Fill In the Blanks

A New Yorker story published online this morning describes yet another example of a financial debacle abetted by government corruption. As I read the first paragraph, it struck me that the basic plot is always the same – all you need to do is fill in the blanks:

In the spring of _______, as the reelection campaign of ______ was gathering momentum, a group of prominent _____ businessmen met for breakfast at the ________ to see the candidate. Among them was _____, the chief executive officer of _____, a fast and freewheeling financial institution that had brought together some of the most colorful and politically well-connected _____ in the country….

Last week’s final report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission explains in intricate detail why and how the U.S. economy imploded in 2008, but isolates no single, primary cause of the crisis. The Commission says that the crisis was “avoidable” and notes that “widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets,” but this is just one Commission conclusion of many. As Joe Nocera points out, the report never gets to the bottom line.

Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America,” published in March 2009, got right to the bottom line in its title. We didn't need subpoena power or a large staff to figure out what happened, just the willingness to say what everybody in the Wall Street/Washington axis of power already knew. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the financial industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation, based on "derivatives" and other financial schemes that even the CEOs themselves didn't understand, came to a halt when the housing bubble burst and Wall Street couldn't even figure out the value of the investments it held. The financial industry panicked, threatened to shut down the system, and got the government to undertake the mother of all bailouts - trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other goodies.

In short: the power of money poisoned our policies and our politics, with dire consequences for all of us who don't enjoy the special favors that only vast quantities of money can buy.

The Commission, created and appointed by Congress and composed of members of the political elite, could not possibly issue that indictment. Which is why the discussion of the bailout – the most obvious example of the special status of the privileged in our country – is a measly five pages out of 410.

The American public deserves better. In other man-made national disasters, like the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 25 years ago, experts in the field – astrophysicists, geologists, academics – were asked to undertake an independent investigation. Their reports secured the confidence of the public, and led to remedial actions. NASA was not allowed to investigate itself, and lo and behold, it turned out that the culture at NASA was ultimately responsible for a design defect in the rocket.

Because it retreats from the fundamental truths, the Commission's report does nothing to help us come to grips with the root cause of the financial crisis: the corruption of our democracy by special interest money.  I know from more than thirty years of fighting for consumer rights – particularly in the insurance marketplace – that industry lobbyists and unlimited money to politicians almost inevitably kill  legislation that would help average people. Even the feeble, loophole-ridden campaign laws that limited how much big corporations could spend in elections are in jeopardy, thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Citizens United case, which decreed that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as human beings. Here in California, the voters have the ability to go around a paralyzed legislature and put matters on the ballot for a direct vote of the people, but even this populist process is increasingly abused by special interests that want to block consumers from having their day in court, or by a single company like Mercury Insurance, who thought it could fool the voters into permitting auto insurance overcharging.

Naming a thing for what it is aids understanding, which leads to action and ultimately recovery. Absent the cleansing force of honesty, we remain rooted in fear for our kids, for America’s future. Indeed, there is something deeply foreboding about the country’s degraded democracy and disabled economy. Some of the old clichés are becoming a sickening reality. We used to idly wonder, are we Rome, a corrupt empire in the process of collapse? A thoughtful, almost poetic book by that name, written by Cullen Murphy, suggests we are.

The term “third world” was once a sneer, connoting abject poverty, corruption, gross disparities between rich and poor, the absence of government services, a state controlled by a cabal of self-perpetuating leaders. Now consider the statistics on post-collapse America, which Arianna Huffington marshals in her latest book, "Third World America."

This would be a good point to fill in the blanks in the piece I excerpted above from the New Yorker story. The missing words are: 2009, President Hamid Karzai, Afghan, presidential palace, Khalil Ferozi, Kabul Bank, Afghans. Yesterday’s New York Times reported that fraud and mismanagement at the largest bank in Afghanistan has resulted in $900 million in losses, potentially triggering a financial debacle. Kabul Bank is “too big to fail,” according to Western diplomats quoted by the Times. It's the same story everywhere, and thus it would hardly come as a surprise if U.S. taxpayers ended up funding the bailout of Kabul Bank.

Congress / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Harvey Column / Too Big To Fail - 01/31/2011

Big Bank Launches Attack on Military Families

America’s least-hated banker hasn’t had much to say about how his institution, JPMorgan Chase, wrongfully foreclosed on 14 military families and overcharged thousands of others.

