Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 919)

obama un speech sept 24 2014

President Obama addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014.

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday, President Obama urged nations to “reject the cancer of violent extremism” and “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations.”

“The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death,” Obama said in one statement. But with every step forward the president took toward a more forceful approach, he took two steps back.

That was true for both the crisis in Eastern Europe and the recent campaign against ISIS, otherwise known as the Islamic State and ISIL.

“I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism,” he said. “In this effort, we do not act alone. Nor do we intend to send U.S. troops to occupy foreign lands.”

Despite the fact that no serious military strategist believes ISIS can be defeated without the use of well-trained ground troops, the sort found almost solely in the U.S. military, the president has crafted a foreign policy doctrine over the last 6 years that is –by its nature — reactionary to a fault.

In the days leading up to the U.S. airstrikes in Iraq, public fears that the White House really didn’t have “a strategy yet” to deal with the terror army moved public opinion, putting pressure on the president to finally react to the growing threat from ISIS. The Obama administration and the president, himself, for months had sought to downplay the threat, calling them a “JV” team back in January when they captured Fallujah in Iraq.

Following the Internet beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, Americans’ views of the ISIS threat reached near parity with al Qaeda back in 2003, and embattled Senate Democrats pushed the president to develop a strategy to confront terror army.

John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said he thought Obama gave “a stunningly abstract and ethereal speech” that was “really touching on reality only occasionally.”

As Mr. Bolton noted, the speech was widely expected to focus on the threat of ISIS and Islamic extremism, which he didn’t mention by name one time. Richard Grenell, an advisor to five U.S. presidents for the U.N., said Obama’s failure to identify Islamic extremism has become a real problem in the U.S. effort to confront Islamic terrorism.

“He said extremism, violent extremism, religiously motivated, but never Islamic extremism,” Grenell said in an interview after the speech. “Look, I think you have to say it. This is a problem that needs to be confronted and we seem to be dancing around it.”

The president recently took fire for comments made during his address to the nation, in which he said “ISIL is not Islamic.” Yet, for a noble peace prize-winning president who came to power promising a lighter U.S. military footprint would calm violent extremism in the Islamic world, Obama has now bombed 7 different Islamic nations, far more than his predecessor President George W. Bush.

But, ultimately, his speech was a defense of multilateralism, or shared international power. The president, rather than making ISIS the centerpiece of his speech, made a vague argument for why the world should protect and keep faith in international institutions such as the United Nations.

“The shadow of World War that existed at the founding of this institution has been lifted,” Obama said. “The prospect of war between major powers reduced.”

Except, most foreign policy experts — even in the typically liberal world of academia — recognize that multilateralism increases the prospect of major power conflict, not the other way around. While liberalism or internationalism is the dominant worldview in the halls of the elitist State Department (and the halls of The New York Times and The Washington Post for that matter), real events in history and actual empirical evidence used in advanced security studies scholarship are dominated by realism.

For those who held out hope that a learned president would use this rare opportunity to make the case for a good old fashion increase in balance-of-power politics — both in the Middle East and Eastern Europe — to the U.N. General Assembly, they were sorely disappointed. Critics remain hopeful that the president reserved such remarks for the U.N. Security Council, but according to White House aides, they will be disappointed again.

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday,

president obama job approval polls

President Obama’s job approval polls are tracked and aggregated on PPD, including polls conducted by Gallup, Reuters, AP/GfK, Rasmussen Reports and more.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll that tracks President Obama’s approval rating on a five-day rolling average found the president’s approval has fallen to 35 percent, a new low. The intensity level is strongly against the president as he starts a bombing campaign in Syria to “degrade and destroy” the ISIS terror group.

While 36.9 percent of American adults strongly disapprove of the job the president is doing, just 17 percent say they strongly approve of the job he is doing. President Obama’s approval is currently tracking at 40.6 approve to 55 percent disapprove on the PPD average of polls, but it remains to be seen whether the president gets a bump from the bombing campaign.

[table id=1 /]

Currently, just 35 percent in the PPD average approve of the job the president is doing on foreign policy, while 58 percent disapprove. That is a staunch reversal from the president’s first term.

In June, 2014, following the prisoner exchange that resulted in the release of the dangerous Taliban Five in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a known deserter and potential collaborator captured and held by the Haqqani network in Pakistan for five years, Obama’s handling of foreign policy fell to an all-time low. It has remained in the mid-to-high 30s on the PPD average ever since.

The Reuters poll was based on 1,593 responses from American adults and has a margin of error of 2.8 percent.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll that tracks President Obama's

obamacare fraud

Insurers say their enrollments are far lower than the administration’s claim made in April, decreasing from 30 percent to a little over 70 percent.

President Obama’s claim last spring that 8 million people had enrolled in ObamaCare was confirmed to be false from the head of the agency overseeing the law. Critics and investigative reports, including reports from PPD, were warning that enrollment numbers coming out of the White House were about as true as the president’s initial promise that Americans could keep their health care plans.

Now, testimony from Marilyn Tavenner, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a congressional committee that “as of August 15, this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in Health Insurance Marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums.”

Tavenner noted that a major problem arose when the White House began counting those who did pay, because as it turns out, simply signing up without paying isn’t quite the same as paying customers when CMS counted who was enrolled.

“It’s not enough to sign up. You have to sign up and pay on a regular basis to really be enrolled,” Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said as he stated the obvious. The CBO, consequently, quietly dropped their initial claim that the law would reduce the deficit, a scoring used frequently by supportive Democrats and the president.

“CBO and JCT can no longer determine exactly how the provisions of the ACA that are not related to the expansion of health insurance coverage have affected their projections of direct spending and revenues,” the CBO wrote in a tiny footnote prior to releasing two new studies documenting negative impacts of the law; an explosion in deficit spending to crippling levels and a devastating economic loss of at least 2.3 million jobs.

“The provisions that expanded coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs that can be isolated and reassessed. Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the ACA is not possible.”

Non-paid enrollment and just flat-out bogus applications have taken a toll on both state and private insurance enrollments numbers, which are now shrinking according to officials.

“They’ve deteriorated quite a bit, this was anticipated to some degree, but I think it’s exceeded expectations in some cases,” said Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

In PPD’s home state of Florida, a majority of the state’s health insurers had already proposed higher rates for 2015 back in August. Insurance premiums under ObamaCare in the Sunshine state were slated to rise an average of 13.2 percent, according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.

Now, insurers say their enrollments are 220,000 lower than the administration’s claim made in April, decreasing from 983,000 to a little over 762,000. That represents a drop of more than 20 percent, but could mean far more in cost increases, as insurers will have to find the anticipated money to assume ObamaCare’s high risk pool from somewhere.

A state official also said they had numerous duplicate enrollments due in large part to the infamous website problems on Healthcare.gov. David Kennedy, a “white hat hacker” who testified at the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing in November, 2013, warned that it would be “impossible” for the many ObamaCare website problems to be ironed out in a few weeks, let alone ensure the safety of users’ information.

The other loss in enrollments, the official said, simply didn’t pay their premiums and have lost their coverage, which is a problem insurance companies are reporting nationwide. The loss of enrollments, again, translates into a loss of revenue that is essential if insurers are to sustain costs associated with the high risk pool.

And the Sunshine State may actually be one of the better examples.

“I’ve talked to a number of insurance companies around the industry and they’re indicating that they’re down as low as 70 percent of the original enrollments they had,” said Robert Laszewski, an insurance expert at Health Policy and Strategy Associates.

A February report released by PPD documented that insurers were worried that signs pointed to a real danger that up to 30 percent of total enrollees were not paying customers. Proponents of the law essentially shrugged off the data.

Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the nation’s third largest insurer, recently told Laszewski that out of the 720,000 people who signed up for ObamaCare coverage on an exchange as of May 20, just 600,000 were actually paying customers.

They are not even done tallying up the losses. According to Bertolini, who was reached for comment, the company expects that numbers will continue to fall to “just over 500,000” by the end of the year. That would leave Aetna’s paid enrollment down approximately 30 percent from its original sign-up numbers, and the actuaries scrambling to calculate how to make up the difference in new premiums and other costs.

Most independent insurance analysts believe ObamaCare enrollments nationwide and across the industry, will continue to decline.

“So the enrollment that the administration was touting in March and April,” Capretta said, “I think you could bring that down by at least 20 percent going into the end of the year.”

At this point, the Congressional Budget Office, which was truly established to justify “Great Society” government programs, is heading for another projection disaster. The agency says it is currently projecting that 13 million total enrollments will be measured at the end of the next open enrollment in February of 2015.

“If we’ve got closer to 6 million enrolled,” Laszewski said, “they’d have to enroll more people in 2015 than they did this past year.”

