Monday, August 27, 2018

Stirring the ashes in the GSE world

What’s GSE-good these days…….?

Nothing in the courts that’s for sure, as another set of judges roll over and do a “lazy Lamberth”—a quite popular position for federal jurists-- meaning little original case-specific analysis but knee-jerk fall back to the original—but in my view erroneous—decision that the Administrations (both Bush and later Obama) can do anything they want to Fannie and Freddie, no matter what HERA says about mission or and the Constitution says about takings.

The current Administration defending against these allegations seem to twist itself into knots but no judge will call them on it.

That’s why I contend and have for months that the play is almost solely with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and with this WH as to what it wants to do with the GSEs, and that included if any of these cases ever get to the Supreme Court (unlikely if the Admin doesn't want that).

Watch, despite a recent legal decision that the Consumer Finance Protection Board (CFPB)  regulatory structure--near identical to the FHFA--is flawed and inauthentic, I doubt any court will rule that way against the GSE regulator plus undo the flawed past dictates from it, including the “2012 all profit sweep.” It just won’t happen in DC because of the infamous “GSE shit wall.”

Yes, there still is “Delaware” and “Sweeney,” but why, except that it’s another at bat, should those cases go a different way from the past GSE lawsuit gaggle when judges trippingly followed Lamberth?

A small win!

In the ebb and flow, sturm and drang of GSE disputes—absent the good guys winning a lawsuit or getting a major in either of the two congressional Banking Committees supporting legislation to positively perpetuate Fannie and Freddie, one joyful thing is when one of your historic opponents backs a position you (in this case Tim Howard) staked out long ago and convincingly argued.

I am speaking about Tim pointing out in his blog and with his other commentary the flawed nature of the forced introduction of the GSE “credit risk transfer" programs, which Howard correctly explained in minute detail WERE HORRIBLY FLAWED, didn’t transfer any real risk, were very favorably investor-priced, were shaped by their regulators (hoping to claim they were “reducing risk”) to remove assets from the GSEs’ book which soon could produce positive revenue for F&F and the Treasury (the American taxpayer).

The CRTs were/are loved by two Administrations, the agency staffs who implemented them (under some logical duress since the transfers don’t make dollars or sense for the institutions), and naturally the institutional investors who flocked to them because CRTs were found money.

Anyway, this past week--of all institutions, shockingly he Congressional Budget Office CBO) which has been a GSE bane for the past 30 years—first wrote its obligatory Fannie/Freddie trashing in a congressional report, but then included this wonderful eye-opening affirming nugget:

"To date, the GSEs’ CRT transactions have not reduced costs to the government. In return for transferring some of their risk, the GSE effectively give up some of their income from guarantee fees to the private investors who buy credit-risk notes. Private investors must be compensated at market interest rates for assuming that risk, and thus they effectively charge more than the GSEs do to bear the risk. However, the GSEs have not raised their guarantee fees to cover the costs of those transactions. CRT transactions will reduce expected costs to the government only if the GSEs pass those costs along to mortgage borrowers." 

That’s as good as it gets in DC when a prominent GSE argument gets taken up and blessed by a historically Fannie/Freddie negative government agency. (I guess somewhere in their report, they forgot to give credit to the source of their position, Psst. TH!)

Oh, and of course Treasury, the FHFA, and Hill Republicans will ignore the CBO position and continue to tout CRTs as better than vanilla ice cream.

Juicy Trade Association Rumor

I was told last week about a trade association rumor, which—if accurate- is a confirmation/vindication for those of us who hinted at an association bias toward it largest members at the expense of its huge number of smaller dues payers.

The gossip involved a prominent trade association which had a ceremonial but not a real “changing of the guard” this past week, as the next new leader arrived but his predecessor stayed on board lurking in the background (although those situations never work out when the new guys wonders why the Hell the old guy still is there and the old guy doesn’t realize he’s not the “man” any longer).

But, I digress, the outgoing guy constantly was accused by critics that he pandered to the association’s largest members, i.e., not surprisingly large depository intuitions, and ignored the priorities of smaller shops in the same business. The smaller guys were far more numerous but had nowhere the bigun's heft.

I thought and wrote suggesting that was the case and tried very hard (as some of my friends know) to suss out the small guys and see if they felt they were being fairly represented?

I stopped when the task became too daunting, although the almost dramatic profiles of the old and the new might confirm part of my thinking.

But, I digress.

Here's the story shared with me last week by an industry insider.

Reportedly, when the old incumbent’s salary demands hit well north of seven figures and created parity as well as budget problems for the association, a handful of the largest members took it upon themselves (I am sure to the great relief of association officials, including the top guy beneficiary) to cover the exec’s big salary demands.

If that story was/is true, then I guess the individual would be every reason to embrace exactly what mortgage policies his enhanced paycheck signers wanted. (Did I slip and write “mortgage policies?”)

As noted—if true—it’s not as sexy as the CBO CRT story, but illuminating.


Sunday New York Times lead (and only) Editorial;
The Next Financial Crisis (no mention of GSEs, but lots on big banks)

Maloni, 8-27-2018

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Dose them again, Doctor

GSE Skeptics and Liars need a fact-
suppository, maybe two or more!

There always will be those skeptics who reject convention and balk at what a majority believe/think.
We’re all aware of  “Deniers,” individuals and groups, who—despite solid evidence—continue to disbelieve and loudly say that certain events never existed or have been greatly distorted by experts and historical accounts.
Evil deniers
My “evil denier #1” are “Holocaust deniers, who try and sugar coat Nazi Germany and Hitler’s Third Reich, swearing that 6,000,000 Jewish deaths in WWII have been fabricated and that nothing of the sort happened at the hands of the Nazis. They have a secondary agenda to glorify Hitler’s Germany and vilify Jews. From Wikipedia
“Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.[1] Holocaust deniers claim that Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich but that it did not include the extermination of Jews; that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; or that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure.[2][3][4] Because Holocaust denial is a common facet of certain racist propaganda, it is considered a serious societal problem in many places where it occurs and is illegal in several European countries and Israel

Just plain dumb deniers
There also is those who deny the US ever landed successfully on the moon and all of those astronaut pictures, flags, and videos were shot on a movie set somewhere in Hollywood or Houston, Texas.
This group should wear tinfoil hats because they defy our history books, various Administrations and Presidents, famous women and men who were part of the NASA moon landings, science, etc. etc.
These “flat Earthers” are addled and I feel sorry for them and their progeny.
Again, from Wikipedia:
 “Various groups and individuals have made claims since the mid-1970s that NASA and others knowingly misled the public into believing the landings happened, by manufacturing, tampering with, or destroying evidence including photos, telemetry tapes, radio and TV transmissions, Moon rock samples, and even killing some key witnesses.

Naïve deniers
My favorite example (close to home) is the majority in the US--BUT NOT I-- who still will not consider, despite thousands and thousands of sightings—the possible existence of BigFoot (Sasquatch), UFOs, and the Loch Ness Monster.
C’mon folks what does it take? Witnesses to the existence of all three—US commercial and military pilots, public officials, members of the clergy, and lots of plain old folks—have encountered these phenomena and all it takes is for one (or three, one per phenomenon) to be accurate and where does that put the doubters?

Fannie and Freddie dissemblers, fabricators, deniers—become hoodwinkers

As socially and intellectually regrettable as those aforementioned “deniers” are, there is a newer group—found among the Conservative “think tanks” (oxymoron?!), big banks, reactionary media, and the Republican Party--I’ll call them “GSE deniers,” who despite the work/proof of federal commissions, agencies, and prominent news people--but not enough public officials or Senators and Congresspeople—this element is bound/wedded to twisting and misrepresenting the facts that Fannie and Freddie ever were effective or successfully carried out their congressional mission to provide massive amounts of mortgage finance to low, moderate, and middle-income families and individuals in every corner of the nation in good economic times and bad.
They blather variations of the same inaccurate memes (see below), while supporting TBTF big bank successors to the GSEs, despite the latter having a more horrible mortgage abuse history than any of the actual GSE losses and far more disqualifying than anything the GSEs have done given the financial behemoths’ desire to control the nation’s mortgage market, and—here’s the clincher for me—the big banks have far grander federal subsidies than the GSEs every enjoyed.

Anti-GSE canards:
--guaranteed by the government, NO!
--never served low-income families and minority, NO!
--private gains, public losses, NO!
--financed mostly “subprime”, NO!
--caused the 2008 financial meltdown, NO!

Anti-GSE proponents fall back on the “Fannie/Freddie bad business model,” ignoring that format—with the GSEs still in unprecedented virtual operational handcuffs—has paid back the Treasury more than $280 Billion in just the past five years, and still is backing about 50% of all outstanding US mortgages, with infinitesimal mortgage credit losses in the past 10 years, save a few caused by bizarre forced Treasury accounting and its consequences applied to Fannie and Freddie. As I pointed out last week, bank mortgage losses have been 16 times those of the GSEs as measured in the last set of Treasury (Dodd-Frank required) capital stress tests.
My greatest lament is that unlike the Holocaust and moon landing anti-celebrants, the GSE crowd seems to have carried the day in Washington and manifestations of their distortions arise consistently despite the smaller number of voices and platforms that stand in opposition.
The anti-GSE memes they fire off have surface appeal to the uninformed—which, once again, unfortunately, is most of the Washington policy audience—and impact them like sermons from the Mount.
Think of most of these policymakers—and some in the media--as large, constipated i.e. elephants and donkeys, with their internal blockages not allowing their brains to process GSE facts and keeping them dumb.
For ease and certainty, part of me wished I magically could reduce to suppository form the wisdom in Tim Howard’s blog and the many excellent arguments in the gaggle of GSE plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the US Treasury, and require the Congress and media to accept that relief in the most appropriate ways to heighten their fact bases and guarantee consumption of an accurate Fannie and Freddie history.
Those conditions could require a dozen doses or more of this purgatives to get through to some of the anti-GSE fanatics/hardheads and relieve their informational distress.
What whatever it takes……!


Oh and then there is the “Orange Denier”:

--I hire the best people, i.e. Omarosa, Dr. Carson, Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruit, etc;
--My inaugural crowd was the biggest;
--Mexico is going to pay for my Wall;
--I'm the least racist person I know;
--People love my tariffs, they and I have gotten great reviews;
--I want a parade but DC says it costs too much

Maloni, 8-19-2018

(Thanks to Doc. Cartoon for the artwork assist!)

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Are things looking Up?

Mostly Fannie and Freddie...and very little Trump

I have lots of GSE contacts, friends across the country, east coast, west coast, New York, DC (where most of the bad guys strut their stuff). And when you start to hear some messages being repeated and getting complementary, veteran ears should pay attention.

Shush, listen; tramp, tramp, tramp, they’re marching…tramp, tramp, tramp, they’re marching, tramp, tramp, tramp, they’re marching…tramp, tramp, tramp, they’re marching, tramp, tramp, tramp, they’re marching.

They’re marching, marching, marching—not quite in step, yet--hear the tromp of their boots…tromp, tromp, tromp. THEY are behind us, not out front! Behind us, as in behind the policy scenes.

What am I heralding and where am I headed?

Is it VP Pence’s Space Force, dressed up in new version of the old “Richard Nixon” Student Prince unis, which Nixon hoped to have his own White House guards wear? (For all of you history buffs out there, a friend says there is one of Tricky Dick's original stilted Prussian prototype outfits in the Smithsonian, but not sure where).

Oh, here’s what one of my favorite political writers—Alexandra Petri—thinks of Pence’s Space Force.)

Could the budding multitude be a GSE cavalry—minus John Wayne—possibly rallying around a White House initiative built along the “Moellis plan” lines,  contained in the Moellis public commentary on the FHFA’s proposed GSE capital rules?

It just might be, trying for a workable Fannie/Freddie scheme, but not quite ready yet consensus!!!

Whatever it is, it seems to be attracting people to a GSE solution that to date has been intractable because of conflicting priorities.

But Mnuchin is positioned to deliver if the WH lets him.

Tim Howard likes some of it, but hardly all because the capital requirements are historically out of sync and quite high with what a contemporary Fannie and Freddie will need (paraphrasing TH: “There is a steep operating cost to unneeded capital”).

But that looks like part of the heavy tariff the banks will demand, hoping to hobble the GSEs will excessive capital, because who can be opposed to protection against terrible things happening again—even if the banks were the primary progenitors of those terrible things, if Treasury moves forward and turns the GSEs loose to operate, again, with private ownership.

*(see my italicized GSE/bank capital comments below.)

The MBA and their big bank friends like it, because they think they can use new implementing regs to inflict more damage to the new GSE successors, all the while saying they are supportive.

Not sure where the NAR (Realtors) or the NAHB (Builders) are, since both have given up their historically primo lobbying roles, deferring to the aforementioned lenders and now waddle in the background not taking a major stand because of their myriad “other priority issues.”

(Hey Builders, if you want more housing constructed improve the GSE mortgage finance delivery system; Realtors want more clients with loans to buy homes on the market, do likewise!!)