That banker would be Jaime Dimon, the subject of a flattering profile in the New York Times magazine last month, in which he was portrayed as an astute and careful risk manager and staunch defender of the benefits of large banks. Dimon admitted that he wasn’t careful enough before the financial collapse – he missed the problems posed by the securitized pools of investments stocked with bad mortgages that nearly sank the economy.

In the wake of disclosures last year about massive problems in the foreclosure process, Dimon led the charge in dismissing them. He appeared to be less concerned with evidence of bankers’ extreme carelessness than he was that the efforts of 50 states' attorneys general to investigate might slow down the housing recovery.

As Fortune reported, “He (Dimon) strode into the foreclosure fiasco last fall with guns blazing, as usual, claiming Chase wouldn't be tarnished by the banking industry's mortgage misbehavior.”

Dimon has repeatedly insisted his bank hadn’t wrongly foreclosed on anyone.

Whoops.

Over the last several weeks, the news media has reported that JPMorgan Chase had wrongfully foreclosed on 14 active-duty military families and overcharged thousands more on their mortgages.

Bank officials said they discovered mistakes and were in the process of reversing the foreclosures and about $2 million in fees to 4,000 families that the bank overcharged.

The bank may have discovered those ‘mistakes’ in the process of preparing their response to a lawsuit filed by a South Carolina Marine captain whose house they foreclosed on, in violation of the protections provided by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Under that law, banks aren’t supposed to charge active-duty members of the military more than 6 percent interest on the mortgages.  In addition, members of the military are supposed to be exempt from the delinquency process – including foreclosure.

The Marine captain, Jonathan Rowles, is serving in South Korea. His wife, Julia Rowles, told National Public Radio that she and her husband have been fighting with Chase ever since Rowles was commissioned as an officer five years ago.

They got harassing collection calls, sometimes in the middle of the night, Julia Rowles said. "They would say, 'we will take your house. We will report you to the credit agency. This is a bad situation that you don't want to be getting into. Pay us today.' ”

The bank was charging them 9 to 10 percent interest and nearly $2,000 a month, when they should have been paying $1,400."

JPMorgan’s Dimon has sent his PR spokesmen to deal with the mess. Back in November, Dimon has insisted that his bank is especially friendly toward those who serve their country. On Veterans’ Day, he was touting JPMorgan’s increased efforts to recruit veterans because “it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.”

In the wake of JPMorgan’s disclosures, other big banks, including Citibank, Ally Bank and Goldman Sach’s Litton Loans are reviewing their policies concerning home lending to military families.

Unfortunately, the JPMorgan fiasco is only the latest in a long, tawdry history of financial institutions targeting members of the military for predatory lending. During the recent fight over financial reform, the nation’s military leaders had fought to have the nation’s car dealers covered by the new financial consumer protection agency. But they were no match for the clout of the car dealers, who won the exemption they lobbied for.

According to Army Times, Chase has advertised itself as a military-friendly bank since at least 2005, when it began touting its Home Finance Military Mortgage program, which offers a discount on closing costs in home purchases or refinancing for military members and retirees. Mobilized National Guard and reserve members who had a Chase mortgage in good standing could defer entire mortgage payments for up to 18 months during call-ups. Both those initiatives go beyond the requirements of the SCRA. A bank spokesman couldn’t say if any of the 4,000 service members receiving checks, or Rowles, for that matter, participated in those initiatives.

In November, Dimon celebrated Veterans’ Day by touting his banks’ efforts to recruit those who served their country to work at JPMorgan because “it’s the right thing to do.”

This week Dimon is off to the meeting of the global elite at Davos, Switzerland, where he was complaining about the unjustified hostility toward his profession. “I just think this constant refrain [of] ‘bankers, bankers, bankers,’ - it’s just a really unproductive and unfair way of treating people,” Dimon said. “People should just stop doing that.”

Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage - 01/27/2011

Night on Fantasy Island

As a snapshot of the wildly dysfunctional state of our political union, last night’s festivities were a smashing success. All sides were serving up plenty of mom, apple pie and platitudes while ignoring what’s actually left on plates of millions of Americans –nothing.

I did find at least something to agree with in what each of the speakers said. Who can quarrel with President Obama when he calls on us to “win the future?” And I want my government as lean and mean as Paul Ryan and the Republicans do, without any wasteful subsidies that boost corporate tycoons and their overseas expansion rather than creating decent-paying jobs here at home.

It’s true that the tea party’s spokeswoman, Rep. Michele Bachman of Minnesota, looked like aliens had captured her brain and were speaking through her. Maybe we would have been better off if the aliens had captured Obama and Ryan too. At least Bachman briefly took note of the high unemployment rate before she went off to into her own rhetorical fantasyland.