If not, there is always another taxpayer bailout that was written into the law by Democratic constituencies set to profit whether the industry collapses or profits — lawyers.

President Obama’s claim last spring that 8

scott_brown_jeanne_shaheen_new_hampshire_ap

Incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen (right) and her Republican challenger and former MA senator Scott Brown (left) will face off in the New Hampshire race this November. (Photo: AP)

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown has cut his polling deficit against Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in half since we last visited the New Hampshire Senate race. While we still view Shaheen as the favorite in this race, the political winds are clearly shifting in Brown’s favor.

(UPDATE: PPD moved the New Hampshire Senate race to a Toss-Up on October 15, 2014)

Considering the political landscape, historical and incoming data, which we will soon go over, we are moving the status of the New Hampshire Senate race to “Leans Democrat” on PPD’s 2014 Senate Map Predictions model. Let’s have a brief recap and take a look at the current state of the race.

Pre-Primary Commentary

It was never a secret that Shaheen and her team were scared of a challenge from Brown. So, playing smart politics, the bombardment of negative attack ads by Shaheen’s camp hoping to define Brown as a carpetbagger came on early and hard.

And it worked.

After closing the double-digit deficit to within the margin of error, Brown again began to trail Shaheen by a low-double-digit margin in the PPD average of polls conducted during the primary. We moved the race back to the “Likely Democrat” rating it was assigned before Brown announced his bid after pols told us “Brown needs to be within 5 to 7 percentage points of Shaheen by mid-September or national money won’t come.”

Post-Primary Commentary

After handily defeating his primary challengers, Brown has now begun to coalesce Republican support. He has made serious gains in the polls hammering Shaheen on the issues of border security, foreign policy and national defense. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, Republicans led Democrats nationwide by 38 points on the issue of national defense, which was good news for Brown considering 1) New Hampshire is a hawkish state and, 2) the Granite State tends to follow nationwide trends.

But even better news for Brown is that he has hit the mark donors were looking and, in fact, he actually came close to beating their expectations. So it shouldn’t be at all surprising to hear what is now headed Shaheen’s way.

The Coming Ad Blitz

Immigration and ObamaCare — along with President Obama, himself — have been Shaheen’s kryptonite this cycle. Two new ad blitzes will begin hammering her on both issues at an intensity she has never had to handle this entire midterm election cycle. First up, the absolutely devastating ginormous ad buy from the Chamber of Commerce seeking to remind New Hampshire voters of Shaheen’s support for ObamaCare, a deeply unpopular law nationwide and in the state.

According to FEC filings, the Chamber coughed up $500,000.00 for TV and digital advertisement supporting Scott Brown from September 6 to October 3. Sources tell us much of this buy was to be back-loaded so it can run into TV and digital advertisement promising to both oppose Shaheen and support Brown from September 20 to October 3. This will be Shaheen’s equivalent of “Hell Week” due to the shear amount of dollars — in excess of $1 million — to hit her in just over a week.

“Senators are meant to be a check and balance on the White House, but in voting for ObamaCare Jeanne Shaheen parroted the Obama administration’s promise,” the ad posted above says. It is a particularly smart ad not only because ObamaCare is so unpopular — because the state’s coverage networks were hit extraordinarily hard by the law — but also because the state has a long history of checking in-party power.

“New Hampshire families and seniors are left to face the consequences,” the ad says of the narrowing networks. “Say no to Jeanne Shaheen and the Obama agenda.”

Ouch.

The next ad is an extremely powerful ad that hits Shaheen on both immigration, or border security, and national defense. However, it is unclear whether the same muscle will be put behind it we are seeing with other ads. Currently, Brown has a bit more than $1,193,000 cash on hand, roughly a quarter of what is in Shaheen’s war chest, but a campaign spokeswoman said the ad would air on WMUR, WBIN, cable outlets and Boston stations.

“Anyone who turns on the TV these days know we faces challenges to our way of life,” Brown says speaking directly to camera. “Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country. President Obama and Senator Shaheen seem confused about the nature of the threat – not me. I want to secure the border; keep out the people who would do us harm and restore America’s leadership in the world.”

For those who may not see the power of the message in this ad, now-Sen. Kelly Ayotte smoked Rep. Paul Hodes by over 20 points in a PVI (Partisan Voting Index) electorate of D+2, and Republicans picked up both seats in the House of Representatives. They saw their largest majorities in the state House and Senate since 1962 and 1900, respectively. ObamaCare and national defense were central campaign themes, while illegal immigration and border security — also unpopular in New Hampshire — weren’t even being debated.