There is more to this story, as always is the case with the GSEs, so dear readers don’t rush out and use the kid’s college fund or Grammy’s butter and egg money to start buying Fannie/Freddie common and preferred.

Possible obstacles in the path

--Look at the FHFA proposal “subject to change” written all over it, means just that and what looks workable now could become very not so, when the bureaucrats and most importantly Treasury sees all of the final comments and does runs against assets and liabilities the capital conclusions produce.

--FHFA’s Mel Watt’s status is in doubt. His term, expires in January 2019, but the recent accusations against him of sexual harassment from an FHFA employee—backed up by her tapes of same behavior—might accelerate that departure. Who knows what his successor will seek and what his/her (not likely!) plans are for the GSEs.

--If it’s one of the less-than “Magnificent 7,” who the American Banker previewed as possible successors a week before Mel Watt’s problems hit the news, the guy might just want to slowly strangle Fannie and Freddie.

*BTW. This is as good a time as any to point out something with the recent Dodd-Frank capital “stress tests” mandated by 1)Treasury and FHFA with Fannie and Freddie and  2) Treasury for the big banks. Plug this in when you look back at the MBA/bankers position on GSE capital.

Fannie and Freddie's combined stress credit losses in this year's test were only $21.2 billion, or 40 basis points of their total mortgages held and guaranteed. The stress credit losses for the large banks subject to the test were $429.3 billion, or 640 basis points of their average loan balances. So banks' stress loss rates are sixteen times Fannie's and Freddie's.

So what do you think the GSE chances are to get a capital requirement fair shake under Treasury/FHFA/Moellis???

--There always is the November election and the chance Democrats can do a “Phoenix rising” act, capture the House and hold Senate losses to one or two, positioning the party to be a much bigger player on any matter the Trump Administration seeks. I guess part of that latter possibility is even the Senate falling into the hands of Chuck Schumer and his allies.

--Doubtful but—if there is a “blue wave” on November 6th, just 11 weeks from now—one has to consider that. In addition, observers have to discount all of the ”blue wave” crap, believe as I think they did Trump supporters lied to pollsters leading up to the 2016 presidential contest, afraid to admit they thought they wanted/needed the “Orange Baby.” Those same voters will lie, again.

--And despite a flurry of new lawsuits owing to the Statute of Limitations time running to file a GSE lawsuit--added to the existing legal actions targeting Treasury's past behavior--any new executive relief under Mnuchin will occur faster than the courts can definitively act.

Maloni, 8-12-2018

(Thanks to the invaluable and talented Mr. F for the cartoon assist!)

Monday, August 6, 2018

F&F Produce Reliable Profits

They Lied about Fannie and Freddie and the two prevailed despite the propaganda--could it be the excellent business model?

“Failed business model; in a death spiral; bleeding sinkhole; excessive subprime investments; desperately need Uncle Sam’s help; heads they win, tails you lose; they pose a systemic risk; we're going to move quickly and take them by surprise; the first sound they'll hear is their heads hitting the floor."

These are a few of the colorful—and wrong—descriptors Hank Paulson at Treasury and later some in the Obama White House and Treasury, used to malign Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Of course the uninformed on Capitol Hill and the media mimicked the same trash.

Together that bipartisan mélange became David Fiderer’s “Big Lie,” and like a malevolent snowball growing as it rolled downhill when nobody challenged the proponents.

(Every financial business model should be so flawed; wait, most of them are, since one way or another Uncle Sam stands behind them! Of course the big banks like to claim they are “private,” but the facts belie that.)

In 2008, the GOP elements first abused the applicable Fannie and Freddie accounting principles--to suggest terminal financial weakness--and manacled the GSEs, then their Democrat successors doubled the political assault by taking away all of the GSEs earnings (see next paragraph) leaving them with insufficient capital but still under tight Treasury and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) regulatory control while mandating the two continue to support the nation’s secondary mortgage market.

Since Paulson and the Obama others uttered and acted on those falsehoods, the two GSEs have sent the federal government @$280 Billion in “dividends” (all GSE business earnings) for their meritless 2008 capture and abusive treatment, unique since no other major financial services entity active in the 2008 suffered it. Federal lawsuits still are challenging whether the initial $190 Billion in GSE aid even was needed.