That’s more than you can say for President Obama, who was pitching us his hallucination that his new pals from the Chamber of Commerce are going to beat their corporate profits into ploughshares in partnership with government, in an effort to foster new technologies and growth that we all share. Forgive me if I can’t get too worked up about this. Didn’t we try this government-corporate partnership recently? Wasn’t that what the bailout was?

Back here on Planet Earth, that didn’t work out so well for a lot of us, though it does seem to have worked well for the president’s friends at General Electric and JPMorgan Chase.

Both Ryan and Bachman aren’t interested in any partnerships; they want to dismantle government altogether so that GE, JPMorgan and the rest of the corporatariat can run the show without any interference at all. The only difference is that Bachman would like to do it faster, with less nice talk, than Ryan.

Neither the president, Ryan, or Bachman could focus on reality long enough to mention the long, steep decline of the middle class or the on-going foreclosure crisis, or offer any specific ideas on addressing those very real issues.

Back here on Planet Earth, we’re going to have to harness all of our ingenuity, strength and diversity just to wrestle our political system back from these leaders and their corporate backers before they plunder what’s left of it.

Congress / Financial Crisis / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/26/2011

Quotable – FCIC report

“The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire,” the report states. “The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.”

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, January,  2011

Uncategorized - 01/26/2011

Stand Up Against Fear, Mr. President

Dear Mr. President:

I'm glad to see reports that you don’t intend to call for cuts to Social Security, as your hand-picked so-called deficit commission recommended.

But turning over the Social Security debate to Congress and standing back to see what they come up with is not good enough, Mr. President.

It’s time for you to take on those who want to undermine Social Security protections under the guise of concern over the deficit, rather than enable them, as you have been doing by stacking your deficit commission with members who had previously supported cuts to Social Security.

Now it’s time for you to fight back against the fear-mongering propaganda campaign that’s been trying to whip up a phony crisis around Social Security, not to stand on the sidelines, Mr. President.

Yes, it will be a tough fight. The pundits, Republicans, many in your own party and a gang of Wall Street tycoons are lined up against you.

But the good news for you politically, Mr. President, is that a majority of the people in the country are lined up with you, should you choose to lead them in this fight.

This is a fight we can win, Mr. President. It’s good politics and it’s good sense.

Yes, it means you’ll have to go up against some of the bankers you’ve been trying to get cozy with. You’ll have to stand up and speak out against the fear that the Social Security cutters are peddling. But if you choose to lead this fight, you may remember that’s why we elected you.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Social Security - 01/25/2011

Rearranging the Deck Chairs Tonight

U.S. Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, thinks Republican and Democratic members of Congress should sit with each other, rather than separately by party, when President Obama makes his State of the Union speech tonight in the Capitol. In a letter to the leadership of the House and the Senate that has gotten a lot of attention in D.C., Udall said that “partisan seating arrangements at State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States…. The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room – while the other side sits – is unbecoming of a serious institution.  And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the President is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two.”

Udall is right about the symbolism of the tradition, which dates back two centuries, but his proposal is just more symbolism.

This isn’t one of those dinner parties where the hosts break up the married couples to inspire more lively conversation. Sitting next to each other isn’t going to stop the Democrats from applauding, or the Republicans from sitting on their hands or worse, like when a congressman from South Carolina screamed “you lie” during a health care speech by Obama to a joint session of Congress in 2009, or when at last year's State of the Union, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito visibly disagreed when the President criticized one of the Roberts court’s more extreme examples of judicial activism. With differences so deep, putting congresspeople within reach of each other may not be a good idea at all.

So what exactly is the attraction of Udall’s proposal? As in every mass tragedy in recent years – from JFK’s assassination to 9/11 to the carnage in Arizona – there is a brief period in which people want to reach out, beyond politics, for reassurance that we are all, or at least most of us, still human beings. We’re still within that gauzy penumbra. Speaking in Tucson, Professor Obama got high marks from the opinionators and the public for pointing out that incivility cannot explain insanity – and thus smothering the debate over the name-calling and extreme partisan politics of our era. But is that really the problem in America today?

True, the majority of Americans probably are uncomfortable with the current decibel level. We remember wistfully an America when things were better all around – or perhaps merely seemed so. But there is, without any question, plenty of reason to be angry right now. Not since the Depression have so many people suffered while so few prosper. Our American spirit has been shaken, maybe shattered. We have been betrayed by those we entrusted to protect us.

