>Cat Exits Bag: Wall Street Banks Want Control Of Secondary Mortgage Market

>

So, now it’s public. In case one might have wondered why members of the Republican Party were so eager to launch calumny upon Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about their roles in “causing” the imploded housing bubble, the answer has now become ever so much more clear. Wells Fargo, along with some other large banking concerns would like to establish themselves as “the new housing finance giants helping to bundle individual mortgages into securities — that would be stamped with a government guarantee.” [NYT] All the usual players have been present, see list. That’s right: The banks would now take over the bundling of mortgages into securitized packages (Does this sound familiar?) while the loans on which the securitized instruments are based would be “guaranteed by the government.” (Read: Taxpayers, as in we the people)  Thus, the banks get all the profits, and the taxpayers take all the risks. Nice work if you can get it.

“…Fannie and Freddie have helped lower rates for the bulk of homeowners. Some Republicans are trying to narrow this broad role, and on Thursday, several conservative researchers released a proposal on how to do so. But banks, for their part, have told the administration that removing the guarantee would wipe out the widespread availability of the 30-year mortgage, fundamentally reshaping the American housing market.” [NYT] And wouldn’t you know, the American Enterprise Institute has just the recommendation for privatizing the secondary mortgage market…to the redounding credit (and profits) of the Bankers. (pdf)

By the lights of the AEI the only thing the government should do is to focus on “ensuring mortgage credit quality.” Translation: The government should protect the banks’ money by focusing on individual and family credit standards — not the banks’ lending standards. Programs, according to the AEI,  should not focus on getting people into homes, but upon securing the lowest level of risk possible to the lending institution. Translation: The government’s job is to protect the banks from lending to unqualified borrowers — not to protect borrowers from mortgage scams and other highly questionable practices by those offering the mortgages.  And here comes the clincher:

“Finally, Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated as GSEs and privatized—but gradually, so the private sector can take on more of the secondary market as the GSEs depart. The gradual withdrawal of the GSEs from the housing finance market should be accomplished by reducing the conforming loan limit by 20 percent each year, according to a published schedule so the private sector knows what to expect. These reductions would apply to the conforming loans limits for both regular and high-cost areas. Banks, S&Ls, insurance companies, pension funds, and other portfolio lenders would be supplemented by private securitization, but Congress should make sure that it does not foreclose opportunities for other systems, such as covered bonds.” [AEI pdf]  (underlining added)

More of the secondary market?  If the GSE’s depart the banks will have ALL of the secondary market. So, “the private sector knows what to expect?”  I think the private sector can reasonable expect that with the banks running the entirety of the secondary mortgage market we can all assume that the mortgages will be sliced, diced, and shuffled into those Wonderful Tranches that served so well to help create the Credit Default Swaps and Synthetic CDOs. — With, of course, the government (that would be us) bearing the obligation of guaranteeing the underlying loans.  And, of course, those would be both the regular and the jumbo loans in addition to the subprime offerings.  But wait, there’s more!  “Congress should make sure that it does not foreclose (what an inappropriate choice of terms?) opportunities for other systems such as covered bonds.” Heaven fore-fend we’d not allow the bond trading desks to get in on this government (that would be us) action.

Meanwhile back in Nevada, 1 out of every 66 homes in Clark County is in some stage of foreclosure, and statewide 1 out of every 84 homes is facing foreclosure. [RealtyTrac] Ah, it seems not so long ago when the foreclosure vultures started winging their way into the Silver State ready and very willing to turn other people’s misery into a tidy profit — as on February 2, 2009, when the Nevada Attorney General’s office joined with 11 other State AGs to encourage the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to deal with banks that were stalling mortgage modification procedures.  The Nevada AG’s office started warning about possible “foreclosure consultant scams” in March 2009, and again discussed the modification issue on March 6, 2009. The same month a former talk radio host was arrested for creating a “mortgage rescue” scam.  There were a couple more indictments along these lines in June 2009. While the vultures were scanning the desert for fodder, several States Attorneys General were looking closely at the mortgage originators.

