White House Asks Lenders to Offer Lower Mortgage Rates to the Military

There’s been a lot of news coverage lately concerning veterans not receiving proper medical care. Sadly, that’s just one area where our military isn’t being treated appropriately.

Whether active duty military realize it or not, they’re also entitled to special mortgage rates and fees thanks to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 (SCRA).

But many do not recognize this fact, and lenders haven’t been very forthcoming about notifying them of these financial protections afforded under that law.

As a result, President Obama has announced a new voluntary partnership with banks and lenders to help spread the word about these important rights to the military community so they have every opportunity to pursue the American Dream.



So far, Bank of America, Citi, Quicken, Wells Fargo, and Ocwen Loan Servicing have partnered up with the White House to make it easier for the military to take advantage of benefits they might not be aware of.

Here’s the plan of attack:

- Lenders will proactively identify active duty service members no less than once per quarter by querying the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) against their loan portfolio

- They will contact service members that are eligible for mortgage benefits via phone, mail, and e-mail outreach

- And simplify the application process to ease the burden of enrollment and satisfaction of the SCRA written notice requirement

In simple terms, these participating lenders will actively search through their customer database to determine who is eligible for relief, instead of requiring active military to contact the bank.

When it comes down to it, active military have other things to worry about, and dealing with cumbersome paperwork is probably the last thing they have time to do.


Active Military Are Entitled to 6% Mortgage Rates

The SCRA affords certain benefits to members of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

One of those key provisions is a maximum interest rate on mortgage loans, which is set at six percent.

However, the creditor only has to lower the service member’s rate after receiving a written request and a copy of their military orders. As we all know, getting this paperwork to the lender can be fraught with problems.

So ideally this partnership will make it a lot easier for the military to get lower mortgage rates, despite this coming at a time when fixed mortgage rates are much closer to 4%.

For the record, the SCRA definition of “interest” includes service and renewal charges or any other fees or charges, less bona fide insurance.

The law requires that banks maintain the interest rate reduction for the period of military service and one year after it comes to an end.

Interest charged in excess of six percent must be refunded to the service member or applied to future mortgage payments, and it can be applied retroactively.

There is a caveat. If a court determines that a borrower’s ability to pay a higher rate of interest isn’t affected by his or her military service, the bank may be granted relief from the rule.

The SCRA also affords some protections that make it more difficult to foreclose on a borrower during active military duty or evict a service member.

If you’re an active duty homeowner, or plan to be, you may want to reach out to your lender to see if you’re eligible for relief, especially if your mortgage rate exceeds six percent.

source: thetruthaboutmortgage.com

Obama schedule for Thursday, Nov. 15

President Obama travels to New York Thursday to view damage from Superstorm Sandy and talk to residents and first responders, the White House said.

The daily schedule indicates Obama will:

-- Depart from the South Lawn and arrive at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

-- View storm damage, talk with citizens recovering from the storm and thank first responders.

-- Return to Washington.

-- Host cast and crew members of the film "Lincoln" for a screening at the White House.

source: upi.com

Time-share mogul tells employees he'll cut jobs if Obama wins

David Siegel, founder and chief executive of sprawling time-share company Westgate Resorts, is not known for subtlety.

There's his quest to build the largest private residence in America, a 90,000-square-foot shrine to opulence in Florida that was modeled on France's Versailles palace. There's his starring role in the documentary "The Queen of Versailles," which follows the home's construction and the effect of the Great Recession on his firm and family. Then there are his claims that he was personally responsible for getting George W. Bush elected president in 2000 (perhaps by illegal means, Siegel slyly suggests in the movie).

The businessman recently ventured further into politics by sending a companywide email suggesting that if President Obama is reelected, he will lay off workers.

"The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job," Siegel wrote. "What does threaten your job, however, is another 4 years of the same presidential administration."

He assured workers that "as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose."

But then he dropped what sounds like an ultimatum: "If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company."

Siegel went on to blame the president and the news media for creating a toxic environment that pits employers against employees, the 1% against everyone else, the haves against the have-nots.

"They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer," the letter says. "They label us the 1% and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country."

"This could not be further from the truth," it continues. "Sure, you may have heard about the big home I am building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see and hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved."

Siegel recounted the sacrifices he made for the company while his friends "got regular jobs," worked 40 hours a week and "drove flashy cars and lived in expensive houses" while spending "every dime they earned."

Now that the good times are over and the economy is staggering along, Siegel wrote, he and others like him are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't sacrifice.

Well, Siegel apparently isn't going to take it anymore.

