Tag Archives: Obama

Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Tragic Terrorist Attack in Orlando, Florida

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/trump-lg-headshot.jpg?w=640Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.

In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam’. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.

If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can’t afford to be politically correct anymore.

The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of AfghanistanAccording to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.

We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.

We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism – which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.

– Donald J. Trump

https://i0.wp.com/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/12/20/352FFEEF00000578-3637414-Donald_Trump_challenged_President_Obama_to_use_the_terminology_r-a-247_1465759517628.jpg

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/trump-lion-romney-rat.jpg?w=640

Advertisements

Senate Showdown On Federal Takeover Of Neighborhoods

https://i1.wp.com/netrightdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/HUDMap2.jpg

The Senate is voting on whether to rein in President Obama’s outlandish regulation that uses $3 billion community development block grant money to coerce 1,200 recipient cities and counties nationwide to submit local zoning plans to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to redress imagined discrimination based upon neighborhoods’ racial and income make-up.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has an amendment that would actually prohibit this implementation of the Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation, specifically stopping HUD from attaching zoning changes as a condition for receiving funding, and it deserves every senator’s support.

According to the Federal Register, AFFH directs municipalities “to examine relevant factors, such as zoning and other land-use practices that are likely contributors to fair housing concerns, and take appropriate actions in response” as a condition for receipt of the block grants. It’s right there in the regulation.

On the other hand, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) offers an amendment which merely reiterates current law that the federal government cannot compel the local zoning changes, stating no funds can be used “to direct a grantee to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws.”

As noted by the National Review’s Stanley Kurtz, “Federal law already forbids HUD from mandating the spending priorities of state and local governments or forcing grant recipients to forgo their duly adopted policies or laws, including zoning laws. AFFH gets around this prohibition by setting up a situation in which a locality can’t get any federal grant money unless it ‘voluntarily’ promises to change its zoning laws and change its housing policies in exactly the way HUD wants.”

Kurtz emphasizes the point: “This trick allows HUD to avoid formally ‘directing’ localities to do anything at all in order to get their HUD grants. But HUD gives localities plenty of informal ‘guidance’ that makes it perfectly clear what they actually have to do to get their federal grants.”

Therefore, even with the Collins amendment, AFFH will still require municipalities to “examine relevant factors, such as zoning and other land-use practices that are likely contributors to fair housing concerns, and take appropriate actions in response” as a condition for receipt of the block grants.

This is an attempt by the Senate to pretend to have acted to stop the federalization of local zoning decisions without actually doing so. The Lee amendment will remove the local zoning strings attached to the funding, plain and simple. The Collins amendment will not.

It is telling that President Obama is threatening a veto of an appropriations bill that has “ideological” content, when the President himself is exercising the power of the purse to compel his ideological vision on our nation’s cities, towns and counties through implementation of AFFH.

The Collins amendment, ironically, will enable and advance this ideological agenda — while offering constituents false comfort that it has been abated when it has not. Only the Lee amendment can stop this HUD driven transformation of our neighborhoods.

The House has already passed the Lee language twice with vocal support from across the Conference ranging from Representatives Paul Gosar to Peter King.  Americans for Limited Government urges every senator to vote yes on the Lee amendment to the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill — and stop the federalization of local zoning policies once and for all.

By Rick Manning | NetRightDaily

Final Obama Budget Banks On Siphoning Millions Off Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac For Years to Come

It is audacious that President Obama’s fiscal 2017 budget proposal released Tuesday counts income from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as just another revenue stream – not only for the coming year but for the next ten years.

The Administration has long shown it has a hearty appetite for the mortgage giants’ revenues. The two companies have already sent a combined $241.3 billion to the government since being placed in conservatorship 2008 – over $50 billion more than the $187.5 billion in taxpayer funds they received at that time. Should the “temporary” conservatorship and Third Amendment Sweep remain in force for at least another ten years the White House estimates the GSEs will send another $151.5 billion to the U.S. Treasury.  That could mean these privately-owned mortgage giants will have sent nearly an astounding $400 billion to Treasury while needed reforms were put on hold.