I don’t agree with many of the loudest, angriest people, but I don’t blame them for being loud or angry.

Sometimes that’s the only way you get things done.

Addressing another exercise in symbolism – a new non-profit political organization called “No Labels” dedicated to “bipartisanship” – New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently made the point: “The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation.”

When you look at what has happened to this country, the dire conditions at home and the dangers we face abroad, and what we have to do to make sure our kids have some measure of the security and prosperity we enjoyed, talking about where members of Congress sit is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Congress / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 01/25/2011

Death by a Thousand "Buts"

After two years in office, President Obama has decided it's time to fix one of the colossal mistakes of his predecessor: too much federal regulation.

I don't remember George W. Bush as a consumer advocate who, in his zeal to regulate corporations, got carried away. But last week President Obama announced a new priority for his administration. Federal regulations “sometimes have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs,” the President explained, implying that it was in fact the government that crippled our economy, just like pro-corporate conservatives have been saying.

Faced with this threat to our national security, there was only one thing to do, and Obama stepped up. He commanded the entire federal government to review every regulation on the books and get rid of “outdated” rules and “unnecessary paperwork.” In a rousing call to arms, the President concluded: “This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary.”

Obama didn’t invent the cost/benefit approach to regulation. That was concocted by big business-funded think tanks and adopted by President Ronald Reagan, who issued Executive Order 12291 immediately after taking office in 1981. Its preface is eerily similar to Obama’s, proposing “to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations…”

Reagan demanded that any regulation that imposed costs on businesses that exceeded its "benefits" be eliminated. The problem is that cost/benefit analysis doesn’t always take into account certain intangible considerations or values that are difficult to quantify in dollars, such as the benefits of unpolluted water or the worth of a human being. In an infamous internal memo (PDF) uncovered in litigation over the now extinct Ford Pinto’s exploding gas tank, company executives compared the cost of fixing the vehicles ($137 million) versus what it would have to pay for expected deaths and injuries ($49.5 million) and decided that the cost of repairing each car - $11 dollars – exceeded the benefits.

Government is supposed to protect us against such reasoning, not use it as a guiding principle.

I was working at Public Citizen Congress Watch in Washington, D.C. at the time, and Reagan’s disdain for government regulation  became the centerpiece of his Administration agenda. James Watt, Reagan’s controversial appointee to the Interior Department, sacked the agency, turning it into a mouthpiece for oil, mining and other industries supposedly regulated by the agency. The Reagan Administration’s deregulation of savings banks led to reckless investments, fraud and corruption, necessitating a bailout – sound familiar? – that ultimately cost taxpayers about $124 billion.

Is history repeating itself? In a nod to those who supported him as a candidate because of his forceful speeches against special interests and corporate abuses, President Obama was careful to acknowledge the importance of “child labor laws,” “the Clean Air Act” and federal rules against “hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies.” In a nod to the elephant in a pink dress sitting on the divan in our living rooms, the President noted that “a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.” “Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps” in federal rules, Obama insisted.

It's painfully obvious that the President hoped his foray into Reagan-style anti-regulation rhetoric would curry favor with Wall Street, its wholly-owned subsidiary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and their toadies in Congress. They’ve been very, very mad at the President ever since he had the temerity to sign a toothless financial reform bill that left the financial industry free to revert to its pre-bailout speculative ways, not to mention the hopelessly compromised health care law that requires every American to buy health insurance from private insurance companies starting in 2014, but does not effectively regulate how much we have to pay them.

Obama went so far as to announce his new regulatory policy in a guest column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, where at least one attack on Obama is on the menu every day.

This latest gesture of appeasement didn’t work out as the President hoped, though. "Yes, but" was the nearly universal response from the intended recipients of the President’s largesse, as Associated Press reporter Tom Raum reported. For your convenience, I’ve highlighted the “but factor”:

“Obama’s action is ‘a positive first step,’ said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business organization. But, Donohue added, ‘a robust and globally competitive economy requires fundamental reform of our broken regulatory system.’ He called on Congress to 'reclaim some of the authority it has delegated to agencies.’"

“The National Association of Manufacturers said it ‘appreciated’ Obama’s call for a regulatory review, but called for Obama to demonstrate results by ‘delaying poorly thought-out proposals that are costing jobs,’ listing the EPA’s proposals to regulate greenhouse gases as a prime example."

A “spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, called Obama’s review a welcome acknowledgment that government regulations have economic consequences. But he said the president should take bolder steps immediately.”

