All Things ProCain

[EvilMonkey]

Apparently barry has some bad housing in his territory, and campaign staff that has ties to it.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...licy/?page=full

[southsider2k5]

Guess who got his own sweetheart loan?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the...mortgage_1.html

 

The Obamas and their Mortgage (updated)

By Richard Henry Lee

Sweetheart mortgage loans to Senators are much in the news of late, with calls for increased scrutiny of the solons' dealings with their mortgage lenders. In this spirit, I took a look at some of the publicly available information on Senator and Mrs. Obama's mortgage, obtained in 2005 when they purchased their mansion in Chicago's upscale Hyde Park district.

 

The Obamas purchased their home with the help of his friend Tony Rezko, recently convicted of a felony. His wife Rita purchased the adjoining lot, the former side yard of the mansion, to seal the deal. According to the mortgage documents which his campaign released, the Obamas obtained a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust. The Politico recently asked Senators about their home mortgages in the wake of the revelations that Senators Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) received special treatment from their lenders. In Obama's case, he stated that he did not receive any such favors.

 

The Obamas' loan documents (warning: large file) show that they received a 30 year fixed rate loan at an interest rate of 5.625% with no points. This interest rate seems to be in line with the going rates for a Jumbo mortgage which are typically about 0.25 to 0.5% higher than a smaller, conventional mortgage. Freddie Mac lists an average rate of 5.58% for June 2005 and 0.6 points. Obama paid no points and given the jumbo differential, his rate is better than the average. The first payment is given as $7,598.67 presumably due August 1, 2005 which is consistent with the loan terms.

 

The second mortgage, dated November 25, 2005, is also a loan from Northern Trust, for an amount not to exceed $250,000. This appears to be a credit line for whatever purpose. It could have been used to purchase a 10 foot portion of the adjoining lot from Rita Rezko for $104,500 on January 11, 2006. There is no interest rate given for this credit line and it may be a variable rate.

 

Where's the Interest?

 

There is a one million dollar limit on deductability for home mortgage payments, as commenter Phil Nesbit points out below. It would appear that the Obamas are rich enough to be caught up in the "soak the rich" provision of the tax code. It has cost them money, unless they have managed to pay down their mortgage.

 

The Obama's declared mortgage interest deductions on their tax returns of $32,418 for 2005, $60,449 for 2006, and $57,838 for 2007. But their Northern Trust loan at the terms stated would have generated interest payments of about $30,871 for 2005, $73,395 for 2006 and $72,368 for 2007. For 2005, there would have been additional interest payments for their Hyde Park Condo which they sold on April 29, 2005 so even the 2005 deducted amount is low. They have apparently not been able to deduct the excess.

 

It is of course possible that the Obamas were able to pay down their mortgage loan. His books were selling and Michelle had nearly tripled her income from the University of Chicago Hospital when her husband was elected a United States Senator. So the Obamas may have chosen to apply some of the windfall toward paying down the mortgage. It would have required about $240,000 in paydown for the reported mortgage interest to equal 5.625%.on the reduced principle.

 

Beyond the question of the mortgage payments, odd coincidences and connections surround the house purchase, beyond questions already raised by the handling of the mansion's side yard, which was legally divided by the previous owner into a separate lot, and sold to Tony Rezko's wife Rita Rezko at the same time the Obamas purchased the house adjoining the yard.

 

If nothing else, these connections illustrate how deeply the Obamas' personal and financial lives are enmeshed in the world of Tony Rezko and the Chicago political machine.

 

Multiple coincidences

 

Obama's lawyer in the transaction, William Miceli, in all likelihood did legal work for Tony Rezko also.

 

Obama used a trust account through Northern Trust to purchase the home. His attorney, William Miceli, signed the real estate documents on behalf of the trust. The same William Miceli was a sometime supervisor of Obama when Obama worked at the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. This firm also did some work for Tony Rezko's firm Rezmar, which has developed some projects that turned out to be disasters.

 

Miceli specializes in urban renewal land deals. Rezmar, of course, participated in numerous deals of this kind, including a deal with Allison Davis of the firm. Rezko also arranged to get Davis appointed by Gov. Blagojevich to the Illinois State Board of Investment. Davis has since left the law firm.