That’s my hardy and hearty caustic financial laugh at those lie-telling GSE opponents.
It’s not the last laugh because there are more F&F profits coming, but we all got a robust guffaw last week as the tried and true GSEs earnings engine cranked out $4.5 Billion for Fannie Mae in second quarter earnings with Freddie contributing an additional $2.4 Billion, which means nearly $7 Billon more flowing from the GSEs into the Treasury’s General Fund to financially support heaven knows what.
Again as a reminder, this year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in a seminal report on the 2008 financial debacle found the nation’s largest banks and their frivolous creation and sale of $2.7 Trillion of near worthless mortgage backed securities—not Fannie and Freddie—were primary cause of the Financial Armageddon a decade ago.
Does anyone think there are 10 people on Capitol Hill who notice the GSEs black ink tap dance and applauded or tied it to the FDIC report? Not from all of the raucous and know-nothing noise you hear from our Senators and Congressmen and women.
Maybe the only one--and her staff--is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services (Banking) Committee, who vowed to take on GSE issues if she becomes Committee Chair if the House flips after November’s election.

New non legislative tax cuts?

As GSE fans consider the “F/F fix options,” they see a possible administrative fix from the White House and the possibility of a legislative fix, which can’t seem to get off the Hill’s ground because most of the congressional GOP wants to reward the nation’s largest banks at the expense of the American mortgage consumer (go back and read the FDIC report ladies and gentlemen of Congress) and a sufficient number of Senators don’t want to do that.

I didn’t mention the courts because I don’t believe in unicorns but do consider Bigfoot and UFOs possibilities.

I mention a “new tax cut”—via executive fiat--in the headline above because of the ease that possibility flows from the tongues of advocates seeking more deficit financing for their personal coffers. If the Trump Administration follows through and seeks to achieve this end, without the Congress, i.e. using executive or regulatory authority to lower capital gains rates, the nation should howl.

Where I would welcome executive action

As outraged as I would be as a citizen and tax payer—even though I might be helped personally because I am an investor—I would ask the POTUS to eschew that goal—because the people he hopes to please should have been sated by his major tax cuts earlier this year (“give us mo money, mo money, mo money!), and instead turn his Treasury Secretary/FHFA Director toward using whatever authority the WH claims to “free Fannie and Freddie” or remove some of the GSE operating obstacles allowing them to do what they have done so well in the past, provide copious amounts of mortgage finance to eligible low, moderate, and middle income individuals and families and remove several current obstacles to home ownership.
Closing this blog loop of the D’s taking control of the lower chamber, my one concern, if the D‘s accede to House control, would be the tendency to overload Fannie/Freddie with a far greater housing mission, since the GOP and Obama team before it, shuttered Fannie and Freddie away from a job they carried out quite effectively years ago—and those results show.
A better approach is to give life to the current withered community/neighborhood reinvestment laws and require the nation’s commercial banks to help the GSE with desirable task.

November’s elections

New congressional control is several “what ifs” in the future, although those defining election are only 3 MONTHS away.
So those of you who want to change the current congressional arrangements, need to focus on your own Congress person and Senators. Make sure you and all of your friends, neighbors, eligible children, etc. are registered to vote and ask yourself if you are willing to personally contribute to congressional campaigns which offer the hope to alter federal policy, defeat incumbents—and then go ahead and do it.
Now is your chance to speak up and act on your frustrations and beliefs, if you want true change.
Talk is cheap and action speaks louder than mere outrageous shouts.
If your local races aren’t competitive—meaning there is an overwhelmingly clear favorite—look around for where is are close congressional contests near you. Think about contributions to those men and women (lots of female candidates running with great credentials) who can use the help to oust incumbents who support this President and back up some of his noxious policy calls?
You can continue to complain or moan or you can monetize your anger and decide how much you would give to begin to turn things around, politically. Give that amount, in pieces, to worthy congressional office seekers, no matter in which state they are running.

Maloni, 8-6-2018

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

North Koreans and Russian still doing their thing, nothing changes with them

Some GSE thoughts and a few Presidential ones….

Even though he toiled in Fannie Mae’s Treasurer’s office when I still worked in the company, I don’t know and never met David Benson. Last week Benson was named interim successor to Tim Mayopoulos—Fannie Mae’s current President and CEO—when Mayopoulos announced his planned departure by year’s end after 10 years working for Fannie. (No doubt, TM is chafing under his limited $600k congressional imposed salary cap and the shackles he finds trying to run a successful entity which generates billions in quarterly income.)
Good friend Tim Howard knows DB and told me that Benson’s a very capable and effective mortgage executive, which is a strong endorsement from my perspective.
I hope Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) bless Benson’s succeeding Mayopoulos and don’t try and interfere with that elevation.

