Connect with us


Progressives’ new ‘state bank’ as the rocky road to serfdom



Why does a bank robber rob banks?

“Because that’s where the money is.”

Or so goes the legendary response by the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton (who later denied ever saying it).

So why is the new progressive Governor-Elect of New Jersey (a former Obama Administration Ambassador to Germany and Goldman Sachs executive named Phil Murphy) proposing a “state bank”?

Why, maybe that’s because taxpayers are where the money is?

Can Gov.-Elect Murphy Make a Go of His Public Bank? – NJ Spotlight Phil Murphy often told a story on the campaign trail about how, as a relative newcomer to statewide politics, few people in New Jersey had even heard of him before he jumped into this year’s governor’s race. After his victory last week, the same could be said about one of Murphy’s core fiscal-policy proposals — a plan to launch a state-run public bank in New Jersey. The type of financial institution envisioned by Murphy would take state-government funds now deposited in accounts with large commercial banks, including those based overseas, and use them to back low-interest loans that would serve the public’s interest in New Jersey, including student debt, infrastructure investments, and small-business lending.

New Jersey already has the third-highest state and local taxes in the nation (behind only its neighbor New York and nearby Connecticut), thanks to a double whammy in an income tax and high property taxes generally credited with supporting the largesse of generous salaries and benefits for legions of public-sector employees.

One problem is where that state bank will get its money. The progressive Governor-Elect Murphy declares, “That’s our money!” Yet there is no thought to returning it to overtaxed taxpayers — not when there’s votes to buy and a money pot whose bottom is not yet visible. Because when Murphy and his progressive do-gooder allies use the first-person plural pronoun, they are referring to the government and not the people.

As politicians in the bluest of the blue states learn that promising endless “free” stuff, particularly when it’s paid for by political opponents and disfavored constituencies, is a recipe for getting elected, perhaps attacking liberals and progressives for wanting to raise taxes will no longer be a winning campaign argument. Not when many voters are net recipients of government monies, meaning, they simply don’t pay taxes. However, a “state bank” could cause numerous undesirable effects beyond taxes to infinity, beyond encouraging inflation.

Consider how banks work, and then consider the very premise of Murphy’s “state bank” is that it would step in where greedy conventional for-profit banks supposedly fail “to serve the community.” The suspicion here is that the state bank will be giving “low-interest” loans to people or businesses which otherwise are not getting loans on the terms they want, or at all.

When you seize the money earned and saved by the homeowner with an 800 FICO score, to underwrite a loan for his deadbeat neighbor in foreclosure who’s got a 520 FICO score, you aren’t being generous or compassionate. You are creating a moral hazard, and an immoral condition.

The second problem arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of — no, it is a fundamental disregard for — how a conventional bank works. A bank makes loans, because it makes money off the interest. It must put the capital to use. However, there’s the risk of nonpayment, of borrower defaults. Banks “fail” when they suffer too many nonperforming loans. No one wants to talk about this, because it involves acknowledging that the collateral is bad, that the bank made a mistake, that it issued a mortgage worth more than the underlying collateral to a bad credit risk on even worse terms (like the infamous no-income-no-assets-no-problem mortgages).

The lesson of the last decade’s housing bubble and nonperforming mortgages (of which many still are on the books of the largest lenders) apparently is going to be ignored for as long as there is a large supply of “marks” available to shoulder the eventual burden. So we can expect that the New Jersey state bank — and its copycats in other states, of that you can be certain — will soon start making bad lending decisions to borrowers of either questionable credit risk or otherwise connected to various “social justice” initiatives.

Then, when the loans start to “go bad” and go into default, you can expect the state bank to start playing “winners and losers” when deciding whose collateral to go after. Your car dealership may be seized, while the marijuana farm may be allowed forbearance on its defaulted loan. And just think what mischief can be made by politically-connected local prosecutors who can use their “discretion” to choose whom to investigate and prosecute, all to serve a progressive political agenda whose singular goal is to transform the society.

Taxpayers across America should shudder at the thought of government-run banks. Because those banks would be deploying our capital, raised from taxes and from government debt, often sold to foreign bond buyers like the Russians and Chinese. But without the nasty profit motive — which in plain English also amounts to old-fashioned accountability to savings account depositors like you and me — to ensure loan officers only make loans most likely to be repaid, the state bank is likely to accomplish only three things.

A new set of winners: tomorrow’s sellers of assets at inflated prices due to the availability of new credit for car loans, home loans, college loans and small business loans, often with no regard for the terms or creditworthiness of the borrower (and perhaps little to no expectation of repayment).