If Obama gets a second term, "my motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities," his letter warns. "If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about."

source: latimes.com

Tax cuts or tax increases? Which will move the economy?

There's always a flurry after a presidential debate to determine who misrepresented what -- and there's always plenty of fodder.

During last week's faceoff at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., both President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney stuck to their favorite lines -- no matter the question and no matter whether fact-checkers had previously challenged their statements.

Take taxes.

Everyone has an interest in taxes -- rates, deductions, credits, loopholes. Trouble is, one person's deduction is another's loophole. What's fair?

Romney says what would be fair is to simplify the tax code by lowering tax rates across the board 20 percent and limiting deductions for the wealthy to make up the loss in revenue, ending some altogether.

What Romney hasn't said is who he thinks is wealthy and which deductions he would limit or eliminate. Much of his argument relies on the theory cutting tax rates will stimulate businesses to expand, leading to jobs and more people working, leading to more tax revenue.

Obama argues the proposal would cut tax revenue by $5 trillion and there are not enough deductions built into the tax code to make up the shortfall -- even if all deductions are eliminated for everyone. The result, he says, would be a tax increase on the middle class and a windfall for the wealthy, who he defines as those earning more than $250,000.

Who's right?

During Tuesday's debate, Romney said middle class taxpayers have lost $4,300 in income and are paying $2,000 more for gasoline and $2,500 more for health insurance. He also noted food and utility prices are up. He promised the top 5 percent of taxpayers would continue to pay the 60 percent share of income taxes they currently pay.

"Middle-income people are going to get a tax break," Romney said. "And so in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be to say everybody gets -- I'll pick a number -- $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit and so forth -- you can use those as part of fill in that bucket, if you will, of deductions. But your rate comes down, and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains; no tax on your savings.

"That makes life a lot easier."

That will work, he insists. He's balanced budgets before as a businessman and governor. He'll do it as president.

Obama countered it's not that simple.

"Look, the cost of lowering rates for everybody across the board 20 percent, along with what he also wants to do in terms of eliminating the estate tax, along with what he wants to do in terms of corporate changes in the tax code, it costs about $5 trillion," Obama said.

"Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs, even though the military is not asking for them. That's $7 trillion. He also wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. That's another trillion dollars. That's $8 trillion.

"Now, what he says is he's going to make sure that this doesn't add to the deficit and he's going to cut middle-class taxes. But when he's asked how are you going to do it, which deductions, which loopholes are you going to close, he can't tell you."

Obama said the only way to keep the Romney plan revenue-neutral is by eliminating some deductions for middle-class and lower-income taxpayers.

"You can't buy this sales pitch," Obama said. "Nobody who's looked at it that's serious actually believes it adds up."

Later in the week, he added a new applause line to his usual stump speech:

"You've heard of the New Deal; you've heard of the Square Deal and the Fair Deal. Mitt Romney is trying to sell you a Sketchy Deal" -- a reference to an earlier campaign comment calling Romney the Etch A Sketch candidate, likening his policy positions to pictures on the children's toy.

As former President Bill Clinton said at the Democratic National Convention last month, when it comes to taxes and the budget, it's all arithmetic.

Both Romney and running mate Paul Ryan keep citing six studies they say support their tax theory while Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have relied on an analysis by the Tax Policy Center that says the numbers don't add up.

The fact-checking website Politifact said by cutting individual and corporate tax rates, eliminating the estate tax and eliminating the alternative minimum tax, federal revenue would shrink $5 trillion in a decade. At the same time, Romney's and Ryan's refusals to detail specifics on how the cuts would be offset make it difficult to analyze their proposal. It boils down to "Trust me."

"I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget," Romney said. "I ran the state of a Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years. ...

"I know what it takes to balance budgets. I've done it my entire life."

The main two analyses cited by Romney backing up his proposals come from Martin Feldstein of Harvard University, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush, and Harvey Rosen, a former Reagan adviser and economist at Princeton University.

Feldstein, a Romney campaign adviser, defines high-income households as those earning more than $100,000 annually, giving him a broader pool of taxpayers for whom deductions would shrink while the Tax Policy Center sets the bar at those earning more than $200,000. Feldstein would also add a tax on employer-provided healthcare benefits.

Rosen found when households making less than $200,000 are shielded from a loss of deductions, the Romney plan suffers from a $28 billion revenue gap. To make the numbers work, he said, he too would include households earning $100,000 to $200,000 among those who would lose all deductions.

"Of the studies that examine the middle class tax burden, none shows conclusively that households making less than $200,000 would be spared a tax increase," Politifact said. "That is a group of taxpayers that Romney defines as middle class and says he would protect.