“I’m Scott Brown and I approve this message. Because protecting the homeland is the first step in making America strong again.”

Ouch.

At a time when President Obama’s approval on foreign policy is a negative 35 – 58 percent and, with under 50 days to go before Election Day, the good senator better hope Obama’s ISIS strategy bears fruit soon. Sure, Shaheen has plenty of money to give it back as good as she gets it, particularly because she has $4,286,797 cash on hand according to the last FEC disclosure. But her strategy of hitting Brown early achieved maximum effect. In other words, the dreaded “carpetbagger” label is already Brown’s to bear.

“There are so many attack ads in the water right now, I just don’t think they’re cutting through,” said campaign manager Colin Reed.

We are inclined to somewhat agree with Reed. If the label of carpetbagger is going to defeat Scott Brown, then it has already. The fact the race is still tightening — more so than the average in more reputable polls — is evidence of voters’ willingness to switch to his side despite their beliefs in that label. There is a reason she is trying to limit the number of debates when Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan has accepted all seven debates with Republican challenger Walt Havenstein.

Polls show Shaheen is more popular than the president and a certain group of voters see her, but not the president, in a favorable light. Still, a significant number of voters see her favorably but disapprove of the job she has done as senator. Whether Brown wins will rely upon how many of these voters he can win over before November 4.

Unfortunately for Shaheen, Brown is one of the best retail politicians in modern American politics and if anyone can do that, it’s him.

Wildcard Fun Facts

New Hampshire has a propensity to decide elections late, give pollsters erroneous responses and follow nationwide trends. In the Granite State, Republicans have made relative gains in voter registration, PVI trends and Gallup’s annual state-by-state party ID survey. However, unlike Republicans, after the 2012 election Obama’s OFA team remained in New Hampshire to continue their perpetual campaign, which may blunt the natural rightward shift we are observing in the electorate this year, both in New Hampshire and nationwide.

Poll Date Sample MoE Shaheen (D) Brown (R) Spread
RCP Average 8/7 – 9/15 48.3 43.3 Shaheen +5.0
ARG 9/12 – 9/15 LV 50 45 Shaheen +5
New England College 9/10 – 9/11 630 LV 4.0 51 40 Shaheen +11
CNN/Opinion Research 9/8 – 9/11 735 LV 3.5 48 48 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 9/10 – 9/11 750 LV 4.0 48 42 Shaheen +6
CBS News/NYT/YouGov 8/18 – 9/2 1159 LV 4.0 47 41 Shaheen +6
WMUR/UNH 8/7 – 8/17 609 LV 4.0 46 44 Shaheen +2

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown has cut

 

Speaking from the White House South Lawn Tuesday, President Obama said airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria are part of the U.S. campaign to deliver the terror army a message: They will find no safe-haven.

A U.S.-led coalition consisting of five Arab nations began conducting airstrikes over Syria early Tuesday, hitting ISIS headquarters at Raqqa and other “hard targets” in the North. The airstrikes marked the first U.S. military intervention in Syria since the start of the civil war in 2011, and included hitting the Khorasan Group, whom the Pentagon described as a “seasoned group of al Qaeda operatives in Syria.”

But, more notably, the coalition of Arab nations is a historic first, as the airstrikes were conducted by the U.S., Bahrain, Qatar (not confirmed), Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

The President made clear that the fight against these terrorists “is not America’s fight alone,” touting the fact airstrikes and supportive operations were conducted by the U.S., Bahrain, Qatar (no warplanes), Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates..

“The people and governments of the Middle East are rejecting ISIL, and standing up for the peace and security that the people of the world deserve,” Obama said. “Not since the Gulf War has the United States been joined in direct military action by such a broad coalition of Arab partners.”

The White House claims over 40 nations have offered to take part in Obama’s plan to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS, but critics have noted the absence of both Turkey — a NATO ally — and the United Kingdom.

While the president thanked Congress for what bipartisan support they have shown on the effort, he maintained he has the authority to conduct the operation without authorization from Congress.

“America is always stronger when we stand united. And that unity sends a powerful message to the world that we will do what is necessary to defend our country,” Obama said. However, when the claim that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force didn’t hold water, a grave threat from the never-before heard of Khorasan Group became the excuse for defending the U.S. against an imminent threat, a legitimate cause for executive use of force.