A new set of losers: Since the premise of a state bank is, we are told, to serve the poor and often first-generation immigrants or members of traditionally-underserved “minority” communities, we can expect the debt and wrecked credit scores from defaulting loans to be shouldered by these same groups. Tomorrow’s college students may be in greater debt than the current generation’s. More people may end up renting, as bad credit is no guarantee of affordability against inflated and rising home prices.

The result? Another generation headed for practical indentured servitude. The difference? This time, the lender will be the government.

A second set of repeat losers: These will be the owners of anything which can be indirectly collateralized to cover those loans. We’re talking property owners and the middle-class income producers. Future tax streams can — and in all likelihood must — be “securitized” to cover delinquent loans.

Again, the party able to place liens on stressed property owners for unpaid taxes? The government.

The rich white guy ex-Goldman Sachs may be able to escape checking his privilege while playing Robin Hood. The reality is that he’s playing the Pied Piper, but only as long as he plays the tune called by his decidely unmerry band of progressive, envious knaves, rejects and scalawags who now threaten to turn New Jersey today — and your state tomorrow — into a land of serfs beholden to the do-gooder lords of the manor.

Conservative corporate lawyer, commentator, blockchain technology patent holder and entrepreneur. Headquartered in a red light district in the middle of a deep blue People's Republic.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Money Pit: California’s not-so-high-speed rail



Have you heard this story, a couple finds a million dollar distress sale mansion on the market for a mere $200,000? Some upgrades are needed, but overall it’s a bargain. What ensues is comedic brilliance as the owners find out the house is barely standing. They pour more and more money into the house in the classic Tom Hank’s comedy “The Money Pit.”

Just like this movie, the California High-Speed Rail has become our Money Pit, but unlike the movie, this is no laughing matter.

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond to partially fund an 800-mile high-speed electric train traveling up to 220 mph. The goal would be that the state would fund a third, one-third by the federal government, and the last third via private investment. Total cost was estimated at $35 billion.

What has transpired since 2008? No more federal funding and no private funding. From 800-miles we went to 520 miles, as a cost savings measure. From 220 mph we are at 110 mph in large sections of the rail, to save money of course, and a possible completion date of 2020, is now estimated to be completed by 2033.

With all these cost-saving measures you would assume the cost would come down. Unfortunately, for California taxpayers, this money pit keeps getting worse.

The price tag for all these cost-saving measures brought to you by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the California Legislature is currently estimated at $77.3 billion. But wait you want more savings and fiscal responsibility, too bad, because this $77.3 billion estimate may ultimately cost California taxpayers $98.1 billion. My prediction is it will be even higher.

At this point, it might be cheaper and faster to build a Death Star instead. Not to mention more useful.

This is not what the voters were promised. We did not approve a not-so-high-speed train with a price tag most likely ten times the initial projected cost to California taxpayers.

This boondoggle of a money pit must be stopped. Those billions can be used to help repair our roads, highways, bridges, dams, water reservoirs, and critical infrastructure.

If elected to be California’s next State Controller and Chief Financial Officer, I will look at all legal means to cut funding to this project. In my opinion, if we bought one thing and are getting something else, then the authorization to fund this project has not been authorized by the people, and thus the Controller may have the legal authority to stop payment until the project complies with Proposition 1A.

I hope, I won’t have to do this, and the Legislature does its job and kills this project. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. We made a promise to taxpayers to be good stewards of their trust and money. Let’s restore that trust and do the right thing, and let’s put an end to this money pit.

Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading


Trump tariffs another in-name-only moment for the in-name-only president



As a man who likes the title but not the responsibilities of the office, Donald Trump has proven himself to be America’s President In-Name-Only. From the primaries to today the New York Liberal with an “R” after his name has demonstrated a lack of any core convictions as he makes policy decisions based on the need to feed his narcissistic personality.

One of the consequences of Trump’s lack of character is the frequency in which he’s forced to take action based on the rhetoric he continues to feed his dwindling base. Even though most of the promises he makes are nothing more than the politically convenient ramblings of a man who has no intention of keeping them—he bragged in a TV interview that he could change into whatever he needs to be—Trump’s never-ending need for the praise and adulation of his followers has forced him to at least give the appearance that he will keep his word.

This has given birth to a host of in-name-only legislative efforts by Mr. Trump. Some of his biggest hits on the in-name-only charts deal with two of his major campaign promises: rescinding DACA and withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Accord.

When Trump issued his executive order rescinding DACA, he immediately teamed up with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to create an amnesty program for DREAMers. At the same time, he made a promise to reinstate DACA after six months if necessary.