 

The house purchased by the Obamas had been gutted and renovated 6 years earlier by a former employee of Tony Rezko. At the time the Obamas became interested in the house, someone else had already obtained an option on the side yard lot. By sheer coincidence, Tony Rezko knew that person, and arranged for the option to remain unexercised when the Obamas purchased the home, leaving the side yard in the friendly hands of the crooked Chicago real estate wheeler-dealer's wife.

 

Northern Trust and Kelly King Dibble

 

The Obamas got their mortgage from Northern Trust. By curious coincidence, one of Michelle's old friends joined that bank and is now in a particularly important position when it comes to information about the mortgage.

 

Kelly King Dibble has a long time friendship with Michelle Obama from the time they both worked at the Chicago Planning Dept, and she also worked for Rezko. Dibble went on to head the Illinois Housing Development Authority under Governor Blagojevich, with Rezko help. Dibble also hosted a fund raiser for Obama. More on Dibble here.

 

Dibble also was mentioned during the Rezko trial by Ali Ata. Dibble was a regular visitor to Rezko's office while heading the IHDA (which is based in Chicago). She also crossed Rezko when she refused to hire a Rezko relative.

 

Dibble later resigned from the IHDA in Jan 2007 to take a job with Northern Trust, and is now Senior Vice President Public Affairs. So if Northern Trust is asked about the loan, Dibble will be in charge of framing the answers.

 

I have often wondered what role Dibble might have played in Obama's house deal, since she was chummy with Michelle and Michelle was probably doing most of the house search. Did Dibble tell Rezko about the Obamas' housing search? Was she also involved with the Northern Trust deal? (Although she still headed the IHDA at the time, she might have had contacts at Northern Trust to get such a plum job there later).

 

The media have focused on the Obama-Rezko connection, but I wonder how much Michelle was involved? She seems to have run the household, is a Harvard-trained lawyer, and she is no shrinking violet. Her father was a Democrat precinct captain so she is no stranger to the ways of Chicago politics.

 

There may only be smoke, no fire, in the Obamas' mortgage transaction. But they certainly had a lot of help from a lot of friends of Tony Rezko.

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...2FiOTI4MzM1ZDc=

 

arack Obama's Special Low-Rate Home Mortgage

 

It turns out Barack Obama does have a Chris Dodd problem. Thankfully for the Democratic nominee, he's got a longer relationship with the lender, and* is not insisting that he thought it was normal to have a below-rate loan set up by the CEO.

 

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

 

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.

 

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement.

 

Modest adjustments in mortgage rates are common among financial institutions as they compete for business or develop relationships with wealthy families. But amid a national housing crisis, news of discounts offered to Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, and Kent Conrad (D-N.D) by another lender, Countrywide Financial, has brought new scrutiny to the practice and has resulted in a preliminary Senate ethics committee inquiry into the Dodd and Conrad loans.

 

UPDATE: *Eh, not so much. Misread the LaBolt statement; turns out the mortgage was their first deal with Obama.

 

So, just to refresh…

 

Obama wants to buy a mansion, which the seller insists upon selling simultaneously with an adjacent piece of property that they also insist upon selling as a separate transaction. Obama can’t afford both, and turns to Tony Rezko, who is known to be under federal investigation at the time. Obama gets a mortgage below rates. I presume that by early 2005 Obama’s credit rating is good, even though in summer of 2000 he was having his credit cards rejected.

 

In 1993, he and Michelle had accumulated $110,000 for a down payment on their condo, but the Post article makes no reference to a down payment on the mansion. They presumably made some money from selling the condo, but again, no reference to the sale of that property.

 

He pays $300,000 below the asking price in the middle of the biggest housing boom in the nation’s history. Rezko’s wife purchases the adjacent lot for the full asking price. Then while Rezko is under federal investigation, Obama pays him $104,500 for a strip of land on the adjacent lot appraised to be worth $40,500.

[southsider2k5]

And now we are looking at the Iraq backpeddle...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...TliYjJhZDU0ZTc=

 

Obama, in the Philadelphia debate:

 

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is — this is talking about you — when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

 

SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.

 

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.