“Over the next several days, I will be meeting Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq and with friends and allies at the United Nations to continue building support for the coalition that is confronting this profound threat to peace security,” Obama added. “This overall effort will take time. There are challenges ahead. But we’re going to do what is necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group – for the security of our country, the region, and the entire world.”

Speaking from the White House South Lawn

gop senators marco rubio mike lee

Marco Rubio, R-Fla., left, accompanied by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Photo: AP/Scott Applewhite)

Despite dramatic changes in the U.S. economy since the passage of Progressive Era reforms, D.C. power-brokers have refused to reform unsustainable programs. Republican Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) proposed to do just that this week, marking the second time this year a bold Republican plan to preserve America’s social safety net and increase economic mobility has been put on the table.

“Too many Americans believe the American dream is slipping away for them and their children,” the two Republican senators wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. “They see an economy that benefits stockbrokers but not stock clerks. They see the ladder of economic opportunity being pulled farther up and out of their reach.”

As the stock market hits new highs fueled by cheap money, the investor class has profited enormously as average Americans continue “to see their cost of living rise, while their paychecks remain stagnant.”

From June to August, a period the administration touted as experiencing stronger-than-expected economic growth, reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show an economy driven by part-time job creation, as well as anemic payroll-to-population and labor force participation rates.

First taking aim at the crony and outdated tax system, the two senators contend that “the policies and practices of Washington remain stuck in the 20th century, leaving too many Americans unable to access the enormous potential of this new era.”

The plan consists of simplifying existing income tax brackets into just two — 15 and 35 percent — and “eliminating or reforming” deductions that disproportionately benefit the politically connected few. As D.C.’s friends buy a legilative workaround, a growing number of aspiring working American families have just two choices — welfare or working class poverty.

“The current tax code taxes too much, taxes unfairly, and conspires with our outmoded welfare system to trap poor families in poverty, rather than facilitate their climb into the middle class,” Rubio and Lee write. “Our reforms seek to simplify the structure and lower rates.”

But the proposal will likely receive criticism from several members of their own party, as well as the usual big government Democrats. This is a political reality even they admit, but the GOP senators argue that “the end goal of economic policy isn’t simply growth, but freedom — clearing the obstacles from each American’s unique pursuit of happiness.”

A fundamental plank of their plan addresses the penalties imposed by the current “progressive” tax code on working families. The plan would eliminate the dreaded marriage penalty, a statute that imposes higher taxes on married couples than if they weren’t married at all or file as individuals.

It would also abolish the parent tax penalty, a burden shared by more filers than the marriage penalty, but far more obscure.

“Today, parents are, in effect, double charged for the federal senior entitlement programs. They of course pay payroll taxes, like everyone else,” they stated. “But unlike adults without children, they also shoulder the financial burden of raising the next generation of taxpayers, who will grow up to fund the Social Security and Medicare benefits of all future seniors.”

The proposal would offset this double charge by allowing working parents to augment the current child tax credit of $1,000 with an additional $2,500 credit, a credit that would be applicable against income taxes and payroll taxes. These taxes disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income families, thus it would not phase out, but rather would be refundable against income tax and employer and employee payroll tax liability.

“Children aren’t consumer goods — they are investments parents make in their futures, and in the future of America, and therefore deserve to be treated as such in our tax code.”

In July, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the 2012 vice presidential nominee and Chairman of the House Budget Committee, delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a D.C.-based policy think-tank outlining his plans for “expanding opportunity in America.”

When comparing the two plans, there is a common theme that emerges.

Paul also argued that now is the time to reform the nation’s antiquated entitlements programs, social safety nets and rebuild a “healthy economy.” Unlike many proponents of the unsustainable status quo, the Republican proposals clearly understand that without a strong economy there is no social safety net.

That’s true for “both for those who can’t help themselves and for those who just need a helping hand,” Paul said. For the Republican senators, there can be no new American Century if government institutions and programs are not updated, reformed or replaced to reflect a 21st Century economy.

Of course, congressional Republicans understand that any “Grand Bargain” proposal would stand little chance of passing a Democrat-controlled Senate and, even if it did, Harry Reid would never allow it to make it to the floor for a vote.

“If Republicans win the Senate this fall, passing pro-family, pro-growth tax reform should be a cornerstone of our agenda next year,” they argue. “The plan we have outlined won’t only help revive the American dream, but also make it more attainable for more Americans than ever before.”