In addition to statements from the White House that he never intended to rescind DACA, Trump has advocated amnesty for nearly two-million illegals (a number that was originally around 800,000). By the way, the deadline has come and gone, and DACA still exists.

When Trump announced in June that the US was withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, he immediately committed to re-entering it under better terms. In addition to statements from members of the White House team that Trump would work on getting the US back in, Trump stated in a January TV interview with Piers Morgan that the US is ready to re-enter the Paris deal.

“The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.” – Rex Tillerson on CBS’s Face the Nation

“He left the door open to re-entering at some later time if there can be a better deal for the United States.” H.R. McMaster on ABC’s This Week

Following Trump’s recent trade-war announcement that he was adding across-the-board tariffs to steel and aluminum imports, he proudly crowed that he was keeping a campaign promise on trade. Yet, when faced with an avalanche of blowback for the obviously anti-free-market policy, Trump turned this into another in-name-only moment.

On the day of the announcement, Trump immediately granted exclusions to the tariffs for Mexico and Canada—two of America’s biggest providers of imported steel—despite repeated statements from the White House indicating otherwise.

“We have made clear these will be across-the-board tariffs with no exclusions. The problem with exclusions is that they are a slippery slope. Once you start, where do you stop?” — White House, March 2 (Wall Street Journal)

“There will be no country exclusions.” — Pete Navarro, President Trump’s radical trade adviser, March 4 (CNN’s State of the Union)

“I have no reason to think he is going to change.” — Wilbur Ross, President Trump’s protectionist commerce secretary, March 4 (NBC’s Meet the Press)

As a believer in free trade, I’m ecstatic that Trump at least partially broke his promise, but it serves as the latest evidence that Trump is nothing more than an in-name-only president willing to take make-believe actions to make it appear he’s keeping his make-believe promises.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading


In Lieu of what is Right – An Interview with Dr. Ken Wright



One of the most vapid and reliably anti-Constitutionalist members of Congress is known to anyone who takes to Twitter, Ted Lieu, of the California 33rd Congressional District, suddenly has a staunch conservative to square off against. I got to sit down for about an hour over the phone with Dr. Ken Wright, who was one of the most interesting interviews I’ve done this year (and after Erin Cruz, Austin Petersen, Shane Hazel, and Hunter Hill, that is saying something).

Dr. Wright is a renowned pediatric ophthalmologist who is invited to teach all over the world. For that reason (sorry doc) I thought he might have the demeanor of a college professor. Analytical without a lot of passion. I was right about the analytical part. I was dead wrong about the lack of passion. This is a man who in no way needs to run for Congress, but instead sees it as a public service that he is willing to take on to make the world better for his family and for all of ours as well. It’s probably worth noting that one of the most respected and freedom-oriented members of the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul, is also an ophthalmologist. I also have an acquaintance here in my home town who is a Constitutionalist and an ophthalmologist. There seems to be a pattern here.

I found Dr. Wright to be authentic, passionate about Constitutional freedoms, and a man who will not be bullied by anyone. He supports much of what President Trump is trying to do, however I have no trouble believing he would stand up to the President should he go off the rails. The people of the California 33rd would do well to put a man of such integrity into office, and with him get rid of one of the most staunchly anti-freedom members of the US House of Representatives, Ted Lieu.

BW: What specific experience and education make you feel makes you the most qualified to be a Congressman?

KW: With the present state of our representatives I think as long as you have a pulse you could do a better job. They’re bought. The special interest lobbyists are running the show. Any good, ethical citizen could do a better job and do what is right for the people.

**I needed to take a moment to stop laughing at this answer. It was funny because it’s true.**

I’m a pediatric ophthalmologist. I know people all over the world since I travel for teaching in my field. I was awarded a service medal from the President of Panama after Noriega was ousted due to the work I was doing there. I’m a doctor, and doctors use data and facts to make decisions. We don’t put a Band-Aid on an infection and expect it to go away. Dems in inner cities have made people dependent for more than 50 years with no way out and they end up in gangs or living on welfare. Let’s get factories into the inner-cities. Let’s get them jobs instead of food stamps and a few bucks. I want to actually solve problems instead of creating a never-ending cycle of dependency.

BW: What specific issues will be your main focus if elected?

KW: Immigration is a huge problem right now. President Trump gave Congress the job to put together a real plan for DACA and they’ve done nothing. We need a clear policy regarding immigration. To my mind we need to secure the border. Without that we have open borders. We need a wall for at least part of the southern border. It worked in Israel. Then you can think about what to do with 13 million illegals.