On July 24, 2009 there was a national settlement with Countrywide Financial ($3,041,882) to the 3,467 Nevada mortgage holders who were duped by the firms mortgage sales persons. Fast forward to January 2011 and we find the Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), may be the first to settle with 50 state attorneys general who are investigating foreclosure practices.

So that we get all this straight: (1) The major banks who encouraged highly questionable mortgage lending during the housing bubble want (2) the American taxpayin’ public to guarantee (3) loans approved by the mortgage lending sector (4) while insuring the creditworthiness of the borrowers, and (5) while fighting tooth and nail not to have to settle foreclosures based on “robo-signing” and documents which they do not now possess — like the mortgages.  It doesn’t take much imagination to reduce this down to a refrain from the banking sector similar to: We really screwed up big time with the mortgages we repackaged and bundled during the Housing Bubble, and now since we screwed up even more than Fannie and Freddie — we’d like all their loans too!  Like I said, nice work if you can get it.

>Wall Street Bourbons: Morgan Stanley Resurrects CDO’s – They never learn and they never forget

>

Somewhere in an about to be foreclosed home in the Las Vegas, NV metropolitan area someone read this opening paragraph from Bloomberg News and began screaming:

“Morgan Stanley plans to repackage a downgraded collateralized debt obligation backed by leveraged loans into new securities with AAA ratings in the first transaction of its kind, said two people familiar with the sale. Morgan Stanley is selling $87.1 million of securities that it expects to receive top AAA ratings and $42.9 million of notes graded Baa2, the second-lowest investment grade by Moody’s Investors Service, according to marketing documents obtained by Bloomberg News. The bonds were created from Greywolf CLO I Ltd., a CDO arranged in January 2007 by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and managed by Greywolf Capital Management LP, an investment firm based in Purchase, New York.” [full story here] (highlighted added)

Now, where have we heard about tranched securities packages before? Where have we heard of leveraged loans? And, wasn’t there something about the current “mortgage meltdown” and “credit crunch” that had something to do with repackaging lousy assets, getting a ratings agency to stamp AAA on them and foist them off, only to have those wonderful folks who brought us the Credit Default Swap hedge their bets? If I remember correctly, that didn’t turn out so well.

But wait, there’s more – unspecified banks have been engaging in this “activity” for several weeks, and have baptized theses securitized assets as “re-Remics.” Gee, calling them “resecuritizations of real estate mortgage investment conduits” should just change everything! And, there are some $27 billion of these babies issued this year, compared to $17 billion issued last year. Goldman-Sachs plans to sell $216.9 million in repackaged commercial mortgage debt.

Here we go again? Someone on Wall Street is the reincarnation of Charles X, of whom it was said, “He personified the old saying, ‘The Bourbons never forgot anything, and never learned anything.” [GHF]

Others on this subject: The Motley Fool “Insanity Returning at Morgan Stanley, Enabled by Moody’s” Seeking Alpha “The Latest Investment Bank Scam,” and The Business Insider “Morgan Stanley: Turning Crap into AAA CDO’s once again.”

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Reid Votes for Credit Card Holders’ Bill of Rights; Ensign not voting

>

The U.S. Senate just passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights on a 90-5 vote, with four not voting. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) voted in favor of the bill; Senator John Ensign (R-NV) did not vote. The five votes against the legislation came from Senators Alexander (R-TN), Bennett (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Thune (R-SD), and Johnson (D-SD). Update: Roll Call link.

>Senate Continues Debate on Credit Card Holders’ Bill of Rights

>What will Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John Ensign (R-NV) be working on next week? The U.S. Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 627, the Credit Card reform bill on Tuesday, May 19. Or, as the Senate Calendar specifies: “10:00 am resume consideration of HR 627, the Credit Card legislation, and proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dodd-Shelby Substitute amendment #1058. If cloture is invoked on the substitute, the Senate would consider any pending germane amendments. The only other amendments in order to the bill prior to the cloture vote is a managers’ amendment which has been cleared by the managers and the leaders. Upon disposition of those amendments, all post-cloture debate time would be yielded back and the substitute amendment agreed to. The Senate would then proceed to vote on passage of HR627, as amended.” Got that?