 

Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, today on MSNBC:

 

Susan Rice: He has said that the best military advice he’s received leads us to believe that we can safely withdraw our forces at the pace of one to two combat brigades per month, and depending on the number of combat brigades he inherits, our best estimate is that that could be accomplished in roughly 16 months. That’s not a deadline. That’s a timetable, and obviously if Senator Obama has said on numerous occasions, he will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will follow and heed their advice as he decides how at the strategic level we must proceed. So he will do this very carefully and responsibly as he always said but he will do it.

 

Hmm. She seems to be echoing Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, in her March 7 statement to the BBC: “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.”

[kapkomet]

And now we are looking at the Iraq backpeddle...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...TliYjJhZDU0ZTc=

Of course. But this is just Obama learning the things he has to learn, and it's ok.

 

McCain? Flip-Flopper!

 

[lostfan]

The 16 month thing was just campaign nonsense, he had to out-liberal Hillary.

[Rex Kickass]

Guess who got his own sweetheart loan?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the...mortgage_1.html

 

 

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...2FiOTI4MzM1ZDc=

 

The average rate was all of 30 basis points higher than the rate than what Obama got. Having a better than average FICO score and a secure job history gets you that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Guess who got his own sweetheart loan?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the...mortgage_1.html

 

 

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...2FiOTI4MzM1ZDc=

De... bunked as a hit peiece article with little to no accurate research and HEAVY innuendo with no supporting facts.

 

The big question I have with this story is this: Could the reporter have been better informed on the subject? And, if so, could this story have arrived at a more accurate conclusion? As it turns out, the answer to both questions, is yes. Via FiveThirtyEight (emphasis mine):

 

S

o Obama'

s

rate wa

s

30 ba

s

i

s

point

s

better than the average. However, the amount of the loan and the nature of the property are not the only factor

s

that determine a mortgage rate. Another major con

s

ideration i

s

the creditworthine

s

s

of the borrower.

According to current rate quote

s

from myFICO.com, a borrower with very good credit can expect a mortgage rate about 30 ba

s

i

s

point

s

better than

s

omeone with pretty good credit, and a borrower with excellent credit can expect about a 50 ba

s

i

s

point di

s

count.

 

Unle

s

s

the Wa

s

hington Po

s

t ha

s

acce

s

s

to Obama'

s

FICO

s

core -- and unle

s

s

it ha

s

rented an apartment to him, it probably doe

s

n't --

it i

s

mi

s

s

ing a pretty important piece of information on what Obama'

s

mortgage rate ought to have been

. What wa

s

Obama'

s

FICO

s

core? I don't

k

now, but con

s

idering that...

 

--Obama had ju

s

t gotten a $2.27 million boo

k

deal from Random Hou

s

e -- about $1 million more than the value of the mortgage.

--The Obama

s

each had exceptionally

s

ecure job

s

that paid them a combined annual

s

alary of about $500,000 per year.

--The Obama

s

had ju

s

t

s

old their condo, on which they had realized a $137,500 profit.

--The Obama

s

were prominent public figure

s

who

s

e political future

s

depended in part on maintaining a reputation for re

s

pon

s

ibility and tru

s

tworthine

s

s

.

--The Obama

s

are

k

nown to be relatively thrifty and have no credit card debt but

s

ub

s

tantial

s

aving

s

.

 

...I would thin

k

that the Obama

s

were exceptionally creditworthy.

S

o indeed, Obama received a "di

s

count" --

the

s

ame di

s

count that any borrower in hi

s

po

s

ition would have received

.

The author of the piece at FiveThirtyEight - who rightly compares this report to the New York Times's transcendentally manipulative McCain-Vicki Iseman story - has this to say on the matter:

 

.

..one of the thing

s

that tie

s

together my wor

k

over here and my wor

k

at Ba

s

eball Pro

s

pectu

s

i

s

that I want the media to be

s

marter and more accountable when they cite

s

tati

s

tical information, be it mortgage rate

s

or polling number

s

or batting average

s

.

Thi

s

article wa

s

neither

s

mart nor accountable. It'

s

the equivalent of noting that Alex Rodriguez ha

s

a batting average 40 point

s

better than the league average, and u

s

ing that to infer that the umpire

s

were bia

s

ed in hi

s

favor

.