Mel Watt

Speaking of, I was as surprised as most when Director Mel Watt was accused of possible sexual harassment by a former employee who produced audio tapes to sustain her allegations.
Although President Trump might have inaugurated some new standard with revelations of his pre-presidential sexual antics, the accusations against Watt--if legitimate--likely means he’s gone before 2019 (his five year term ends in January, 2019) and his successor can be named by the POTUS, now.
You can bet there is mondo competition, back stabbing, and promoting going on behind the Conservative scenes in DC as GSE opponent forces seek to put their man (doubt they have any female candidates, since they are Republicans!).

Would be Watt successors

Before the latest Watt news above, an American Banker article several days ago identified seven possible candidates for the post of FHFA Director.

I don’t think I can claim any of them is good for the GSEs, I would say at least four/five are not good, with two rising above the gaggle, Craig Phillips, currently counsellor to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Mark Calabria, senior economist to Vice President Mike Pence and a former Senate Banking Committee and CATO Institute staffer.
Phillips virtue is he's close to Mnuchin and with executive action not legislative reform likely the most logical action, he would know how best to work with Treasury, while Calabria—who has been all over the GSE block intellectually—has at times called for them to be “re-privatized,” whatever that means.
But, that doesn’t mean there aren’t more choices who the President could stoop and tab; after all he did name low lights Betsy DeVos and Dr. Ben Carson to cabinet posts.


The FHFA has decided to give commenters on the agency “Risk Based Capital” proposal 60 additional days to do so, citing the followingFHFA is extending the public comment period due to the high level of interest in the proposed rule and requests from multiple stakeholders for more time to evaluate it.”

Judge Sweeney

Judge Margaret Sweeney has emerged from her “shelter in place” nest to—once again--accede to a government’s request this time to file  a “twice the size than originally sought by the court” report.

As our friend Peter Chapman writes, “In anticipation of filing its omnibus motion to dismiss the dozen cases pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims next week, the government is asking Judge Sweeney for permission to file an 85-page document that will exceed the 40-page default rule imposed by the court in run-of-the-mill cases.  Our government notes that if it were to file twelve separate motions to dismiss, rather than one omnibus motion, it would be entitled to drop up to 480 pages on Judge Sweeney’s desk.”

How have the Trump tax cuts been used?

When Democrats opposed the massive Trump tax cuts, many cited the likelihood that corporations would use their new found money to take a variety of self-enrichment steps, including stock buybacks to inflate prices on shares already owned by the executive and massive pay increase.

Here’s what POLITICO now is reporting.

It’s also worthwhile noting that workers’ salaries and wages—across the board--have not risen, despite the tax cuts, buy backs, etc.


The Koch Brothers are unhappy?

Trump economic policies, tariffs, trade wars, fights with allies, seem to be angering a powerful GOP/Conservative force, the Koch Brothers.

Here’s hoping the bros pull their big money/support from the Trump machine and his political friends, and insist that free trade—with appropriate limits—serves the United States better than what this President (who thinks he knows better than anyone else) is prescribing and implementing.

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy debates himself on “Cohen” and other matters

Who continues to believe that a tottering Rudy Giuliani has boosted the President chances to avoid strongly negative mention by Special Counsel Robert Mueller or increased that likelihood.
Daily Rudy—turned loose by this White House to deal with the media seems to conflict himself, then denies he’s now saying the opposite form what he recently once said.

Really, Mr. President? Try these GOP POTUS facts

“Trump, as he has before, also claimed he is the most popular commander in chief in
 the Republican Party's history, a line that stretches all the way back to Abraham
Lincoln's election in 1860. Setting aside the fact that widespread public polling
did not begin until the mid-1930s, Trump remains less popular among his party than
 a number of his recent predecessors.

“According to the Gallup tracking poll, as of July 1, 88 percent of Republicans
currently have a favorable view of Trump's presidency. But as CNN reported, only
Gerald Ford failed to reach an 88 percent approval rating within his own party by
 July of his first year in office. Overall, his popularity among all voters (42
percent in the most recent weekly poll) remains well below the high point of
predecessors: Dwight D. Eisenhower peaked at 79 percent in 1956, Ronald Reagan at
68 (twice), George H.W. Bush at 89 at the time of the Gulf War, and George W. Bush
 at 90 percent shortly after the 9/11 attacks.”

Maloni, 8-1-2018