"David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, said in an interview that it was ‘fully appropriate to engage in a baseline review of existing federal regulations.’ But Walker, head of a balanced-budget advocacy group called Comeback America Initiative, questioned having the agencies themselves hunt for harmful regulations. ‘We need to have an independent review process that has transparency,” he said. Walker said many of today’s regulations date back to the 1950s and need to be revamped.”

For a little conjunctional variety, here's the response of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:

“Obama’s executive order ‘shows that he heard the same message I did in the last election - that Americans are sick and tired of Washington’s excessive overreach and overspending.’ ‘While I applaud his efforts, we must go further,’ Kantor added. He proposed more aggressive steps to strike down ‘needless and burdensome’ regulations that plague businesses and stifle job growth.”

President Obama still doesn’t understand that his political opponents will never voluntarily support anything he does, short of a complete capitulation (and perhaps not even then). This is not just a matter of interest to the political class. If the White House spends the next two years trying to placate the implacable, the rules, regulations and legislation needed to restore the economy and protect the public health and safety are never going to see daylight.

A NOTE TO READERS: If you like what you read here, please share it with your friends on Facebook, Twitter etc. - click on the icons at the top of this column.

Congress / Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Harvey Column / President Barack Obama - 01/24/2011

The Road From Memphis

President Obama and his family celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday by painting fruit characters on a schoolhouse wall as part of anti-obesity campaign.

Evoking King’s legacy, the president didn’t mention Memphis.

That was the slain civil rights leader’s last campaign. He went to support a hotly contested unionization effort on the behalf of the city African-American sanitation workers.

Listening to President Obama’s remarks on King’s birthday, you might think that the slain civil rights leader was mainly about encouraging volunteerism.

No doubt child nutrition is an important issue. But reducing King’s legacy to some bland notion of community service seriously understates what King, and the others who struggled alongside him, were about.

King upset people. He challenged power. He divided the country. During his lifetime, politicians demonized him. Law enforcement wiretapped and harassed him.

King, meanwhile, moved from a struggle for civil rights for minorities to a broader struggle for economic rights.

In Memphis, conflict had been building since February 1968, when two black sanitation workers were crushed to death when the compactor mechanism of their trash truck was accidentally triggered during a heavy rain.

On the same day in a separate incident also related to the bad weather, 22 black sewer workers had been sent home without pay while their white supervisors were retained for the day with pay. A couple of weeks later most of he city’s black sanitation workers began a strike for job safety, better wages and benefits, and union recognition.

The mayor, Heny Loeb, staunchly opposed the workers' demands, especially union recognition, and he resisted all efforts to resolve the strike.

King had led a march in support of the strikers in late March but he was deeply distressed when it turned violent and one man was killed. Nonetheless he returned to the city a week later to participate in another march. Several days before the march was scheduled, as King stepped out of his motel for dinner, he was assassinated.

Only after King’s death did the sanitation workers win their struggle for better working conditions and union recognition.

Is it any wonder that President, who every day binds himself more tightly to the interests of Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce, wouldn’t want to invoke this more challenging aspect of King’s legacy?

Obama’s election can be seen as the historic culmination as just one of King’s ambitious goals. But on the road that took King to Memphis, we still have a long way to go.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/18/2011

King's Longest March

Everybody wants to claim a piece of the spirit of Martin Luther King in support of his or her cause. A Pentagon official even had the nerve to say King, who championed nonviolence, would have supported U.S. wars in Afghanistan.

That’s an especially dubious assertion given that the civil rights leader became an increasingly vocal opponent of the Vietnam war, in a move that cost him some support.

What would King make of the U.S. in 2011?

We don’t need to guess. We have the record of his words and deeds, especially in his final year.

As early as 1957, King was highlighting the disparities between rich and poor, In a speech celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Highlander Center, a grass-roots organizing center in Tennessee, he said: “I never intend to adjust myself to the tragic inequalities of an economic system which takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes.”

By 1963 King was moving his fight for strictly civil rights for minorities, like voting and equal access to public facilities, toward a broader struggle for economic rights for the disadvantaged and least powerful, recognizing that civil rights without economic rights couldn’t guarantee the opportunity and justice for all promised that was key to the great democratic experiment “What good is to it have the right to be able to sit at a lunch counter,” he asked, “if you can’t afford a hamburger.”

He gave the “I have a dream” speech that galvanized a nation at a march on Washington that demanded both jobs and freedom.