 

[kapkomet]

De... bunked as a hit peiece article with little to no accurate research and HEAVY innuendo with no supporting facts.

Insert McCain instead of Obama, and you'd be posting s*** about McCain like there was no tomorrow.

 

I'm sick of this, and it's not even July 4 yet.

[southsider2k5]

De... bunked as a hit peiece article with little to no accurate research and HEAVY innuendo with no supporting facts.

 

The irony is that is loaded with innuendo as well. There is nothing about his actual scores or anything like that. There was as much "proof" in there as the article I posted. There is also no mention at all of the Rezko stuff again. Which IMO is pretty obviously influence peddling, especially when you compare it to the pay for play schemes he ran with officials all over Illinois.

[Rex Kickass]

I think we should be extremely happy with our candidates if the biggest thing worth worrying about is if they received a mortgage with a relatively low interest rate.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think we should be extremely happy with our candidates if the biggest thing worth worrying about is if they received a mortgage with a relatively low interest rate.

BUT TEH ALL SUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Kap, but I had too.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Insert McCain instead of Obama, and you'd be posting s*** about McCain like there was no tomorrow.

 

I'm sick of this, and it's not even July 4 yet.

and if I found out it was false or the interpretation was inaccurate, I'd pull it. I already have once.

[kapkomet]

BUT TEH ALL SUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Kap, but I had too.

 

Exactly! I just have a really hard time with the choices we have - if this is the best we have in America, it makes me really sad.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

 

Exactly! I just have a really hard time with the choices we have - if this is the best we have in America, it makes me really sad.

Its all relative. These two are better than any pair we've had in my lifetime, IMO.

 

Also, I think people sometimes forget how damn-near-impossible it is in the modern media age to look like a good candidate. Its incredibly difficult. At this point, the way things work (the political system, the media, the money), I think pretty much any human being who runs will end up looking pretty bad from time to time. This is one of the reasons why I think its silly to focus on verbal miscues, slight moderation of views on issues, bad hair days, bad green backdrop days, and the fact that some candidate has some random person on staff that may have gotten a nice interest rate on a mortgage. I think there are far more important things to focus on.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,3035729.story

 

Without shame, Obama shifts as it suits him

 

Charles Krauthammer

July 1, 2008

 

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

 

— Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007

 

 

 

WASHINGTON—That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Barack Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-Sept. 11, 2001, eavesdropping.

 

Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.

 

Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.

 

Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.

 

Obama's long march to the center has begun.

 

And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge—for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.

 

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the media. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech—designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown [Rev. Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother"—then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

 

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream media. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting, evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

 

Indeed, The New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a pre-emptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups—notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (B) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging John McCain.

 

True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.

 

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight—switching sides in World War II, for example—whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

 

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Wright.

 

When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

 

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia—only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Rev. Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

 

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

 

Washington Post Writers Group

[kapkomet]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,3035729.story

The last line is pretty interesting. And I have to agree. Obama is NOT what he appears, and I don't understand why people can't see through it.

[Cknolls]

The average rate was all of 30 basis points higher than the rate than what Obama got. Having a better than average FICO score and a secure job history gets you that.

 

 

What were the points on his loan?

[Cknolls]

Was McCain piloting the helicopter that freed the hostages? He is/was in Colombia. Edited July 3, 2008 by Cknolls

[NorthSideSox72]

Was McCain piloting the helicopter that freed the hostages? He is/was in Colombia.

I bet he was taking sniper fire.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Was McCain piloting the helicopter that freed the hostages? He is/was in Colombia.

no. if he were, it would have crashed.

No green, because it's probably true.

[Cknolls]

I bet he was taking sniper fire.

 

 

Nice!!!

[southsider2k5]

[bmags]

That was pretty good, but man that guy is an awful cartoonist. He looks more like Putin than McCain.

[EvilMonkey]

That was pretty good, but man that guy is an awful cartoonist. He looks more like Putin than McCain.

i think that is supposed to be Wesley Clark, who recently uttered the first box of that cartoon.

[bmags]

further proving my point I suppose, and I thought this was McCain's quip back