Are they actually going to do this???

Good for us if we realized the right response is to lower our taxes here and letting them export all they want to us.

But we don’t.

Britain to Slash Public Spending in Austerity Gamble

October 20 (AP) — Recession-battered Britain learns the true cost of the global financial crisis Wednesday, as the country’s government outlines the largest cuts to public spending since World War II — slashing benefits and public sector jobs with a five-year austerity plan aimed at clearing the nation’s debts.

After spending billions bailing out indebted banks, and suffering a squeeze on tax revenue and a hike in welfare bills, Treasury chief George Osborne will stake the coalition government’s reputation on fixing the country’s economic ills by the next election in 2015.

In a major address to Parliament, Osborne will announce about 80 billion pounds ($128 billion) in spending cuts, which he claims are necessary alongside tax rises to wipe out Britain’s 156-billion-pound deficit and reduce its huge debt.

It means as many as 500,000 public sector jobs are likely to be lost, while pay for almost all government workers has already been frozen for two years under an initial round of austerity measures announced in June.

Even Queen Elizabeth II has taken a share of the strain, as Osborne froze government funding for her household and staff.

The Treasury chief — seen as a possible future prime minister — has already warned government departments to prepare to cut their budgets by up to 25 percent over four years. While the eventual cuts are likely to be much less severe, they are likely to be the sharpest in about 60 years.

About 1.2 million families will lose child benefit payments beginning in 2013, and tens of thousands more Britons are likely to see their welfare checks trimmed or scrapped.

If the government decides to slash its winter fuel allowance, millions of retirees could lose out on subsidized heating. About 12 million people currently receive the payment.

The FDIC taxing banks to cover losses hasn’t been well thought out.

A universal bank tax is functionally equivalent to an interest rate hike for borrowers that doesn’t get passed through to savers.

FDIC Proposes Long-Term DIF-Management Plan

The FDIC board of directors proposed a long-range Deposit Insurance Fund management approach that includes a plan to restore the DIF. The board adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking on its long-term management plan that calls for a lower assessment rate to take effect when the reserve ratio equals 1.15 percent. Progressively lower assessment rate schedules would take effect in lieu of dividends when the reserve ratio reaches 2 percent and 2.5 percent. The DIF reserve ratio also must be at least 2 percent before a period of large fund losses, and average assessment rates over time must be approximately 8.5 basis points. The board said the goal is maintaining a positive fund balance even during periods of large fund losses and steady, predictable assessment rates throughout economic and credit cycles.

The board also adopted a DIF restoration plan to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35 percent by Sept. 30, 2020, as required by the Wall Street Reform Act. The DIF restoration plan would forgo the 3-basis-point increase in assessment rates scheduled for Jan. 1, 2011, and maintain the current rate schedule largely because projected DIF losses for 2010-2014 have dropped from $60 billion to $52 billion. The plan also calls for a new rulemaking next year on how to offset the effect of the Wall Street Reform Act requirement on community banks with less than $10 billion in assets.

Next month, the FDIC is expected to issue proposed regulations implementing the assessment-base change mandated by the Wall Street Reform Act. These new regulations will include proposed changes to the assessment rates necessitated by the change in the assessment base and, according to the FDIC, will ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system will approximately equal that under the existing system. Read more.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   Some weekend reading – important but not urgent…
>   

It’s almost a certainty that complaints about foreclosures and requests for repurchases like those filed by The Fed and PIMCO against BoA, here, will increase in the coming year, increasing the likelihood of some form of congressional action to again try and deal with the mortgage foreclosure fallout.

I think we will soon hear a lot about a corporation that is legally involved in the origination of 60% of all mortgage loans in the U.S. yet there is no agreement on what the corporation actually is.

The attached PDF is a paper written by Christopher L. Peterson “Forclosure,Subprime Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System” and is an excellent description of how MERS came to be and the legal controversy regarding it’s standing to file foreclosure notifications.

Some excerpts :

“MERS operates a computer database designed to track servicing and ownership rights of mortgage loans anywhere in the US. Originators and secondary market players pay membership dues and per transaction fees to MErS in exchange for the right to use and access the MERS records.”

“When closing on home mortgages, mortgage lenders now often list MERS as the mortgage of record on the paper mortgage- rather than the lender that is the actual mortgagee … even though MERS does not solicit, fund, service, or actually own any mortgage loans”

MERS was originally set up by mortgage industry insiders to avoid paying the fee charged by counties to cover the cost of maintain property records but its role has evolved.

“… when MERS is listed in county records as the owner of a mortgage, courts have generally made the natural assumption that MERS is the appropriate plaintiff to bring foreclosure action. To move foreclosures along as quickly as possible, MERS has allowed actual mortgagee and loan assignees or their servicers to bring foreclosure actions in MERS’s name, rather than in their own name.”

The contract provision use by mortgage originators in MERS as original mortgagee loan contracts states :

“MERS is a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware….”

The second sentence seems to suggest that MERS is some sort of agent – a nominee of the actual mortgage. Yet the third sentence flatly asserts that MERS in the mortgagee.