The revenue projections in the budget proposal justify assumptions about why the Administration has had much less of an appetite for recommending ways to reform and recapitalize Fannie and Freddie and ensure they could provide liquidity and stability in the mortgage market for years to come.  Why sell a cash cow? The Administration effectively yielded its statutory authority – and obligation – to end the conservatorship with the enactment of a massive spending bill late last year that included provisions of the so-called “Jumpstart GSE Reform.” Despite the bill’s name, it put Congress in the driver’s seat and all but guaranteed no additional action will be taken to end the conservatorship this year or perhaps not until well in 2017.

The proposed fiscal 2017 budget, like all blueprints before it, makes no room for the inevitable recession and market correction. Should a downturn occur in the next year or so, taxpayers will be obligated to provide additional bailout funding because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been prohibited from building up adequate capital levels.

In a nod to the persistent problem of access to affordable housing, the budget proposal estimates Fannie and Freddie will provide another $136 million to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2017. This money is provided to states to finance affordable housing options for the poor. The Administration reports this would be added to the $170 million set to be distributed this year. But here’s the catch: those funds derive from a small fee on loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac help finance but only as so long as they don’t require another infusion of public money.

In essence, President Obama’s final budget proposal counts money to which it was never entitled; it flaunts a disregard for the Housing and Economic Recovery Act’s requirement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be made sound and solvent; and it takes a cavalier stance to the fact that under capitalized GSEs could have negative consequences for taxpayers and working Americans striving for home ownership. After eight years, the Administration’s parting message is that needed reforms in housing finance policy will simply have to wait for another president and another Congress.   There is not urgency of now, just the audacity of nope.

Source: ValueWalk

Fannie Mae’s HomeReady Could Crash Housing

Movie sequels are rarely as good as the original films on which they’re based. The same dictum, it appears, holds for finance.

The 2008 housing market collapse was bad enough, but it appears now that we’re on the verge of experiencing it all again. And the financial sequel, working from a similar script as its original version, could prove to be just as devastating to the American taxpayer.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly referred to as Fannie Mae) plans a mortgage loan reboot, which could produce the same insane and predictable results as when the mortgage agency loaned so much money to people who had neither the income, nor credit history, to qualify for a traditional loan.

The Obama administration proposes the HomeReady program, a new mortgage program largely targeting high-risk immigrants, which, writes Investors.com, “for the first time lets lenders qualify borrowers by counting income from non-borrowers living in the household. What could go wrong?”

The question should answer itself.

The administration apparently believes that by changing the dirty words “subprime” to “alternative” mortgages, the process will be more palatable to the public. But, as Investor’s notes, instead of the name HomeReady, which will offer the mortgages, “It might as well be called DefaultReady, because it is just as risky as the subprime junk Fannie was peddling on the eve of the crisis.”

Before the 2008 housing bubble burst, one’s mortgage fitness was supposed to be based on the income of the borrower, the person whose name would be on the deed and who was responsible for making timely monthly payments. Under this new scheme — and scheme is what it is — the combined income of everyone living in the house will be considered for a conventional home loan backed by Fannie. One may even claim income from people not living in the home, such as the borrower’s parents.

If, or as recent history proves, when the approved borrower defaults, who will pay? Taxpayers, of course, not the politicians and certainly not those associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose leaders made out like the bandits they were during the last mortgage go-round. As CNN Money reported in 2011, “Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received the biggest federal bailout of the financial crisis. And nearly $100 million of those tax dollars went to lucrative pay packages for top executives, filings show.”

In case further reminders are needed of the outrageous behavior of financial institutions that contributed to the housing market collapse and a recession whose pain is still being felt by many, Goldman Sachs has agreed to a civil settlement of up to $5 billion for its role associated with the marketing and selling of faulty mortgage securities to investors.