Translation: The Dodd-Shelby amendment to the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights Act, deletes all the original text and replaces it with the “substitute” amendment. Approximately 90% of the House passed measure remains intact. [OpenCong] Senatus lists the key provisions in the Senate version. The Dodd-Shelby Amendment removes a provision allowing credit card issuers to raise interest rates retroactively if a card holder is more than 30 days late making payment; adds a requirement that gift cards be valid for five years and bans so-called ‘dormancy’ fees; and makes all the rules take effect sooner. The Amendment calls for the legislation to take effect in 9 months, the House version specifies 12. [OpenCong]

Senator Shelby has been more supportive of the House version. There is absolutely nothing else thus far on the Senate calendar for the week of May 18. C-SPAN 2 viewers may expect a plethora of quorum calls (with nice music) while the GOP maintains its filibustering of the legislation, substitute and otherwise.
desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Green Schools, Defense Acquisition Reform, and Credit Card Holders BOR on Capitol Hill This Week

>

Members of the Nevada congressional delegation will be voting on two major bills this week. H.R. 2101, reforming the U.S. weapons acquisition system, and H.R. 2187, the “21^st Century Green High Performing Public School Facilities Act,” will be coming to the House floor on Wednesday.

H.R. 2101 requires the Secretary of Defense to designate an official within the department as a principal advisor to the Secretary for each acquisition oversight function specified in the act, and that individual must be an expert in matters related to the function, assign appropriate staff, be independent from those engage in the implementation of acquisition programs, be free of any undue political interference, and free of any personal conflict of interest. The oversight authority of this advisor extends to cost estimations, systems engineering, and performance assessments.

H.R. 2187 directs the Secretary of Education to make grants to the states for modernizing, renovating, or repairing public school facilities. Section 103 authorizes expenditures for repairing, replacing or installing roofing, wiring, plumbing, sewage systems, lighting and components, and to bring school buildings into compliance with fire, health, and safety codes. School districts may also use the funds for asbestos and other contaminant abatement and removal, and measures taken to reduce or eliminate exposure to “noise pollution.” Schools are eligible for funds to modernize, renovate, or make repairs necessary to reduce energy consumption, and to upgrade educational technology infrastructure. Funds may also be used to upgrade science and engineering labs, libraries, career and technical education facilities, to improve energy efficiency and/or to use sources of renewable energy. Modifications may be authorized to improve the learning environment, ensure the health and safety of students and staff, and to make the facilities more energy efficient or reduce class sizes.

The Senate Calendar includes consideration of H.R. 627, the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights. No vote is currently scheduled.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Win One, Lose One: House passes Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, Senate Defeats Durbin Amendment

>

The Durbin Amendment (S.Amdt 1014 to S. 896) went down to defeat today in the U.S. Senate, with Senator John Ensign (R-NV) one of those giving it a shove. [roll call 174] Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) voted in favor of the amendment. Senator Durbin explained his amendment to help homeowners in foreclosure in an “a/v clip” posted to his webpage. Thus, we might answer “Is the Senate owned by Banks?” with a ‘yes.’ The final vote was 45-51, with Democrats Baucus, Bennet (CO), Byrd, Carper, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson (NE), Pryor, Specter, and Tester voting with the GOP.

On the House side, Republicans made an effort to send H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, into oblivion with a motion to recommit which was defeated on a 164-263 vote. [roll call 227] Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV2) voted the GOP leadership line; Representatives Berkley (D-NV1) and Titus (D-NV3) voted to sustain the bill. Congressman Heller was one of only 70 members of the House to vote against the bill’s final passage. [roll call 228] Representatives Berkley and Titus voted in favor of the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights Act. The final tally was 357-70.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>President to Bankers: What’s in your wallet?

>

Before the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Marquette v. First Omaha Service Corporation the various states of this union could (and often did) regulate how much financial institutions could charge for revolving credit. However, the court ruled that a national bank could charge the highest interest rate allowed in their home state to customers living anywhere else, and thus by 1982 banks were moving their operations to Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Utah – the most bank friendly states. By 2002 restrictive caps had climbed from 12-18% in the early 1980s into the 18-24% range. [BankRate] The de-regulation of the credit card industry in the past twenty years allowed banks to further squeeze their customers.