"None of the studies can accurately model Romney's tax plan because he has said so little about how he would pay for it. As a result, all of them make assumptions as to what tax breaks might be reduced. They can speak in rough terms about a concept, but they can not verify a plan when no detailed plan exists."

Both studies use data from 2009, which skews the numbers because of massive losses racked up in the 2008 crash that served as offsets for 2009 gains earned by wealthier investors.

At the same time, Politifact rates as "mostly false" Obama campaign claims the Romney plan would require massive tax increases for those earning $100,000 to $200,000.

source: upi.com

Romney attacks Obama’s Middle East policy in speech to Virginia military cadets

Gaining ground in several new polls, a resurgent Mitt Romney on Monday sought to burnish his foreign policy credentials with a major policy speech attacking President Obama’s handling of the Middle East.

He accused Obama of emboldening Iran, alienating Israel, abandoning Syrian rebels, withdrawing troops from Iraq too abruptly and mishandling the consulate attack in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

“We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut . . . and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.”

Romney spoke as several polls found him enjoying a jolt of new support following his performance against Obama in last week’s debate.

A poll released by the respected Pew Research Center showed the biggest bounce — a Romney lead of 49% to 45% among likely voters. A Pew poll in mid-September had Obama up among likely voters, 51% to 43%.

But one poll suggested the bounce might be short-lived. A seven-day tracking poll by Gallup found a five-point edge for the President among registered voters, about where he was before the debate.

Obama spent Monday in California, where he designated the home of Latino labor leader Cesar Chavez — the United Farm Workers union founder who died in 1993 — a national monument.

The designation could shore up support from Hispanic and progressive voters for Obama, whose 2008 “Yes we can” slogan borrowed from Chavez’s motto, “Si, se puede.”

Obama also held fund-raisers in San Francisco, as his campaign closed in on a staggering $1 billion in donations. Romney’s Virginia speech offered a preview of the attacks he is likely to launch when he debates Obama on foreign policy on Oct. 22 in South Florida — their third and final debate.

Romney accused the President of emboldening Iran by putting “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel.
Romney also said the President pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq too quickly, placing the nation’s fragile security gains at risk.

And he said Obama’s policies have left the U.S. “at the mercy of events,” including last month’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
Romney cast the attack in Libya as part of a larger trend of anti-American violence in the region.

“When we look at the Middle East today . . . it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office,” he said.

Romney also brought up the issue of Iraq, accusing the Obama administration of an “abrupt withdrawal” of troops. He framed Iraq as part of “a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed Romney’s tough talk on Iran as “chest-thumping” and many of his other Middle East proposals as “contradictions.”

He jumped on Romney’s comments about the war in Iraq.

“In what seems simply to be an attempt to draw a distinction with this President without any policy forethought, Gov. Romney is now saying we should have tens of thousands of troops still in Iraq,” Carney said. “And this President is happy to debate that issue, because he profoundly disagrees.”

To drive home the counterattack, the Obama campaign launched a television ad slamming what it called Romney’s “gaffe-filled” overseas trip in July — a tour of England, Israel and Poland — as “reckless” and “amateurish.”

The ad, which will air in Virginia, reminds voters of Romney’s stumbles on that trip, which included questioning whether his British hosts were ready to host the Olympics.

“If this is how he handles the world now, just think what Mitt Romney might do as President,” the ad said.

The Obama campaign also dispatched Madeline Albright, the secretary of state under former President Bill Clinton, who called Romney’s address “very shallow” and “full of platitudes” on a conference call with reporters.







Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took a moment to tout the President’s foreign policy victories during the Columbus Day Parade.

“Bottom line is, it’s very hard for (Romney) to make inroads on foreign affairs because Obama has done a good job in terms of getting Bin Laden,” he said.Although Romney took a sharp tone in Monday’s policy speech, he is taking a noticeably softer approach on the campaign trail.

During a three-day campaign swing through Florida this weekend, the GOP candidate devoted much of stump speeches to sharing his past good deeds — including ministering to a 14-year-old leukemia patient who died after Romney helped him write out a will.

On Monday, Romney made an impromptu stop at a Virginia elementary school, where he was greeted like a pop star by a group of squealing fourth- and fifth-graders.

The students lined up to shake hands with the White House hopeful, who also crouched in the grass for a group photo with the children.

“I just saw you on TV!” exclaimed one little girl who was almost overcome with excitement.

Meanwhile, Romney found himself in dispute with television host Linda Ellerbee, after skipping an opportunity to take part in Nickelodeon’s “Kids Pick the President” special that includes President Obama.

Ellerbee, the show’s host and executive producer, said the decision “disses” children.