[caption id="attachment_17538" align="aligncenter" width="630"] Marco Rubio, R-Fla.,

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices are tracked and released by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The National Mortgage Risk Index for home purchase was little changed at 11.28 percent in August from July (revised), according to AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. Even though home purchase volume hit its highest level since October of 2013, it was still shy 8 percent on the year-over-year level.

Combined, the FHA and Rural Housing Service represented a substantial 31 percent of the NMRI purchase loans in August, which is slightly under the share levels one year-ago.

In August, 210,000 loans were added to the National Mortgage Risk Index. Now, the total number of loans included in the index increased to 3.88 million.

“There continues to be little discernible volume impact from the QM regulations on the share of loans with debt-to-income ratios (DTIs) greater than 43 percent,” AEI’s email to PPD stated. “Subprime lending by FHA issuers continues at a strong pace in response to government calls for expanded use of the FHA credit box.”

Earlier this year, PPD also reported on two policy statements made by Mel Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and Shaun Donovan, secretary of HUD, which backed-off tight restrictions that required sound lending practices. The policies represent a return to a pre-crisis mindset and are repeating the mistakes of the subprime mortgage crisis.

According a report released Monday by the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council, the number of mortgage originations declined 11 percent last year to 8.7 million from 9.8 million in 2012. The decline was caused primarily by a drop in refinance mortgages for one- to four-family properties, which fell by over 1.5 million or 23 percent, according to the report.

The Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council compiles data annually on mortgage transactions from nearly 7,200 lenders including banks, savings associations, credit unions and mortgage companies.

Experts say the decline was likely due to mortgage interest rates increasing significantly during 2013, which prompted the government to once again intervene and artificially prop up the weaker-than-reported housing market. Last year signaled the end of a three-year boom in refinances, in which mortgage borrowers rushed to lock in the lowest mortgage rates in nearly 60 years. Interest rates, overall, which obviously affect mortgage rates, were lowered in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in an effort to spur lending and to kick-start economic activity.

The risks associated with government-centered lending practices fuels home price volatility and disproportionately hurts lower-income and minority areas.

AEI’s National and State Mortgage Risk Indices provide the first-ever measure of how mortgage loans originated month-by-month would perform under severely stressed conditions. PPD is slated to attend a conference call with AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk co-directors Edward Pinto, a resident fellow at AEI and a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae, and Stephen Oliner, a senior fellow at UCLA’s Ziman Center for Real Estate.

The two will analyze the riskiness of single-family mortgage originations based on data through August 2014, at the end of the month. PPD will release the findings shortly after, which should coincide with more NRA data.

The National Mortgage Risk Index for home

US airstrikes syria

First US airstrikes in Syria hit their targets. Clockwise from top left : F-22 stealth fighter, Tomahawk cruise missile fire from USS George H.W. Bush and Reaper drone. (Photo: Alamy)

A U.S.-led coalition consisting of five Arab nations began conducting airstrikes over Syria early Tuesday, hitting ISIS headquarters at Raqqa and other “hard targets” in the North. The airstrikes mark both the first U.S. military intervention in Syria since the start of the civil war in 2011. But, more notably, the coalition of Arab nations is a historic first, as the airstrikes were conducted by the U.S., Bahrain, Qatar (not confirmed), Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

Qatar, a proven financier of Hamas, played a supporting role in the airstrikes. Many have charged Qatar over their role in funding ISIS and helping them to sell seized oil on the black market, a charge officials deny. But it has been confirmed that the country funds individuals and groups that have since molded in what is now ISIS. Jordan, on the other hand, was the first Arab state to confirm its participation in the raids.

“We took part in the strikes which are part of our efforts to defeat terrorism in its strongholds,” government spokesman Mohammad Al-Momani said.

In a statement released early Tuesday, U.S. Central Command (Centcom) said that 14 ISIS targets were hit, including the group’s fighters, training compounds, headquarters in Raqqa, command and control facilities, storage facilities, a finance center, supply trucks and armed vehicles.

“We think about 15 Isil fighters were killed in there,” one resident from Raqqa said. He said the U.S. airstrikes hit a building that was being used by the Syrian regime’s “political security branch,” which was converted into an ISIS base, killing everyone inside.

The statement also said that 47 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles were launched from the USS Arleigh Burke and USS Philippine Sea operating in the Red Sea and the North Arabian Gulf. Pentagon officials told PPD that F-22 stealth fighters (a $143 million warplane), B-1 bombers, F-16 and F-18 fighters, as well as Predator drones were all used. According to FOX News, F-18s flew missions off the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf.