With credit card rates touching the 30% level, the President seems about to take the bankers to the woodshed. The House and Senate are already considering legislation to reform credit card administration reform. “Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee approved legislation to crack down on issuers’ ability to raise interest rates on existing credit card debt. A Senate bill would clamp down even more on how credit card issuers do business. These proposals — on top of recent restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve — mark the most significant efforts to reform industry practices in decades.” [USAT] The scope of the legislation might be wide, but what happens to the House and Senate bills during mark up and the amendment process remains to be seen.

In the House, the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights (H.R. 627) passed out of the Financial Services Committee Wednesday, April 22^nd, on a 48-19 vote. [HFSC] The bill was opposed by Representatives Bachus, Castle, King (NY), Royce, Lucas, Paul, Manzullo, Miller (CA), Hensarling, Garrett, Barrett, Neugebauer, Price (GA), McHenry, Putnam, Bachmann, Marchant, McCarthy, and Jenkins. [FS16] On the Senate side, Senator Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) S. 414 the “Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act” came out of the Banking Committee on March 31, 2009. [BCS] Both measures address Double Cycle Billing and Universal Default issues. The contents of these bills should be measured against the CRL’s ‘gold standard’ for consumer protection.

The Center for Responsible Lending sets forth criteria for legislation to protect consumers from excessive bank practices: Eliminate rate or fee increases triggered by unrelated transactions; Limit rate increases to a maximum of 50% above the account’s original rate; Require advance notice of at least 30 days before the imposition of a penalty; Honor the original terms of the credit card agreement until proper notice is given and only apply the terms to new transactions; Disclose the cost of minimum payments and make the minimum payments high enough to avoid negative amortization; Ban mandatory arbitration clauses; and Establish and apply meaningful underwriting standards. [CRL] Whatever elements the new standards may end up including, it is reasonably clear that changes will be made in credit card operations by major banks and lenders.

ABC reports: “This afternoon President Obama will tell top executives from 14 credit card companies — including American Express, Bank of America, Discover, MasterCard and Visa — that greater consumer protections are coming for their customers, with or without their cooperation.” The White House appears focused on banning unfair rate increases and charging interest on debt consumers have already paid, requiring forms to be written in accessible form and plain language, requiring more accountability for deceptive practices, and preventing credit card customers from signing up minors as clients.

The Financial Services Roundtable, representing 100 of the nation’s largest banks, complained last January that the credit card issuers were already in the process of modifying their practices to meet the new Federal Reserve standards, and any Congressional action would “undermine their efforts.” [FSR] The organization complained in 2008 that the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights would result in the limitation of credit to borrowers who “represent a greater than average risk.” [FSR] This commentary begs the question – if the issuers are worried about increased risk in their portfolios, then why are the advertising for these customers in the first place? A new argument has surfaced since the enactment of the TARP program.

The bankers are now asserting that because they must repay TARP funding they should “keep their profits up – including credit card profits, to repay the government.” [ABC] Another question might be reasonable at this point: If the banks are anxious to repay TARP funds to avoid the increased scrutiny and transparency requirements attached to the funding (such as they are), then are they not merely asking for permission to further gouge consumers so that their repayment schedule can be expedited?

The bankers evidently have a choice today, either cooperate with Administration goals for making consumer credit more transparent and affordable, or face increased regulation and “enhanced interrogation” at the hands of members of the House and Senate.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Housing and the Numbers: Two important messages from today’s House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity hearing

>

One of the problems with our problems, is that we’re just now getting a picture of what our problems are. Generally, a person should eschew this kind of redundancy, however in the case of the housing meltdown – in which Nevada is unfortunately playing a starring role – some of the statistics needed to help both policy makers and the public evaluate the situation are just now being released.

For example, the Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Evers gave testimony today before the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity (House Financial Services Committee). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision have compiled the results of an on-going study called “Mortgage Metrics,” to better “understand access, monitor loan performance, loss mitigation activities, and foreclosure trends.”

Among the information imparted in Evers’ testimony is that loan modifications increased from 72,877 in the first quarter of 2008 to 133,106 in the third quarter; 136,874 payment plans were negotiated in the first quarter, increasing to 154,649 by the third quarter; and, in the third quarter of 2008 there were a total of 287,755 loan modifications and payment plan negotiations. Those who question the efficacy of plans to help homeowners whose mortgages are now under-water because of the potential of re-defaults may be interested in the following information from the Mortgage Metrics Study:

The re-default rate after 30 days for first quarter 2008 loan modifications was 35.06% for loans held by the servicers, 39.09% for loans held by Freddie Mac, 38.34% for loans held by Fannie Mae, and 42.28% for those held by private investors. The default rate after 60 days show a similar pattern. Servicer held modified loans re-defaulted after 6 months at a 50.86% rate, Freddie Mac’s at a 57.7%, Fannie Mae at 57.11%, and those held by private investors 60.76%. [Evers] This pattern seems to substantiate the contention that the major problems don’t lie with loans kept in bank portfolios, or even by Fannie and Freddie, but that the essence of the problem stems from the activities of private investors (the private investment banks). These private investment bankers would be the self-same ones who rushed to securitize the mortgages they held, spinning derivatives into the financial sphere.

Lesson Number One: Deregulation of private banking and their entry into the mortgage market was a major mistake, and efforts to alleviate our mortgage and credit issues must incorporate more stringent oversight of the mortgage industry.

Spokesperson for Wells Fargo, Mary Coffin, executive vice president for home mortgage servicing, noted that according to Federal Housing Finance Agency statistics 56% of the nation’s 55 million mortgage loans are owned by Fannie and Freddie, and are thus already aligned for assistance if needed from the Administration’s housing stability plans. “But most critical are the 16% held by private investors, which represent 62% of seriously delinquent mortgage loans” [Coffin] Coffin expressed support for the Obama Administration’s proposal in regard to establishing a 31% affordability target, and incentives for responsible borrowers who now find themselves ‘under-water’ because of declining home values. The Wells Fargo representative also noted that there are some issues not yet subject to analysis. “Income disruption is at the root of the issue. Many customers are in variable or commissioned income situations that began destabilizing in the early part of the crisis. The full impact of unemployment and under employment is still unknown. There are many unfortunate hardship cases but there are also people who got caught up in the excess of the growing economy and real estate values who can no longer sustain lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. No loan modification alone can solve this dilemma. In certain circumstances, counseling which considers full debt restructuring is required.” [Coffin]

Lesson Number Two: Income matters. When public policy makers ignore the impact of corporate actions that allow wages to stagnate or decline we reap the impact when wages, in fact, stagnate and decline. Further, commercialism is an inadequate basis for a growing economy. The promotion of “borrow and spend” policies at both the national and individual levels is not compatible with sustainable economic well being.

Other testimony from the panels is available at the Committee website. Support for the Administration’s Housing Plan was also expressed by Ms. Molly Sheehan, speaking on behalf of JP Morgan Chase, William C. Erbey from Ocwen Financial; and, Michael Gross from Bank of America.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Heller, GOP members of HFS Committee prevent consumer testimony on panel

>The Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, and this would include newly minted member Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV2), found a particularly egregious way to prevent individuals who felt that they have been abused by the credit card industry from testifying – “At the last minute, the GOP insisted that these victims of arbitrary fee hikes (who’d flown into DC from around the country to tell their stories) had to sign a vaguely worded waiver permitting the credit card companies to discuss their credit histories publicly anywhere, any time.” (emphasis added) [Smintheus, Dkos] [MJ]

Interesting (?) that the Republicans haven’t required members of the military to release their entire service records for public perusal, nor required representatives of pharmaceutical corporations to open up their personnel files. The Republicans have also not required such ‘open-ness’ of defense contractors, telecom industry executives, nor of representatives of chemical or agri-business corporations. This is an outrageous breach of faith with American citizens who sought to provide the Congress with their observations, experience, and opinions.

Combine this “customer abuse” with the lack of transparency and often downright capriciousness of the credit card industry in regard to the retailers who agree to accept credit card payments and we have a situation in which the credit card corporations are treating both the retail customer and the retailers with perfect contempt.

The fight isn’t just between consumers and the credit card giants; retailers entered this fray last March. [Politico] The Merchants Payments Coalition, representing trade associations, is welcoming the possibility of anti-trust legislation in regard to interchange fees. [MPC] This stance is predicated in part on the lack of transparency in fee setting, leading to what the MPC bluntly calls “price fixing practices of the credit card industry.”

A business advice site offers the following guide to what the MPC is talking about: “When you accept a credit card payment, the processor deducts anywhere from 1 to 5 percent as a fee. The majority of this percentage goes to the card issuing company. Some merchant account providers may add their own percentage to this fee, which is why the base rate is not always consistent. If you have less-than perfect-credit, your merchant account percentage will be closer to the higher range.” [Allbus] A quick perusal of sites seems to substantiate the contention that the prices (transaction fees, etc.) are fixed at whatever the credit card industry wants them to be at any given moment for any given retailer.

Card-present credit card processing rate examples:
*Visa/Mastercard 1.74%, $0.25 per transaction;
*Visa/Mastercard 1.63%, $0.25 per transaction, with a $15.00 monthly minimum;
*$149 for terminal/printer, $1.65 per transaction, $0.25 transaction fee, $25.00 batch fee, $5.00 per month statement fee with no minimum;
*Linkpoint/printer $295, $10.00 monthly fee, 1.79% plus $0.23 per transaction.
Transactional fees for online retailers are 2-3% plus approximately $0.30 each time a customer makes a purchase. [TchCrnch]

One processing company offers retailers the following: 2.20% processing rate or a $10.00 per month minimum; a $0.25 Visa and Mastercharge per transaction fee; a $10.00 monthly gateway fee; a $6.00 monthly statement fee; and processing rates TBA for American Express and Discover – based either on a direct rate (AE) or the average transaction size (D). Another online processing service charges between 2.25% and 3.0% of the charged transactions; a marketplace transaction fee between $0.25 and $0.30 and between 0.12 and 0.18 per transaction for an Internet Merchant Account.

The MPC sums up the situation as follows: “Currently, credit card interchange rates are set in secret and hidden from view. Raising interchange fees is how Visa and MasterCard encourage banks to issue more credit and debit cards – as long as rising rates are kept top secret, consumers have no way of knowing the extra costs they are paying through higher prices.”

What are the credit card giants getting from the store owners who accept payments by plastic? Here’s the story from the convenience story perspective:

“In 2006, credit/debit card fees, as a percent of gross profit, were 7.6 percent, an increase from the 4.8 percent in 2002. On an industry-wide basis, the total cost of credit/debit fees was $6.6 billion, more than double the $3.2 billion in fees a recent as in 2003. The total cost of credit card fees ($6.6 billion) in 2006 exceeded convenience store industry profits ($4.8 billion), meaning the credit card industry took in more at the stores than the store owners themselves.” [NACS] (emphasis added)

Quite a racket, is it not? Especially when congenial Republicans, like Representative Dean Heller and his cohorts on the House Finance Committee, make it impossible for U.S. citizens to publicly air their grievances in Congressional testimony; and the Electronic Payments Coalition (banks) is putting out the following propaganda: “We understand that every business wants to find ways cut overhead costs for valued services. But government intervention in a system that is clearly working well for all parties in the marketplace would be counterproductive and ultimately harmful for all involved.” The idea that this system is working well for everyone can’t be substantiated by cutting off testimony – or by requiring judicial decisions before the EPC members can be ‘persuaded’ to release information about their fee setting policies. [MPC]

So, the next time Representative Heller wants to speak publicly about education, do we have him sign a waiver releasing all his school records K-16? If he wants to talk about health insurance can we ask for the release of his personal medical records and those of the members of his family who are listed as dependents on his policy? Would he agree, in a vaguely worded waiver, to allow us to discuss these any time, anywhere? Or will we, as consumers and perhaps as retailers, discover that Representative Heller is more interested in the welfare of the credit card giants than Nevada consumers and small business owners?