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to requests by The Associated Press for comment.

Since 1992, when Nickelodeon began airing the Q&As, only two other candidates have declined to take part, Ellerbee said: Democratic contender John Kerry said no in 2004, which prompted President George W. Bush to withdraw.

source: nydailynews.com

Marine who criticized Obama will be dismissed from the service

The sergeant, a nine-year veteran who served in Iraq, will be demoted to lance corporal and receive an other-than-honorable discharge. He posted his critical comments on Facebook.


SAN DIEGO — A Marine sergeant who criticized President Obama on Facebook was notified Wednesday that he is being dismissed from the service with an other-than-honorable discharge.

Gary Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran who served in Iraq, will be demoted to lance corporal, and his discharge status will make him ineligible for most federal veterans benefits, after Brig. Gen. Daniel Yoo accepted the unanimous recommendation of an Administrative Separation Board.

The panel found that he made disparaging comments about Obama that were detrimental to good order and discipline and violated military law.

Civilian lawyers for Stein said they would continue to fight in federal court to prevent Stein from being dismissed or to win his reinstatement. The administrative paperwork for Stein's dismissal should take a week or more, Marine officials said.

Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative U.S. Justice Foundation said Stein's 1st Amendment rights were being violated by the Marine Corps.

"I don't believe Sgt. Stein did anything other than engage in political speech," said the ACLU's David Loy . "Since the days of Valley Forge, I seriously doubt that there haven't been members of the armed forces who haven't complained about their government."

Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation said he believes Stein was targeted by the Obama administration.

After the announcement of Yoo's decision, Stein put a post on his Facebook page thanking his family and friends for their support.

"Even though I will be discharged no one can take the title of Marine away from me," the post said. "...Today is just the start of the rest of my life. Semper Fi."

On Facebook postings, Stein had called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him, declared he would not follow orders from Obama that he considered illegal, and urged the president's electoral defeat.

One of the websites was an Armed Forces Tea Party page on Facebook created by Stein, who sought to sell bumper stickers printed with "NOBAMA 2012."

Stein, a weather forecaster, recently lost his security clearance and was working as a scheduler on the rifle range at Camp Pendleton.

A Marine spokesman said Yoo, commanding general of Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, "found the [separation] board was conducted in accordance with law and regulation, the findings of misconduct were supported by the evidence of record, and thus approved the board's recommendation."

Stein's current enlistment would have ended in late July. He had hoped to reenlist.

source: latimes.com

Focus group suggests State of the Union speech was well-received

As President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, a group of 50 swing voters armed with dial meters recorded strongly favorable reactions to his proposals on taxes, renewable energy, overcoming partisan divisions and defending the middle class, according to the pollsters who supervised the study.

The group, made up of Democrats, Republicans and independents, including both McCain and Obama voters from 2008, gave the president significantly higher marks after the speech than before on whether he will stand up for the middle class, whether he can be trusted on energy policy and on measures of empathy, such as whether he shares voters’ values and “makes me hopeful,” said Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg.

Such focus group reactions are “greater than what you see in real life” because people assembled in a conference room and instructed to watch a speech pay considerably more attention than the average viewer, noted Greenberg, who has conducted such studies for each State of the Union speech dating back to the Bill Clinton administration. Still, the reactions provide a rough gauge of the speech’s overall impact, he said.

“The most surprising” aspect of the reaction was “the lack of polarization” among the voters, he added. The speech has provoked a highly partisan reaction in Washington, but among the swing voters in the study, “the Democratic, Republican and independent lines” from the dial meters “tracked through most of the speech,” Greenberg said. “He captured people broadly.”

Not surprisingly, the moment in the speech that brought the most positive reaction was Obama’s mention of the death of Osama bin Laden. It drew an average reading of 80 on the 0-100 scale used by the meters. Obama’s call for more investment in renewable energy drew nearly as strong a reaction, however, said Andrew Baumann, another of the pollsters who conducted the study. The passages of the speech that talked about phasing out subsidies for oil companies and competing with China and Germany for new developments in wind power and solar energy did particularly well.

Not all the marks were positive. Although the voters reacted well to the speech, they remained skeptical that Obama would be able to achieve the goals he set out. When the speech ended, just under half said he was offering “realistic” proposals while about 60% said he would probably not be able to get his proposals accomplished. Both measures were slightly better than before the speech, but reflected voters’ doubts about Obama’s ability to break through Washington’s gridlock. And although the speech moved Obama’s overall job approval upward among the voters studied, the shift was small, from 50% favorable to 58%.

source: latimes.com

Democrats urge Obama to be more aggressive on jobs

Many want the president to stand up to Republicans and push for bigger, more ambitious programs to boost the economy.