Go see the film “The Big Short” to be reminded of the cynicism of many in the financial industry. It follows on the heels of the HBO film “Too Big to Fail,” which revealed how politicians and banks were part of the scam that harmed just about everyone but themselves. According to The New York Times, only one top banker, Kareem Serageldin, went to prison for concealing hundreds of millions in losses in Credit Suisse’s mortgage-backed securities portfolio. Many more should have joined him.

Under the latest mortgage proposal, it’s no credit, no problem. An immigrant can qualify with a credit score as low as 620. That’s subprime. And the borrower has only to put 3 percent down.

Investor’s reports, “Fannie says that 1 in 4 Hispanic households share dwellings — and finances — with extended families. It says this is a large ‘under served’ market.”

Is this another cynical attempt by Democrats, along with protecting illegal immigrants, to win Hispanic votes without regard to the potential cost to taxpayers? Wasn’t that the problem during the last housing market collapse? Could it happen again? Sure it could. Do politicians care? It doesn’t appear so.

 

US Federal Government Adds Record $339 Billion In Debt First Day After Budget Deal

The federal government has piled up debt since the latest budget deal was signed into law, tacking $462 billion onto the national credit card since Nov. 2 as the Treasury Department replenished its funds and began another round of borrowing to take it all the way into 2017.

A staggering $339 billion in total debt was added on just the first day after President Obama signed the budget agreement — the single largest hike in history.

The debt has continued to rise, albeit more slowly, in the days since, putting the president on track to come close to the $20 trillion mark by the time he leaves office in January 2017.

Meanwhile, the early deficit numbers for fiscal year 2016, which began Oct. 1, are already looking more grim.

The government ran a deficit of $136 billion last month, up 12 percent compared with the previous October, as spending ballooned and taxes remained nearly flat. It was the worst October since 2010, when the government was still spending on the stimulus and was on pace for a deficit of more than $1 trillion that year.

The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment on the debt spike, but analysts said it wasn’t unexpected.

“It’s not going to keep rising at that pace. It’s like putting a cap on a geyser. It was being held at an artificially low pace,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, which pushes for policymakers to control debt and deficits. “It’ll increase at a more traditional level from this point on.”

Despite the massive spread of red ink, the government has been getting away with small debt service payments because of historically low interest rates over the past several years.

But as rates rise, so will those payments — from about $220 billion a year now to $755 billion a year in a decade.

The size of the debt has begun to take a starring role in the 2016 presidential campaigns. In the Republican debate Tuesday, Fox Business Network prodded candidates on their plans.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky poked fellow candidate Sen. Marco Rubio for a tax and defense spending plan that Mr. Paul said would hike deficits by $1 trillion.

“As we go further and further into debt, we become less and less safe. This is the most important thing we’re going to talk about tonight,” Mr. Paul said. “Can you be for unlimited military spending, and say, ‘Oh, I’m going to make the country safe?’ No, we need a safe country, but, you know, we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.”

Mr. Rubio said defense comes first.

“We can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe,” he said.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who as chairman of the House Budget Committee in the late 1990s helped write the deals that produced four years of surpluses, said he has plans to do it again — including a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.

But it was just such a freeze that Congress rejected this year, forcing the budget deal that allowed for unlimited borrowing for another 16 months.

Mr. Bixby said Congress should use those months to work on long-term fixes rather than preparing for another knock-down fight over the debt limit.

“The way to keep the debt from going up is to change the policies producing the debt,” he said.

The government began bumping up against the debt limit in March and was borrowing from other funds — using “extraordinary measures” — to keep from breaching the $18.1 trillion level. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew was able to stretch that borrowing through the end of October, when Congress passed a debt holiday lasting into March 2017, allowing him to borrow as much as needed to keep the federal government operating.

The first move was to replenish all of the funds depleted under the “extraordinary measures,” which is what sent debt skyrocketing on Nov. 2.