But it was in the last year of his life that his focus on economic injustice became most acute and profound.

He put in motion an effort to organize poor people, not just to focus on their plight, but also so they could fight for better jobs and decent housing for themselves.

King certainly would have celebrated the historic election of the nation’s first black president, and Obama began his presidency by evoking King’s spirit.

But the civil rights leader- he would have recognized that that election was not a resting place amid the economic suffering of so many.

He would not have abided the bailouts and tax cuts that allowed bankers and the wealthiest to prosper while those without access to the backrooms of power suffer. He would not have abided the widening gulf between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans, knowing the dire consequences of that division, not just for the poor and the middle class but also for the whole country.

He also would not have been surprised how tough it is to fight the entrenched power of corporations brought back from the dead by compliant politicians.

“It’s much easier to integrate a lunch counter than it is to guarantee a livable income and a good solid job,” King said in April 1967 at Stanford University in a speech entitled `The Other America' that rings as sadly true today as it did more than 40 years ago, with its reference to "work-starved men searching for jobs that don't exist".

“It's much easier to guarantee the right to vote than it is to guarantee the right to live in sanitary, decent housing conditions," King said at Stanford. "It is much easier to integrate a public park than it is to make genuine, quality, integrated education a reality. And so today we are struggling for something which says we demand genuine equality.”

Tomorrow: King in Memphis

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/17/2011

High Court's Low Opinion of Foreclosure Practices

Apparently the Massachusetts Supreme Court neglected to read the bipartisan memo reminding politicians and judges to refrain from doing anything that might upset the banks.

Most judges have shown extraordinary deference to bankers, even amid growing evidence that those bankers haven’t been following the law in pursuing foreclosures.

That may be beginning to change, in the wake of a Massachusetts ruling against banks in a closely watched foreclosure case.

Right now the decision only has force in Massachusetts. But as other cases challenging foreclosures make their way through the courts across the country, other judges are likely to be guided by it. In addition, the ruling will also provide guidance for lawyers posing legal challenges to other mortgages scrambled in the securitization process.

The Obama administration has consistently downplayed evidence of rampant fraud and sloppiness in the way banks split up, packaged and sold off mortgages to investors in the heat of the housing bubble.

Almost all subprime mortgages as well as millions of conventional mortgages originated before the meltdown were securitized and sold to investors. Securitized mortgages account for more than half of the $14.2 trillion in the total outstanding U.S. mortgage debt.

Bankers have tried to dismiss these problems with what’s known as the securitization process as a matter of mixed-up paperwork that can be straightened out.

But the highest level court to examine the issue thus far took the issue much more seriously. Last week the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated what had become a common practice – banks seeking to foreclose on properties without properly holding ownership of the promissory note and mortgage as part of the securitization. The court  focused heavily on the use of the power of sale contained in mortgages; the same power exists in the vast majority of California deeds of trust.

Ruling in a closely watched case, the high court rejected arguments by U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. that they didn’t have to prove their authority to foreclose. The banks had argued that evidence that they intended to transfer ownership was enough to establish their standing to foreclose.

The ruling makes dense but fascinating reading, with some passages coming through loud and clear even if you’re not steeped in real estate law.

The justices stressed they weren’t creating any new interpretation of law. “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes,” wrote Justice Ralph D. Gants. “All that has changed is the (banks) apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.”

Banks have argued that their “pooling and servicing agreements” allowed them to transfer mortgages to securitized trusts “in blank” without specifying whom the new owner would be.

But the justices ruled in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez that the “foreclosing party must hold the mortgage at the time of the notice and sale in order accurately to identify itself as the present holder and in order to have the authority to foreclose under the power of sale...”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Cordy wrote: “There is no dispute that the mortgagors (borrowers) had defaulted on their obligations.”

But that’s not the legal standard. “Before commencing such an action...the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order,” Cordy stated.

The ruling could lead to an increase in complicated and expensive litigation, if those whose homes have already been foreclosed on sue to challenge the financial institutions’ authority to conduct the foreclosures. Investors may also sue, contending that the banks didn’t properly document the ownership trail on the mortgages contained in a particular investment pool.

Can banks go back in and straighten out their securitization mess? So far the banks are downplaying the significance of the ruling. But untangling the paperwork may not be so easy. Many of the entities that created the securitized pools have gone bankrupt or dissolved into other businesses. At the very least, it could pose a costly and complicated process for the bankers, one that would entail taking a hard look at the details of the deals that led to the country’s financial collapse.

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 01/11/2011