My name is Rolando A. Banciella, I was born in Cuba and came to The United States shortly before my 10th birthday and have lived in Miami-Dade County since. I am single and don't have any children. I have an Associate of Arts degree in Economics from Miami-Dade College. I have worked in several industries including banking and I have been a real estate agent since 1997.

In 2008 shortly before the Presidential election, when concerns were raised about the economy and the potential effects on banks because of large numbers of defaulting mortgages, the government came up with a plan to give the big banks $700 billion. At the time I felt this would not address the real problem. The real problem was the inability of many homeowners to pay their mortgages. The banks in an effort to increase their income gave out too many adjustable mortgages with very low introductory interest rates. The banks counted on real estate constantly appreciating. Thus, banks would provide mortgages to homeowners way beyond their means. Their position was that the homeowner could always sell the property if they got into trouble at a higher value than they bought it at. This shortsighted manner of doing business was the way for banks to show great quarterly profits.

I came up with a simple solution to fix this problem. Instead of giving the $700B to the big banks simply to prop up their financial statements, we could have used the money to bail out the mortgage holders. We would have had very few foreclosures, banks would have eliminated most of their troubled mortgages and would have had new funds to lend – not shutting down the economy. The idea was to adjust all troubled mortgages to 1%. At this rate, most mortgage holders would have been able to pay their mortgage and keep their homes. How would this have worked? The U.S. Government would have borrowed the money at an interest rate of approximately 4%. This would have been paid back by the mortgage holder’s 1% and the banks would pay the difference (3%). Instead of writing off millions and millions of dollars in bad loans, banks would have only had to pay 3%. The most important part would be been that it would have costs tax payers ZERO.  For more details on this program click here. 

The new administration would not have needed the Stimulus Program and we would have saved $787B. And most importantly, the economy would have bounced back much faster.

I tried to share my idea with several members of Congress but no one would listen.

Now there is a new problem coming down the road, Social Security. When President Clinton left the White House, there was a surplus budget and a projected surplus that would have been able to handle Social Security through 2016. But President Bush, in an attempt to pay back his wealthy contributors, decided to give the biggest tax break ever in 2001 without any regard to the future of the country or the coming challenges with Social Security. Then in 2003, President Bush thought about the future - his re-election. Though we were fighting two wars – he gave a second tax cut in 2003 to his potential richest contributors for his re-election. 

The Republican Party is not going to mention Social Security in the coming election but several key members of Congress are running with a program called “Road Map for America's Future”. This plan was designed by the future Chairman of the Budget Committee, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. This “map” includes killing Social Security and affecting other social services.

I strongly believe that Social Security is not bankrupt but mismanaged. 

The number one reason that I am running is to make sure this time someone listens and that Social Security is saved.