Centcom said that U.S. aircraft thwarted a terror attack in the making when it struck eight targets associated with the Islamic terrorist group known as the Khorasan Group, which is reportedly made of up al Qaeda veteran fighters. The strikes hit near the northwestern Syrian city of Aleppo, initially targeted training camps, explosives and munitions production facilities, a communication building and command and control centers.

A Centcom spokesman said the Khorasan Group was involved in “imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western interests.” When asked which nation put boots on the ground to paint the targets, one Pentagon official downplayed the question by calling the targets “low hanging fruit.”

The leader of the Free Syrian Army, Hadi Bahra, welcomed the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in Syria.

“Tonight, the international community has joined our fight against ISIS in Syria,” he said in a statement. “We have called for airstrikes such as those that commenced tonight with a heavy heart and deep concern, as these strikes begin in our own homeland. We insist that utmost care is taken to avoid civilian casualties.”

However, the so called “moderate” Syrian opposition groups — mainly composed of rebels who have yet to join ISIS or Al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra – have dwindled in strength and are now fractured after three years of war with little to minimal western support.

There have been reports citing U.S. officials’ concerns over President Bashar al-Assad’s capable air defense systems, but Syrian state television said the United States informed Syria’s UN representative on Monday that ISIS targets would be hit in Raqqa, which is 400 km (250 miles) northeast of Damascus. However, it is unclear whether the regime is pushing propaganda to give off the perception of relevance, and PPD received information suggesting both scenarios.

Meanwhile, as the administration touts the first-ever Arab coalition of warplanes, critics note the absence of U.S. allies with the power, loyalty and capability to conduct long-term operations that experts agree will be necessary to confront the greater problem. It is less than clear whether the Arab nations are willing or able to continue to fight in what is likely to be a long and protracted conflict.

Because the United States ignored the Syrian conflict for so long, the Obama administration spent the last several weeks scrambling to gather intelligence, launching surveillance missions over the country last month. Great Britain sat out the airstrikes amid a confusing strategy members of the U.K.’s top political parties in Parliament say is too uncertain to follow, leaving Prime Minister David Cameron in a precarious political situation.

“The PM supports the latest air strikes against Isil terrorists which have been carried out by the US and five other countries from the Gulf and Middle East,” a Downing Street spokesperson said. “The PM will be holding talks at the United Nations in New York over the next two days on what more the UK and others can do to contribute to international efforts to tackle the threat we all face from ISIL.”

Parliament is likely to be recalled this week for a vote on military intervention, but both British Conservative MP John Baron and Ed Miliband, the Labour Party leader, are weary of supporting an intervention.

“IS has to be driven out of Iraq, given our responsibility to the Iraqi people following our misguided intervention in 2003,” Baron said. “But air strikes into Syria are a higher risk strategy, with no certain outcome. The UK should be advising caution, particularly against mission creep.”

Still, the blame game continues to dominate the English debate, as others such as Steven Swinford note how Tory warnings that Britain is “falling behind the curve” on Iraq and Syria because Labour is refusing to “get off the fence” on air strikes have gone unheeded. Sir Gerald Howarth, a Tory, has also said that Britain has a “moral duty” to intervene.

Cameron tried to strike a more optomistic tone when asked whether Britain would eventually get on board, citing efforts already underway.

“The UK is already offering significant military support, including supplying arms to the Kurds as well as surveillance operations by a squadron of Tornadoes and other RAF aircraft,” Cameron’s spokesperson said.

President Obama will address the nation from the White House this afternoon to discuss the airstrikes in Syria before flying to New York to join other world leaders, including David Cameron at the UN Climate Change Summit. He is widely expected to talk up his historic, but nevertheless uncertain Arab coalition.

A U.S.-led coalition consisting of five Arab

ISIS Control in Iraq and Syria 6/16/2014

This map highlights the countries of Iraq and Syria in yellow. Areas under ISIS control are marked in red, along with ISIS controlled cities.

The United States launched its first wave of bombing attacks over Syria early Tuesday (local time) against an expected 20 to 25 Islamic State targets, U.S. officials said.

The operation, which is expected to last just several hours, will largely be conducted by U.S. warplanes planes launched from naval destroyers positioned in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Planes from five Arab countries also participated in the strikes.