Such spikes are normal. In 2013, when a debt deal was reached, the government added $328 billion to its borrowing in one day. After the August 2011 debt deal, the amount rose $238 billion in one day.

But the Nov. 2 spike topped them all, at $339 billion in one day.

Of that, about $199 billion is public debt, which is money borrowed from outside sources, and $140 billion is borrowing from within government accounts.

As of Monday, the gross total debt stood at $18.6 trillion, with $13.4 trillion of that public debt borrowed from the outside.

When Mr. Obama took office in 2009, total debt stood at $10.6 trillion.

Department Of Justice Admits: We got it wrong

Summary:

  • The Bush and Obama administrations have not convicted a single senior bank officer for leading the fraud epidemics that triggered the crisis.
  • The banksters have learned to optimize “accounting control fraud” schemes and learned that they can grow immensely wealthy by leading those fraud epidemics with complete impunity.
  • We have known for decades that repealing the rule of law for elite white-collar criminals and relying on corporate fines always produces abject failure and massive corporate fraud.

by Barry Ritholtz in The Big Picture

By issuing its new memorandum the Justice Department is tacitly admitting that its experiment in refusing to prosecute the senior bankers that led the fraud epidemics that caused our economic crisis failed. The result was the death of accountability, of justice, and of deterrence. The result was a wave of recidivism in which elite bankers continued to defraud the public after promising to cease their crimes. The new Justice Department policy, correctly, restores the Department’s publicly stated policy in Spring 2009. Attorney General Holder and then U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch ignored that policy emphasizing the need to prosecute elite white-collar criminals and refused to prosecute the senior bankers who led the fraud epidemics.

It is now seven years after Lehman’s senior officers’ frauds destroyed it and triggered the financial crisis. The Bush and Obama administrations have not convicted a single senior bank officer for leading the fraud epidemics that triggered the crisis. The Department’s announced restoration of the rule of law for elite white-collar criminals, even if it becomes real, will come too late to prosecute the senior bankers for leading the fraud epidemics. The Justice Department has, effectively, let the statute of limitations run and allowed the most destructive white-collar criminal bankers in history to become wealthy through fraud with absolute impunity. This will go down as the Justice Department’s greatest strategic failure against elite white-collar crime.

The Obama administration and the Department have failed to take the most basic steps essential to prosecute elite bankers. They have not restored the “criminal referral coordinators” at the banking regulatory agencies and they have virtually ignored the whistle blowers who gave them cases against the top bankers on a platinum platter. The Department has not even trained its attorneys and the FBI to understand, detect, investigate, and prosecute the “accounting control frauds” that caused the financial crisis. The restoration of the rule of law that the new policy promises will not happen in more than a token number of cases against senior bankers until these basic steps are taken.

The Justice Department, through Chris Swecker, the FBI official in charge of the response to mortgage fraud, issued two public warnings in September 2004 — eleven years ago. First, there was an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud. Second it would cause a financial “crisis” if it were not stopped. The Department’s public position, for decades, was that the only way to stop serious white-collar crime was by prosecuting the elite officials who led those crimes. For eleven years, however, the Department failed to prosecute the senior bankers who led the fraud epidemic. The Department’s stated “new” position is its historic position that it has refused to implement. Words are cheap. The Department is 4,000 days late and $24.3 trillion short. Economists’ best estimate is that the financial crisis will cause that massive a loss in U.S. GDP — plus roughly 15 million jobs lost or not created.

Americans need to come together to demand that the Department act, not just talk, to restore the rule of law and prosecute the bankers that led the fraud epidemics that drove the financial crisis. There is very little time left to prosecute, so the effort must be vigorous and urgent and a top priority.

Here is an example, in the cartel context, of the Department’s long-standing position that deterrence of elite white-collar crimes requires the prosecution and incarceration of the businessmen that lead the crimes. It contains the classic quotation that the Department has long used to explain its position. Note that the public statement of this position was early in the Obama administration (April 3, 2009), but plainly was already long-standing. The Department’s official made these passages her first two paragraphs in order to emphasize the points – and the fact that deterrence through the criminal prosecution of elite white-collar criminals works.

