "solution" which was passed by Congress after the bank "bailouts," with now lawsuits being filed, and inordinate delays with many, many additional homeowners losing their homes right and left, I began again doing some research on the holdups and complaints.  And the provisions of the program.

There were another 300,000 homeowners made homeless last month according to RealtyTrac.  Over 77% of the homes that are being foreclosed upon are homes in the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida and Michigan.  Michigan is no surprise due to the fact that unemployment there is off the charts due to the difficulties which have been reported in the outsourcing of jobs which has occured in the auto industry. 

It is also, coincidentally, the home state of IndyMac Bank which was one of the primary lenders of some of those creative loans backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  And a state with an inordinate amount of properties that are "governed" by another layer of government given the power of foreclosure for nonpayment of added property taxes in the form of homeowner's associations.

The other states listed in the top five are all Sunbelt states, having an inordinate amount of retirees and those on fixed incomes, and "retirement communities" also with this added layer of government and extra property taxes in the form of homeowners associations. 

And California just so happens also to be the home of a great many also of those lenders for homes financed in those states, with IndyMac, Countrywide and Bank of America holding a great many of those subprime and creative adjustables that were marketed heavily during the boom, and then rebundled and resold on the stock exchange also mostly to global investors.

It appears what has been occurring is that while all these homeowners at risk of losing their homes are in processing for renegotiated loans due to now the lower valuations of their properties, those interest and late fees are continuing to pile up and are being collected at a rather high rate under those original loan terms.  Also, for most of he counseling or interventionary actions by these service providers, there are fees also involved for their services which are being mostly picked up by the taxpayers, but also in nominal fees to these homeowners in some cases.

Bank of America has reported it only has renegotiated less than 4% of its loans at risk.  And was one of those rebundlers and is based out of Los Angeles (although now owned by Merrill Lynch under the terms of the behind closed doors bank bailout).

In the end, most of these homeowners after continuing to pay what they can which is being credited first to the late fees and interest, of course, are in the end losing their homes anway.

Not to be reading any deviousness on the part of these banks and lenders, or Washington (although at this point the evidence now points to the fact that Washington and the bankers are clearly bedfellows in this manipulated crisis), could it possibly be that this entire "Act" was simply another "stimulus" for Wall Street and the financial sector for the U.S. banks at the expense of both the American people, and some of those foreign investors?

Could some of these banks, as "agents" of the federal government now since those notes were unlawfully allowed to be resold on the global market outside our Constitution's provisions with respect to "globalizing" our economy to begin with,  be merely negotiating down the balances due to those foreigner investors, with the banks then foreclosing anyway and getting a bang up steal in reassuming those properties in the process for their own real estate portfolios? 

Banks only do make money when homes "turn over," not when they are paid off.  And so do the corporate foreclosure lawyers, realtors and any number of other industries that are tied to banking such as title companies, appraisers and the like.

A great many of the Bosnians refugees who were taken in during the Clinton era received new automobiles for themselves and their children who were driving age, from reports of parents who have had children in U.S. schools with many of the Bosnia refugees.

The homes in which the prices are being most depressed are high illegal immigrant states also, and there has been word that another attempt to legalize these individuals is going to be another of Mr. Obama and this Congress's major focuses.

I wonder if a new home in the West or Southwest or reduced rate American taxpayer backed loan is going to be part of that package?

At the news that continues to come off the Hill, such a move wouldn't surprise me in the slightest at this point.

After all, bankers profit and Wall Street's survival, no matter what the cost to any and all native or naturalized existing American Joe the Plumbers or the American middle class in this nation, appears to be the major focus here. 

This week there have been numerous headlines with respect to the budget crises now facing most of the states throughout the United States, again with the downward spiraling U.S. economy to blame.

Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?

Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.

I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues.  Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors.  And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.

But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.

Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.

And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.

It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.

I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost.   Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables.  Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.

And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.

The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.

My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.

Has it worked? Hardly.

You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.

When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.

Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.

It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.

Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.

Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.

Were the citizens consulted in this new project?

Of course not.

The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.

A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.

Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.

Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.

I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.

And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.

To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."

Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.

Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.

That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living"  Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.