The first explosions came from Tomahawk missiles and were heard hitting targets in northern Syria. ISIS targets were expected to include command and control centers, training camps and weapons depots. The strikes were concentrated around the city of Raqqa, the militants’ main stronghold close to the border with Iraq.

“US military and partner nation forces have begun striking Isil targets in Syria using mix of fighters, bombers and Tomahawk missiles,” said Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.

U.S. President Obama on September 10 authorized U.S. airstrikes inside Syria as part of a campaign to root out the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIS and ISIL.

“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” Obama said. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.”

Until Tuesday, U.S. airstrikes have been limited to specific missions in northern Iraq. However, after six weeks of American airstrikes, Iraqi forces haven’t even budged the Sunni terror army from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in large part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines and the U.S. refuses to send what experts agree are necessary ground troops.

“Although the airstrikes appear to have stopped the extremists’ march toward Baghdad, the Islamic State is still dealing humiliating blows to the Iraq government forces,” The New York Times also reported Monday. “On Monday, the government acknowledged that it had lost control of the small, northern town of Sichar and lost contact with several hundred of its soldiers who had been trapped for several days at a camp north of the Islamic State stronghold of Falluja, in Anbar Province.”

Meanwhile, speaking at the Maverick PAC Conference in Washington D.C., former head of the Marine Corps General James Conway was one of the latest top military minds to say publicly Obama’s plan is fundamentally insufficient.

“I don’t think the president’s plan has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding,” retired Marine General James Conway, who served as the 34th Commandant of the Marine Corps during the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration.

Responding to coalition’s planned military campaign, ISIS released a new statement that called for the instant execution of any “non-believing” citizen of any country involved in the military intervention, “especially the spiteful and filthy French.”

French warplanes — or at least, a warplane — have been conducting airstrikes in Northern Iraq for the past several days.

“It is you who started the transgression against us, and thus you deserve blame and you will pay a great price,” the statement said. “You will pay the price as you walk on your streets, turning right and left, fearing the Muslims.”

The United States launched its first wave

canadian border niagara falls

A Canadian Border Services Agency officer directs traffic to customs during a ceremony to celebrate the completion of the redevelopment of the Peace Bridge Plaza in Fort Erie, Ontario on Monday morning, July 16, 2007. (Photo: Derek Gee / The Buffalo News)

DEVELOPING: The three missing Afghan soldiers who disappeared from a Cape Cod military base have been found at the Canadian border near Niagara Falls, a senior Pentagon official told Fox News. The three high0-ranking soldiers where in country taking part in this year’s training exercise, which involves more than 200 participants from six nations.

Maj. Jan Mohammad Arash, 48, Capt. Mohammad Nasir Askarzada, 18, and Capt. Noorullah Aminyar, 20, were identified and reported missing by the Massachusetts National Guard Saturday night at Joint Base Cape Cod. The exercises were scheduled to end on Wednesday, and roughly a dozen Afghan soldiers are still taking part in the exercise.

“They have been found,” the official said, stating the men were found near Rainbow Bridge Monday, which encompasses territory from New York and Ontario. However, no other details were immediately available and a Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment further when requested by PPD.

Pentagon officials had previously told Fox News that they did not believe the missing soldiers posed a threat to U.S. security. Col. George Harrington, the battle group commander for the exercise, told the Cape Cod Times that the Afghan soldiers disappeared on a pass day, which is an opportunity for the training soldiers to visit Cape Cod beaches and be treated to a traditional lobster boil back on the base.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials told The Associated Press that the men arrived at Camp Edwards on Sept. 11, of all days, and were last seen during a day off at the Cape Cod Mall in Hyannis.

Massachusetts National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. James Sahady told the Cape Cod Times that the men “had the freedom to come and go.”

Officials involved with the base and specifically assigned to the exercise had been were working with local law enforcement agencies and state authorities to find the missing Afghan soldiers.

The exercises have been held annually since 2004 and fall under U.S. Central Command Regional Cooperation. They are intended to promote cooperation and interoperability among and between participating nations’ forces, and also to build operational capacity, enhance military readiness, while practicing peacekeeping operations.

This year marked the first time the exercises were conducted in the U.S. since 2006. Typically, according to the Cape Cod Times, these particular exercises are held in South Asia.

“This is a valuable opportunity for the Massachusetts National Guard and is personally rewarding,” Harrington told the newspaper.

DEVELOPING: The three missing Afghan soldiers who

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial