Tuesday, November 3, 2015


“The government kicked off its ‘Hustle’ case against Bank of America Corp., arguing the bank’s Countrywide unit misled executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the quality of loans they bought in 2007 and 2008,” said an article (“‘Hustle’ Trial Steps Off With Opening Salvos”) in the Journal September 25, 2013, page C3, “Global Finance”.  The government’s argument is that “the Hustle program was ‘largely a joke,’ arguing that the program ignored red flags…”  Later in the article the government’s lawyer gave an example of a Florida doorman saying he made $13,000 a month when in fact he was making $5,000.  It is hard to imagine a human being attempting to game a system with no checks and bounds!  Isn’t it?  Then please read page A15 in the same day’s Journal’s Opinion section, “The ObamaCare Wars Are Just Starting”:  “On the flip side, the administration’s last-minute decision not to require income documentation in the first year…”  On one hand the Bank of America is being sued by the Obama Administration for not requiring proof of income and on the other it arbitrarily changed the law to not require proof of income.  Hmmmmm.  While fudging $3,000 a year (an illustration on ObamaCare incentives) to save $501 is less money than fudging $8,000 a month to obtain an unspecified mortgage, the principle seems the same.  Whoever said the Obama administration is arbitrary?

No comments: