Florida’s Universal School Choice & Pay for Play Fraud by the FDIC – Top 3 Takeaways – March 28th, 2023
- Universal School Choice is a reality in Florida. Governor DeSantis wasted no time on Monday in signing Florida’s Education legislation, which expands school vouchers to all parents of K-12 children effective July 1st. In signing the legislation DeSantis said: Florida is number one when it comes to education freedom and education choice, and today’s bill signing represents the largest expansion of education choice in the history of these United States. When asked about cost concerns he’d previously mentioned when discussing the legislation, he said: One, the amount of scholarship money is less than what would go per-pupil for public anyway. Second, since I’ve been Governor, we’ve raised the amount of funding to our public schools every year. I mean, the idea that they’ve been starved that theoretically could happen … that’s a choice that legislators and a Governor would make but the push is to have more funding for the school districts. The vouchers, worth approximately $8,000 per student, will be available to be used at the school of a parent and student’s choosing for the 2023-2024 school year with those of the most modest means being prioritized for the schools of their choice first. And while there will be a lot of details which will need to be sorted out, including uncertainty pertaining to how many parents and students will opt to use vouchers to migrate to new schools, what’s most important is that you finally have a choice. It’s always been our tax money. It only makes sense that we’re able to use it on the education we feel is best for our children. Yesterday was a huge day for future generations in Florida.
- The FDIC has stolen your money to bailout millionaire and even billionaire donors. The reason this is a top takeaway today and the reason I’m taking time to tell the story I’m getting ready to tell is because it’s important that you know the truth of what’s really happened since the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and what it means to you. I’m rather certain I’m the only one you’ll hear this detailed analysis from. And it’s important. The bailout of all the deposits of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank isn’t new. The FDIC did it over two weeks ago now. What is new is the deal the FDIC cut over the weekend to sell some of the assets of Silicon Valley Bank to First Citizens Bank, and the cost to me and you. In order to find a buyer for Silicon Valley Bank’s assets, as the FDIC violated their charter and mandate, by backstopping deposits in excess of $250,000 per individual, they had to offer a deep discount on them. The total discount offered up before a buyer stepped up? 23%. And what does that mean to me and you? While many have reported that First Citizens purchased most of the SVB assets, that isn’t true. At least by way of value. What First Citizens purchased represented just 44% of the total value of the SVB assets at the time the feds took control of the bank. And by offering the discount necessary to sell those assets, the FDIC has already assumed losses of greater than $20 billion. And how is that money set to be recouped? You guessed it. We’ll pay for it. The FDIC will soon impose a fee on all existing FDIC insured banks to cover the cost of the losses. And who pays for those fees? Yes, of course it’s us. And that doesn’t necessarily mean banks will impose new or even higher fees on us, though some may. Often the impacts are far more opaque. A la, lower offered interest rates on interest bearing accounts, or higher interest rates charged for loans. And this is just the starting point for the conversation. If the FDIC unwinds the remaining SVB assets at the same discount as the first to be sold (which is very much in doubt), they’ll lose another $23+ billion which will bring about another round of fee assessments. And this is all without having any idea of what losses at similarly seized Signature Bank will be. And yes, make no mistake...
- There are clear political connections. 95% of all deposits in Silicon Valley and Signature Bank were above the FDIC insured limit. How is it defensible that the FDIC, which only legally protects $250,000 in deposits per person or entity, chose to bailout banks with accounts that were almost exclusively above that level and then make you and me pay for it? It isn’t of course but it is highly political. From individual political donations of executives at Silicon Valley Bank, to donations made using bank resources, they’ve overwhelmingly been geared towards one political party. Since inception, greater than 82% of all political contributions from Silicon Valley Bank were given to Democrats. And in last year’s cycle who did they fork over the most money to? Democrat Senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. That’s a long way from Silicon Valley. In fact, they even contributed to the failed Val Demmings bid here in Florida. And in the 2020 cycle, it was none other than Joe Biden who received the lion’s share of their funds. In fact, they didn’t just fund candidates, they were a huge funder of the DNC Service Corp, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Lincoln Project. Now, I’m sure we’re simply to believe that the FDIC breaking their mandate, violating their charter racking up tens of billions of dollars of losses in order to fully protect the accounts of their millionaire and billionaire donors that are then passed on to you and me isn’t at all a political kickback of sorts. But if it isn’t then what is it? Because it sure as heck looks like federally sanctioned pay-for-play fraud. The argument used for the full backstopping of the funds was that if the banks weren’t protected the banking crisis would have been worse. Well, riddle me this. Why is it that the losses couldn’t be paid out of the uninsured deposits at those failed intuitions as opposed to having to be paid by the rest of us? Where’s the systemic risk in the millionaire and billionaire Democrat donors banking at SVB paying for the losses at the bank they used as opposed to average Americans who’d never even heard of the bank until it failed? At times conversations are had about a different set of rules applying for the “donor” class. What we’re in the middle of right now at the onset of the banking crisis is potentially the most egregious example to date.