As he sets out on a three-day bus tour of the Midwest focused on the economy, President Obama is coming under growing pressure from fellow Democrats to put forward a more aggressive strategy to create jobs than the one he has been touting for months.


Obama has offered a jobs package crafted to win Republican support in a divided Congress. But he faces two distinct problems: Republicans say they won't vote for several pieces of the plan. And Democrats contend the program, even if enacted in full, would fall short of what's needed to boost job growth or revive Obama's political prospects.

White House advisors said the president's economic team was working on a new approach to jump-start the sluggish economy.

"You'll see more ideas," said Jason Furman, deputy director of the president's National Economic Council. "People here are constantly thinking about new ideas and the president is constantly talking about new ideas."

But Furman and other White House aides have declined to reveal a timetable, and many voters are clearly impatient. Polls show Obama receives poor grades for his handling of an economy that may be slipping back into recession. On Sunday, Gallup reported Obama's overall approval rating had fallen to 39% in its daily tracking, the worst in his presidency.

Obama's jobs agenda, which he plans to tout on his Midwestern tour, calls for $30 billion to rebuild roads, bridges and ports; improvements to the patent system to spur innovation; trade deals with a trio of countries to boost exports; a $40-billion extension of unemployment insurance benefits; and renewal of the current one-year reduction of the payroll tax at a cost of up to $120 billion.

A range of economists and Democratic critics call those ideas inadequate.

Asked about Obama's support for free-trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a center-left think tank, said, "I would think they would be embarrassed to mention it."

"These are small countries, and we already have a lot of trade with them," he added.

Obama's policies "are just not big enough to make much of a difference," said Robert Reich, who was Labor secretary under President Clinton.

Alternative ideas have been floating up from Democratic think tanks, elected officials and strategists: Peter R. Orszag, Obama's former budget director, advocates tripling the size of the payroll tax break — essentially wiping out the payroll tax entirely — and keeping the rate low as long as unemployment remains high.

Others are pressing Obama to take advantage of low interest rates and borrow money to underwrite a far larger public works program. Such a plan would spur enough long-term economic growth to pay off the extra debt, supporters argue.

Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised the Obama administration, suggests making it easier for homeowners to refinance mortgages at today's extremely low rates. The idea would be to eliminate charges that currently make it too costly for some people to refinance. He also advises changing immigration policies so that foreign students with advanced degrees find it easier to stay in the U.S.

Still, "There's no magic bullet here," Zandi said.

White House aides counter that large-scale, costly ideas stand little chance of getting through the Republican-controlled House.

But it's no sure bet that Congress will go along with smaller-scale ideas either. Republican leadership aides said the GOP was supportive of the trade deals and a patent overhaul, although both have stalled several times this year. Obama's call for renewing the payroll tax cut has drawn fire from some Republicans, who argue it would worsen the deficit, and the GOP has also opposed his plan to extend unemployment insurance.

Pollster Stanley B. Greenberg, who polled for Clinton's White House, said voters had little patience for political leaders who limited policy proposals to what the opposition would support. White House officials can "get trapped in 'what can get through Congress' and the constraints of that debate," Greenberg said, recalling similar arguments in the Clinton years. "Voters want you to break out of that" and answer the question, "What are you battling for?" he said.

The complaints about Obama come not only from long-standing critics, but from some who have been supportive in the past.

One Democratic congressman who has defended Obama to fellow liberals said he told White House officials at a recent meeting that they seemed to have Stockholm syndrome — embracing the Republican view that deficit reduction should be a major national priority, in the manner of hostages who come to sympathize with their captors.

Obama "sat in the room with Republicans so long talking about deficit reduction that he seems to be parroting the same lines," said the congressman, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private meetings.

Peter Buttenwieser, a major Democratic fundraiser who is supporting Obama's reelection bid, said the president needed to treat the economy with a sense of urgency that has been lacking.

"He should go after the problem with everything he's got," Buttenwieser said in an interview. "He should travel the country and go where people are not employed and let the country know he cares about this in the pit of his stomach. … I don't think we've seen nearly enough. We've seen virtually nothing."


Source: latimes.com

Christina Romer

Christina Romer, Chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, has decided to resign according to reports. She not satisfied and contented because the President doesn’t listen to her. Some sources also believe that her intention is to join a higher post in San Francisco which is being proposed and offered by Federal Reserve’s regional bank.


Christina Romer an economist and was a popular figure on the news channels and of course CNBC. She is the second prominent member of President Obama’s economic team to leave