Whether they were invited by the government or not, many illegals came here because we wanted people to come here; we wanted them to do certain jobs like pick crops or be a housekeeper, and it would be wrong to send them all home after so many years. That said, criminals with so much as a DUI have to go. This is my problem with sanctuary cities; they allow criminal illegals to roam free and harm our citizens. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, but rather an American problem.

The largely law abiding that we choose to let stay can get in line behind everyone else and perhaps pay some fines and do some service, but they shouldn’t be able to get to the head of the line like so many Democrats want, and they certainly shouldn’t be given blanket amnesty.

Healthcare is a big issue, mostly because the Democrats have made it that way with Obamacare. Despite what the Democrats say, there were never bodies lying in the street before Obamacare. No one is turned away from any emergency room. Everyone can get care. Not everyone needs health insurance. If you’re a 20 year old on your first job and in good health, perhaps you don’t need to spend money on health insurance, and it’s wrong for the government to force you to subsidize health insurance for others. We need to repeal McCarron-Ferguson Act which exempts insurance companies from most federal regulation including anti-trust laws. That would allow real free-market competition back.

BW: What failures do you feel have been made on the part of Ted Lieu?

**Note: I asked Dr. Wright to please try to keep this to a top 5 list… I know I could write an article just on this question**

KW: When the Syrian war was really going on he wanted to bring 200K refugees from Iraq and Syria and voted against the SAFE Act. That’s dangerous for America.

He doesn’t protect America first. He wants open borders. He’s for sanctuary cities. He votes against Kate’s Law every time it comes up. He has sponsored legislation for no-money bail, saying bail is unfair to the poor, yet judges can take that into consideration. He wants to take the discretion away from the judges.

He’s a hypocrite. On his web site the number one issue he talks about is climate change. And yet, when he was a state senator he accepted $13K from real estate developers who wanted to build a new stadium, and then he co-sponsors a bill to exempt the real estate developers from environmental regulations. He’s a career politician and has never had a real job in his life. I’ve had a real job. I’ve run a business and put people to work.

BW:  What political challenges do you face and how do you plan to overcome them?

Well, District 33 is only 24% Republicans, which has discouraged the GOP and the GOP wasn’t even going to run someone in 2016. However, there’s almost 30% here with no party preference. I was able to take 37% in 2016 and I didn’t have a real organization. I have a whole organization this time and I think winning this district is doable.

BW: With the current debate over gun-control, what are your thoughts?

KW: Well this isn’t an easy issue. I think we all, or at least most, agree a civilian doesn’t need to own a surface-to-air missile. At the same time, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about being able to resist a tyrannical government. We need to find a balance. I think for certain weapons perhaps some form of mental evaluation might be in order. The problem is the Democrats always want to take it too far. Instead of making things simple and wanting to implement legislation that might actually save lives they are intent on disarming the population.

BW: There has been a lot of debate over President Trump’s tariffs. How do you feel about them.

KW: Great question. Would you agree that it is equally wrong for one to hire someone to commit murder as it is to commit murder yourself?

BW: Sure.

KW: Well by the same token, if it’s wrong for us to use slave labor to make our products, it’s equally wrong for us to allow China and other countries to use slave labor without any kind of penalty. The Chinese have a miles long factory where people were crammed into tiny rooms to live and work. It was so miserable that people were jumping to their deaths. Know what the Chinese government did? They put up nets outside the building so that people couldn’t even kill themselves to get away. It’s that miserable and yet we are profiting from it in the form of cheaper goods. You’ll notice that the President isn’t imposing these tariffs on Europe or Canada or other nations that play by the rule of civilized behavior.

BW: I’m personally very much against tariffs, but I have to admit that I never thought about it that way.

KW: Most people don’t.

BW: I ask this of all California candidates since your state pretty much has been the leader on this issue: What about legalization of Marijuana?

The half-life of marijuana is 3-4 days. If you smoke 2 or 3 times a week then the half life becomes about 2-3 weeks. Alcohol is metabolized much faster. I think it should be available but through a pharmacy, and not in smoking form. Physicians were encouraged to give more opioids for pain management and they found it to be profitable. This has led toward a lax attitude toward drugs. Marijuana should be available to those who need it, but we can’t be so careless with how it’s used.

BW: What do you want the people of the California 33rd to know about you?

KW: Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that we are Americans first. Vote for someone who has the moral fiber to do what is right. Don’t vote for someone just because they might be at your end of the ideological spectrum.

You can learn more about Dr. Ken Wright by clicking here.


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.