“It is well known that the Antitrust Division has long ranked anti-cartel enforcement as its top priority. It is also well known that the Division has long advocated that the most effective deterrent for hard core cartel activity, such as price fixing, bid rigging, and allocation agreements, is stiff prison sentences. It is obvious why prison sentences are important in anti-cartel enforcement. Companies only commit cartel offenses through individual employees, and prison is a penalty that cannot be reimbursed by the corporate employer. As a corporate executive once told a former Assistant Attorney General of ours: “[A]s long as you are only talking about money, the company can at the end of the day take care of me . . . but once you begin talking about taking away my liberty, there is nothing that the company can do for me.”(1) Executives often offer to pay higher fines to get a break on their jail time, but they never offer to spend more time in prison in order to get a discount on their fine.

We know that prison sentences are a deterrent to executives who would otherwise extend their cartel activity to the United States. In many cases, the Division has discovered cartelists who were colluding on products sold in other parts of the world and who sold product in the United States, but who did not extend their cartel activity to U.S. sales. In some of these cases, although the U.S. market was the cartelists’ largest market and potentially the most profitable, the collusion stopped at the border because of the risk of going to prison in the United States.”

As prosecutors, (real) financial regulators, and criminologists, we have known for decades that the only effective means to deter elite white-collar crimes is to imprison the elite officers that grew wealthy by leading those crimes (which include the largest “hard core cartels” in history – by three orders of magnitude). In the words of a Deutsche Bank senior officer, the bank’s participation in the Libor cartel produced a “mountain of money” for the bank (and the officers). Holder’s bank fines were useless – and the Department’s real prosecutors told him why they were useless from the beginning. No one, of course, thinks Holder went rogue in refusing to prosecute fraudulent bank officers. President Obama would have requested his resignation six years ago if he were upset at Holder’s grant of de facto immunity to our most destructive elite white-collar criminals.

Our saying during the savings and loan debacle was that in our response we must not be the ones “chasing mice while lions roam the campsite.” Holder, and his predecessors under President Bush, chased mice – and fed them to the lions. They overwhelmingly prosecuted working class homeowners who had supposedly deceived the most fraudulent bankers in world history – acting like a collection agency for the worst bank frauds.

As a U.S. attorney, Loretta. Lynch failed to prosecute any of the officers of HSBC that laundered a billion dollars for Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel and violated international and U.S. anti-terrorism sanctions. The HSBC officers committed tens of thousands of felonies and were caught red-handed, but now Attorney General Lynch refused to prosecute any of them – even the low-level fraud “mice.” Dishonest corporate leaders are delighted to trade off larger fines – which are paid for by the shareholders – to prevent the prosecution of even low-level officers who might “flip” and blow the whistle on the senior banksters that led the fraud schemes. To its shame, the Department’s senior leadership, including Holder and Lynch, have pretended for at least 11 years that the useless bank fines were a brilliant success. Those bank fines are paid by the shareholders. The Department’s cynical sweetheart deals with the elite criminals allowed them to keep their jobs and massive bonuses that they received because of the frauds they led. The Department compounded its shame by bragging that it was working with Obama’s (non) regulators to create guilty plea “lite” in which banks that admitted they committed tens of thousands of felonies involving hundreds of trillions of dollars of fraud were relieved of the normal restrictions that a fraud “mouse” is invariably subjected to for committing a single act of fraud involving $100.

The Department’s top criminal prosecutor, Lanny Breuer, publicly stated his paramount concern about the fraud epidemics that devastated our nation – he was “losing sleep at night over worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution.” That’s right – he was petrified of even bringing a civil “lawsuit” – much less a criminal prosecution – against “too big to prosecute” banks and banksters. I lose sleep over what fraud epidemics the banksters will lead against our Nation. The banksters have learned to optimize “accounting control fraud” schemes and learned that they can grow immensely wealthy by leading those fraud epidemics with complete impunity. None of them has a criminal record and even those that lost their jobs are overwhelmingly back in financial leadership positions. In the aftermath of the savings and loan debacle, because of the prosecutions and criminal records of the elites that led those frauds, no senior S&L fraudster who was prosecuted was able to become a leader of the fraud epidemics that caused our most recent financial crisis.

We have known for decades that repealing the rule of law for elite white-collar criminals and relying on corporate fines always produces abject failure and massive corporate fraud. We have known for millennia that allowing elites to commit crimes with impunity leads to endemic fraud and corruption. If the Department wants to restore the rule of law I am happy to help it do so. We have known for over 30 years the steps we need to take to succeed against elite white-collar criminals through vigorous regulators and prosecutors. We must not simply prosecute the current banksters, but also prevent and limit future fraud epidemics through regulatory and supervisory changes. I renew my long-standing offers to the administration to, pro bono, (1) provide the anti-fraud training and regulatory policies, (2) help restore the agency criminal referral process, and (3) embrace the whistle blowers and the scores of superb criminal cases against elite bankers that they have handed the Department on a platinum platter. We can make the “new” Justice Department policy a reality within months if that is truly Obama and Lynch’s goal.

CFPB Tells Lenders: Don’t Scrutinize Disability Recipients Applying For Home Loans

https://i0.wp.com/www.creditcardguide.com/credit-cards/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cfpb-badge.jpgby IBD editorial

Disparate Impact: The president’s new credit watchdog agency is warning lenders they could be investigated for discrimination if they scrutinize welfare recipients applying for home loans. Here we go again.

In an agency bulletin, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau specifically advised mortgage lenders not to verify the income of people receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.

SSDI enrollment has exploded under Obama, and fraud is rampant in the program. A recent probe by Congress found doctors rubber-stamping claims for the generous benefits. A random review found more than 1-in-4 cases failed to provide evidence to support claims.

No wonder mortgage lenders are asking for verification.

Last year, the number of Americans receiving payments skyrocketed to a record 15 million-plus. A disproportionate share of enrollees are African-American — blacks make up 12% of the population, but over 17% of all SSDI recipients — and black groups have complained to regulators that mortgage underwriters are making unreasonable demands for income verification.

The NAACP argues disability payments are a “critical source of financial support” for blacks, noting their average monthly benefit is almost $1,000.

“The program’s benefits provide a significant income boost to lower-earning African-Americans,” NAACP asserted, noting the share of blacks on federal disability is more than double that for whites.

In response, CFPB has issued a five-page edict warning mortgage lenders they could face “disparate impact” liability if they question whether “all or part” of a minority applicant’s income “derives from a public assistance program.”

If they know what’s good for them, they’ll “avoid unnecessary documentation requests and increase access to credit for persons receiving Social Security disability income.”

In a separate warning, HUD was more forceful: “A lender shouldn’t ask a consumer for documentation or about the nature of his or her disability under any circumstances.”

We can’t say we’re shocked. As we’ve reported — contrary to other media reporting — CFPB’s new Qualified Mortgage rule mandates payments from “government assistance programs are acceptable” forms of income for home loan qualification. (It’s in the 804-page regulation, if financial journalists would just take the time to read it.)

More, the Justice Department has ordered the biggest mortgage lenders in the country, including Wells Fargo and Bank of America, to offer loans to people on “public assistance.” They’re even required to post branch notices promoting the risky welfare acceptance policy.

The administration is actually forcing banks to target high-risk borrowers for 30-year debt under threat of prosecution.

Though President Obama’s worried about a plunge in new-home buying among jobless minorities, he’s just setting them up for failure all over again. A mortgage requires a stable job and income to avoid defaults and foreclosures.

Failure to require income documentation contributed to the mortgage crisis and was something CFPB was created to stop.

Exempting public-assistance income from the rules exposes the bogus nature of Obama’s financial “reforms.”