Rep. Cleaver's SBA loan: A story made for a good media outlet and reporter

If ever there were a story that seemed made for a good reporter and media outlet--be it newspaper or local TV station--this one right now about Representative Emanuel Cleaver and his $1.46 million loan from the SBA that's "going South" seems to be just the one. Here you have a situation where the local, sitting government representative to Washington and the Federal government has taken out a government loan AND HE'S NOT GOING TO REPAY IT? This on top of the fact that in the past he's gotten caught with outstanding taxes unpaid? I'm not saying anyone's guilty of anything here, either. I'm just saying here's a story that has stink all over it and some reporting bloodhound should be all over it. Where's Russ Ptacek when you need him? Say, what about Chris Hernandez? SOMEBODY, please take this and run with it. Please. According to Newsbusters today, no one is going with the story, so far. This, I repeat, stinks. Somebody, somewhere, sic 'em. Please? Links: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/06/3540958/taxpayers-could-have-to-cover.html; http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/04/09/more-emanuel-car-wash-cleaver-coverage-ap-does-local-story-doesnt-name-p; http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/04/09/kid-glove-treatment-emanuel-car-wash-cleaver-kc-star-ap-has-no-national-

We deserve answers and information, Rep. Cleaver

Last week we were given the news (see link below) that our own Representative Emanuel Cleaver II took out an SBA loan for $1,100,000 and now we, the taxpayers, will likely have to "eat" that loan. Well, I can only say--and it needs to be said--that we'd like to hear from good Mr. Cleaver on the matter. I'd like to know why we shouldn't be mad as hell about this, Rep. Cleaver. The Star, in the article, says they tried to get answers but couldn't get any. I'll be damned if I'll vote for him again unless or until this is cleared and cleaned up. So far, nothing from him or his office, to my knowledge. The same standards for every other politician applies to this one, for sure. Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/06/3540958/taxpayers-could-have-to-cover.html

Richard Cordray better be a bulldog

Word out from Washington this morning says President Obama didn't pick Elizabeth Warren to be head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. And while that's not a big surprise since the business-toady Republicans were so deadset against her, what can be said is that the President's choice for this job, former attorney general of Ohio Richard Cordray had better be her equal. He'd better be, as I said above, a strong bit of a bulldog so something can really be done by this new agency to protect the American public from the kind of nonsense the business community got away with in the last few years since it brought the nation and the world to near-collapse. Here's hoping. Here's what stinks about this: "Her (Ms. Warren's) candidacy was passionately supported by liberal members of Congress and consumer advocacy groups. But she never won the full support of the president or his senior advisers, particularly the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, in part because of her independent streak and her outspokenness, which at times put her at odds with the administration." Timothy-freaking-Geithner? Like we care about HIM? He's from the banking industry. He's exactly the kind of person we DON'T want having input on this. It's precisely because Elizabeth Warren was outspoken that she came to prominence, for one, and why, secondly, she would have made a great candidate for the first Director of this agency. Mr. Cordray had better be good, that's all there is to it. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/business/former-ohio-attorney-general-picked-to-lead-consumer-agency.html?_r=1&ref=elizabethwarren

Paying attention to the banks lately?

From Yahoo! News and the Associated Press this morning: Regulators shut banks in Florida, Washington state WASHINGTON – Regulators on Friday shut down small banks in Florida and Washington state, bringing to 127 the number of U.S. bank failures this year on a wave of loan defaults and economic distress. But here's the clincher for me: With 127 closures nationwide so far this year, the pace of bank failures exceeds that of 2009, which was already a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 95 banks. And whereas last year most of the bank failures were due to home mortgage loans that went sour, this year it's gone commercial and so, likely, possibly much more expensive and damaging: The pace has accelerated as banks' losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development. Many companies have shut down in the recession, vacating shopping malls and office buildings financed by the loans. That has brought delinquent loan payments and defaults by commercial developers. I took this last note to be somewhat positive--the proverbial "silver lining to the cloud": The number of bank failures is expected to peak this year and be slightly higher than the 140 that fell in 2009. Anyway, for now, we're not "out of the woods" by a long shot, yet. Here's hoping things get better. And the sooner the better, too, of course. Try to have a great weekend, y'all. Link to original story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100925/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bank_closures/print