How Mitt Could Win

Why doesn’t Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s free-market gospel include a ringing call to break up the too big to fail banks?

Over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute blog, James Pethokoukis suggests Romney could benefit if he did just that.

After all, this is no longer a position favored only by Occupy Wall Street.

All kinds of establishment figures now acknowledge that breaking up the big banks is needed to heal our financial system, and that as long as we don’t, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout.

The most recent public official to reach this conclusion is none other than Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve, who last week issued a report in which he concluded: “The too big to fail institutions that amplified and prolonged the recent financial crisis remain a hindrance to full economic recovery and to the very ideal of American capitalism.”

This should be catnip for Romney, who professes to be all about ending government interference in the free market.

What the Dallas Fed’s report makes clear is that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and the policies of the Obama administration haven’t lessened the power of the too big to fail banks, or made them healthier – it’s helped them gain market share while doing little to force them to reduce the same risky business practices that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

While Dodd-Frank theoretically sets up a process to deal with too big to fail institutions when they get in trouble, our politicians and regulators by their actions have signaled to the big banks that they don’t have the guts to break them up or get them to change how they do business.

For a politician in Romney’s position, staking out a position against the big banks would give him the high ground against the president, who claims to be reining in the banks’ bad behavior but isn’t.

It would help him with the Tea Party activists, who rail against the bank bailouts and crony capitalism. Promising tough action on the banks would also help him with independents who understandably don’t trust all the political double-talk they hear.

But Romney doesn’t have the  guts to do it. His free market rhetoric stops right at the bankers’ door, where he must appear meekly with hat in hand, asking for donations, just like the president of the United States, from bankers who continue to prosper only because of the trillions of dollars worth of favors done for them by politicians using taxpayers’ money.

The top 5 donors to Romney’s campaign are people associated with bailed out banks, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. The president raised an unprecedented $15.8 million from the financial sector in 2008, while his administration was in the midst of bailing them out. Though Romney has the edge in Wall Street fundraising now, the president has vowed to fight back ­– including a pledge not to demonize Wall Street.

The big media and the politicians all talk about these policies as though they’re great intellectual debates about clashing views of the role of government. But when it comes to the too big to fail banks, all Romney’s free market preaching is just so much hot air.

This is the dishonest heart of our politics. What neither Romney nor the president, nor apparently the American Enterprise Institute, can acknowledge is that it’s all about the money.

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 03/30/2012

Purchasing power, One-Percent style

There’s been a good deal of talk about how the Occupy movement “changed the debate in this country” to focus on income inequality.

But while members of Occupy Wall Street skirmished  with police over a patch of ground in lower Manhattan, the members of the country’s top 1 percent bypassed the political debate and have gone back to work wielding their influence in the corridors of power.

It’s been a particularly wrenching patch for the 99 percent, who are excluded from those corridors.

First, Congress this week, with President Obama’s blessing, passed something Republicans misleadingly labeled a JOBS Act, which basically gives a green light for fraud by removing important investor protections under the guise of promoting startups.

Second, Congress has been pushing financial regulators to weaken even further a mild piece of sensible financial regulation that would prevent banks from making risky gambles with their own accounts – the ones guaranteed by you and me as taxpayers. It’s the final coup de grace marginalizing the views of one-time Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker, for whom the rule is named. Volcker has been a lonely voice among the president’s financial advisers, advocating stronger action to rein in the behavior of the too big to fail banks. Largely ignored by the president, Volcker’s views are getting stomped by Congress and financial regulators.

There is no mystery why we have suffered these setbacks: our political system has been overwhelmed by the power of money. The bankers lobby has swarmed the Capitol to drown any opposition to its views. The bankers have also come with their checkbooks in an election year, and they’re looking to buy whoever is for sale, of whatever party. According to a new report by Public Citizen, politicians who advocated for a weaker Volcker rule got an average of $388,010 in contributions from the financial sector – more than four times as much as politicians advocating to strengthen the rule, who still managed to haul in an average of $96,897 apiece.

Our politicians, insulated by a celebrity-obsessed media and swaddled in Super PAC cash, could care less about the consent of the governed. Republicans have only to wave around their magic wand that makes all problems the fault of government regulation in order to hypnotize their followers, while the Democrats only have to remind their followers how scary the Republicans are to keep them in line.

Meanwhile, the Occupy movement, which started with such promise in galvanizing public support against corporate domination of our politics, has splintered into a thousand pieces, wasting precious energy and time in confrontations with police rather than building a broad-shouldered coalition working on many different social and political fronts.

The challenge for Occupy remains the same: building a force that actually includes the members of the 99 percent who have not yet gotten active, who may be still stuck in apathy, cynicism or hopelessness or who may simply not have a perspective that includes social and political action.

The next opportunity is a series of protests planned nationwide for May 1, which has traditionally been a time of action around the immigration rights issue. This year occupiers, labor allies and a variety of community organizations are planning to join their issues. Can we forge a message strong enough and the numbers large enough to rock the corridors of power?

Congress / Martin Column / Occupy / Paul Volcker - 03/28/2012

Etch-a-Sketch Politicians in a PAC Man world

Every once in a while a jaded political operative utters a profound truth, cutting through all the baloney and phony punditry.

That’s what Mitt Romney’s adviser did when he suggested that his boss could just hit “reset” and adopt more moderate positions once he locked up the Republican nomination and didn’t have to cater to the far right of his party. “It’s almost like an Etch-a-Sketch,” the aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, said. “You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”

Sure, all of Romney’s foes will now clobber him with his aide’s comments and try to score political points off the “gaffe.”

But Fehrnstrom was offering a truth that rarely gets told in big media about how our politicians operate.

Romney and his fellow candidates count on voters not to pay attention, to leave them plenty of room to gloss over earlier statements.

Politicians count on the media’s cynicism and its craven need for access to power to blunt any remaining watchdog instincts. The media ignore commitments the candidates make and contradictions between what they do and what they said, shrugging it off because “everybody does it.”

Romney has had to shake the Etch-a-Sketch hard to erase the image of himself as the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts whose own health care plan provided the template for President Obama’s health care plan, while candidate Romney now falls over himself to oppose the plan.

But the president has his own image shifts to answer for.

For example, candidate Obama portrayed himself as a strong advocate for the 99 percent, promising to change bankruptcy laws to help homeowners facing foreclosure keep their homes.

That shift, known as “judicial cram-downs,” would have provided a powerful incentive for banks to work out loan modifications with homeowners.

But when bankers fought cram-downs, President Obama quietly folded and judicial cram-downs died in Congress. Since then, the president and his administration have offered a series of limp anti-foreclosure measures that rely on voluntary bank cooperation, with paltry results.

But the Etch-a-Sketch is a pretty old toy. The current political season reminds me more of a slightly less retro game that gripped the public imagination – Pacman. In this wildly popular video game, a pizza-shaped icon gobbles up everything else on the screen.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling unleashes unlimited, anonymous contributions to political action committees, or PACs, aligned, but not formally tied, to specific candidates.

Unfortunately, when it comes to using the PACs to bolster their campaigns, the Republicans and Democrats are on the same page.

Both are eager to gobble up the gazillions of dollars available through the PACs, thoroughly undermining the spirit and practice of democracy, in which the majority, not the super-rich minority, are supposed to win.

The best way for us to shake up the political establishment, and the billionaires and big corporations who control it, is to fight for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Here’s our version of such an amendment, written in language that’s easy to understand and will withstand any legal challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens United / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 03/23/2012

Bipartisanship for dummies

Ever notice how all the dysfunctional wrangling in D.C. stops the minute our politicians need to do the 1 percent’s bidding?

When it comes to taking away your rights as an investor, consumer or citizen, politicians who can’t seem to agree on anything else seem to work together fine.

The latest proof that “bipartisanship” is a cynical gimmick is the so-called JOBS act, passed by the House with bipartisan support and now under consideration by the Senate, with the blessing of President Obama.

In this case, the bill’s original Republican sponsors came up with the idea of packaging a collection of measures that would weaken investor and consumer protections by the acronym JOBS, which stands for Jumpstart Our Business Startups.

After all, who could be against JOBS? Most Democrats in the House were happy to sign on – only 23 voted against it. Even Democratic representatives Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters voted for it.

Maybe these politicians thought the JOBS branding and the bipartisan marketing would conceal what the bill really was – the latest of several disastrous bills dismantling sensible financial regulation.

The JOBS act is the ugly stepchild of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Billey Act repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which kept banks from mingling federally-guaranteed banking activities from riskier activities, and the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act, a Frankenstein bill that kept credit default swaps deregulated and led to the Enron scandal in 2001.

Both pieces of legislation contributed directly to the 2008 financial collapse.

In the case of the JOBS act, it would gut many of the accounting reforms contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in the wake of the Enron debacle. The JOBS act would exempt emerging companies worth up to $1 billion from disclosure, reporting and governance rules. It would allow such companies to operate for 5 years without regulatory oversight.

John Coffee, securities law professor at Columbia University Law School, says it could be more accurately described as the “boiler room legalization act” because it would allow companies to raise money from small investors on the Internet, without any regulatory supervision, evoking the small operations that sold dubious investments over the phone using high-pressure tactics.

Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC, told San Francisco Chronicle columnist Kathleen Pender the bill was “a disgrace.”

In a scathingly sarcastic column in the New York Times, Pro Publica’s Jessie Eisenger wrote: “Nigeria shouldn’t be the only country to benefit from the Web. Right here in America, the elderly are increasingly attractive to a variety of entrepreneurial spirits. If JOBS becomes the law, such innovators could flourish.”

Barbara Roper, the Consumer Federation of America’s director of investment protection suggested that “Republicans cannot believe they have suckered the Democrats into taking up their idea that deregulation is the way to promote job growth.”

I don’t think the Democrats got suckered. I think they know exactly what they’re doing. President Obama has been struggling in his fundraising because Wall Street and the big-money donors have lost their enthusiasm for him this electoral cycle.

But he’s showing signs of bouncing back, after his campaign manager, Jim Messina, issued a pledge that the president would stop demonizing Wall Street. In February, the president went on a fundraising blitz, raising $45 million, up from $29 million the previous month.

But it’s still far less than the $56 million he raised during the same month in 2008, when he was fighting Hilary Clinton in a bruising primary campaign. The president and his party have to deliver for their funders, and the JOBS act is a perfect gift to show the big donors what they can expect for their generosity.

But they all must take us for a bunch of clods if they think we can’t tell the difference between a nasty attack on our rights and real jobs promotion.

Call your senator today and remind them you can’t be fooled by an acronym.  Suggest you know how to spell jobs, and this awful piece of legislation doesn’t.

 

Congress / Derivatives / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 03/20/2012

Muppets v. Goldman

It’s been a rough couple of months for the Muppets. First Fox News anchor Eric Bolling denounces their new movie as dangerous left-wing propaganda because it portrays a villainous oil company executive.

Then Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith quits his job and discloses in a scathing hatchet job of the firm’s culture that his fellow bailed-out bankers refer to their clients in a derogatory way as Muppets.

And what do they mean by that?

Hmmm. Maybe they think Muppets are puppets that are manipulated by their handlers. Maybe Goldman Sachs bankers imagine us to be lifeless sacks of cloth and yarn without spirit and voice, but we’re not.

And no self-respecting Muppet would put up with the shenanigans of Goldman Sachs (though I suppose their corporate owners, the Walt Disney Co., might).

The Muppets have always had a strong populist streak – they articulate sharp critiques of the Greed-is-Good Wall Street culture that Goldman appears proud to embody.

Check out the song “Money,” co-written by comedian Stan Freberg and Ruby Raskin. Performed by Dr. Teeth, it ridicules the rampant desire for more, more, more money at the expense of everything and everyone else.

At the end of the song, Dr. Teeth yanks a slot-machine handle on the side of his piano – which pays off.

If you have any doubt about whether the Muppets would side with the 1 percent or the 99 percent, check out their version of a “A Christmas Carol.”

In his farewell exposé—beyond his Muppet revelation— Smith merely confirms what we’ve already known: Goldman Sachs and the other powerful too-big-fail institutions believe they can get away with screwing their clients by protecting themselves with high-level political clout, bought with political contributions and cemented with interlocking relationships between the government and the firms.

As Robert Scheer points out, it was just a day before Smith unloaded on Goldman that a former top aide to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Jake Siewert, became the managing director and global head of Goldman’s corporate communications. Siewert is just the latest of a long line of public officials to cash in at the big banks.

How perfect that a high-level member of the Obama administration, which has chosen to align itself with the interests of the big banks time and time again, will now be the one to design Goldman’s defense against the bad publicity stemming from Smith’s oped.

Scheer, along with Matt Taibbi—another astute reporter/commentator on the financial collapse and its aftermath—are full of praise for Smith’s stepping out so publicly.

For myself, I wish that Smith had been willing to step up and connect Goldman’s policies to the financial collapse, not to mention the role Goldman has continued to play in rigging our political system to escape the consequences of its devastating greed and fraud.

That may be too much to ask of somebody on his first day out of the protective Goldman bubble. Make no mistake, it’s not just clients the firm has manipulated for its own gain.

Goldman and the other to-big-to-fail banks have turned us all into puppets, holding over our heads the specter of fear, and pulling the strings to secure a hefty back-door bailout for themselves.

As for the Muppets, I’m sure they’ll weather their current troubles with aplomb. Hopefully their creators are busy at work on a scheme for revenge.

I’ve never seen a Muppet either shut up or stand still while someone ties her hands behind her back. It’s the rest of us I’m worried about.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 03/17/2012

No-fault settlement fuels never-ending bailout

Two striking details reveal the true nature of the highly touted national foreclosure settlement.

The first is that the banks admit no wrongdoing.

Here’s a sample of the illegality and the misconduct with which the federal authorities and the 49 state attorneys general charged the banks. It goes way beyond robo-signing, the banks’ widespread practice of using forged or unverified documents in the foreclosure process:

▪                Providing false or misleading information to borrowers,

▪                Overcharging borrowers and investors for services of dubious value,

▪                Denying relief to eligible borrowers,

▪                Foreclosing on borrowers who were pursuing loan modifications,

▪                Submitting forged or fraudulent documents and making false statements in foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings

▪                Losing or destroying promissory notes and deeds of trust,

▪                Lying to borrowers about the reasons for denying their loan modifications,

▪                Signing affidavits without personal knowledge and under false identities,

▪                Improperly charging excessive fees related to foreclosures

▪                Foreclosing on service members on active duty

▪                Making false claims to the government for insurance coverage

But the feds and the state attorneys general want to let the banks off the hook without having to admit to any of it.

This is the kind of no-fault settlement for which the Securities and Exchange Commission has increasingly come under fire, [but which companies agree to as a cost of doing business. For example, the national foreclosure settlement only costs the banks about $5 billion in real money, a drop in the bucket compared to their profits. It’s not enough to actually deter the banks from future bad conduct.

The rest of its estimated $25 billion value is supposed to be determined by a complex series of credits that the bankers get for what they should be doing anyway – modifying mortgage loans and offering principal reductions to underwater homeowners.

The authorities still have to get a judge in Washington, D.C. to sign off on it.

Too bad the settlement wasn’t presented to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York, who’s been adamant in questioning no-fault settlements and refusing to rubber stamp them.

His comments, though directed at the SEC, are relevant to the national foreclosure settlement.

Rejecting an SEC no-fault settlement with Citigroup last November, Judge Rakoff said that such settlements are “hallowed by history, but not by reason” and create the potential for abuse because they ask “the court to employ its power and assert its authority when it does not know the facts.”

Rakoff questioned what government officials would get from the settlement “other than a quick headline.”

Though he was talking about an SEC settlement with Citigroup, he could have been describing the national foreclosure settlement, which exacts too little a price from banks for their wrongdoing and offers too little to homeowners.

The settlement provides that banks will spend $17 billion on principal reductions and another $3 billion on refinancings. But according to an analysis by the Brooking Institute’s Ted Gayer, less than 5 percent of the nation’s 11.1 million homeowners will qualify for help under the settlement.

It also presents the general laundry list of wrongdoing without any specificity – it names no names or specific facts. One of the big criticisms of the foreclosure settlement is that the authorities didn’t do a real law-enforcement style investigation to assemble a case before sitting down to “negotiate” the settlement, weakening their hand with the banks.

The second aspect of the foreclosure settlement that reveals its weakness is how the authorities are suggesting they’re going to monitor whether the banks will comply. Just exactly how are we going to make sure that the big banks deliver even the relatively small number of loan modifications and principal reductions they’ve promised?

According to the settlement, the banks themselves are going to self-report on their progress.

Then an “independent” monitoring committee is going to check these reports, and then levy fines if the banks aren’t hitting certain targets. But the monitors consist of the same regulators who have already facilitated the banks’ earlier failed foreclosure mitigation efforts, and have touted this current settlement as a “landmark.” Having already proved their reluctance to get tough on the banks so far, how much incentive do they have to get tough with banks later on?

It sounds flaky to me.

The whole robo-signing scandal stems from banks use of forged, false or unverified documents, poor recordkeeping and the inability of anybody in the courts or government to get the banks to follow the law or hold them accountable.

On top of that, when it comes to keeping their previous commitments to deliver loan modifications in earlier attempts to address the foreclosure crisis, the banks have failed miserably.  The investigative journalism outfit Pro Publica has assembled reams of data about the shortcomings of previous government-sponsored loan modification efforts.

So now we think it’s a good idea for them to police themselves?

The entire settlement looks more like the government’s latest efforts to prop up the nation’s floundering too big to fail banks than a real attempt at either law enforcement or robust help for homeowners and the housing market.

Where is Judge Rakoff when we really need him?

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / Outrage / Too Big To Fail - 03/14/2012

Nice recovery, if you can afford it

According to economists and the media, in June 2009 we came out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression and we’ve been on the upswing since. Unemployment’s down, with corporate profits recouping their losses from the recession and hitting new highs along with the stock market.

But it really continues to be a tale of two economies: one that works for the 1 percent and another, in which the 99 percent are increasingly falling behind.

For some striking evidence, look at the recent study by a prominent economist reported in the New York Times.

As the recovery took hold in 2010, UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saenz reported, the top 1 percent captured 93 percent of the income gains.

Top incomes grew 11.6 percent in 2010, while the incomes of the 99 percent increased only 0.2 percent. That tiny gain followed a drop of nearly 12 percent over the previous two years – the largest two-year drop since the Depression.

Other signs on the economic landscape also show the wreckage for those not protected by wealth.

Despite a dip in unemployment and the most the most recent more optimistic job creation numbers, the economy isn’t producing enough jobs on a sustained basis to permanently reduce unemployment. And many of the jobs that have been created pay severely reduced wages. Under the two-tiered wage systems increasingly favored by U.S. corporations, new blue-collar jobs pay start at a steeply lower hourly wage than they did in the past – $12 to $19 an hour as opposed to $21 to $32.

One in seven Americans are on food stamps, while high gas prices put the squeeze on low-income and working people alike. Meanwhile, foreclosures are on the rise in the wake of the state attorneys general announcement of a settlement over foreclosure fraud charges with the biggest banks, though the details of the settlement still haven’t been released.

The Occupy movement has put the great divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent on the political map, forcing President Obama to acknowledge income inequality in his state of the union speech as the “defining issue” of our time, while the Republican’s front-running presidential candidate, Mitt Romney has dismissed such concerns as “envy.”

Obama’s concern about inequality has yet to translate itself into effective action, and it’s unclear, given the strong ties he’s had to the big banks and corporate titans, whether he’s capable of delivering.

Occupy, after delivering a much-needed jolt to the public discourse, likewise, has also yet to show that it can go beyond influencing the debate to actually winning gains for the 99 percent and reducing the widening inequality gap.

It’s no coincidence that income inequality has accelerated as large corporations have grown more influential in our political system through the clout of their cash, encouraging deregulation, tax cuts, trade deals and a host of other policies that benefit the 1 percent and disadvantage the rest of us. The fight against income inequality and for a more fair economy inevitably leads to the fight to rid our government of toxic corporate donations. Find out about WheresOurMoney’s constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court’s terrible decision that unleashes unlimited, anonymous corporate political donations, here.

 

 

 

Income inequality / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / Occupy - 03/09/2012

Freakout in the Bonus Bubble

Did you hear the one about the hedge fund employee complaining that he’s got to scrape by on $350,000 this year because of his lower bonus?

This is not an anti-banker joke, it’s a Bloomberg News story.

In the story, reporter Max Abelson gets finance industry workers to open up about their feelings about their financial sacrifices in the wake of a reduction in bonuses this year.

One hedge fund marketing director acknowledges that he is “freaking out, like a rat in trap on a highway with no way out” because he will be unable to keep up with his kids’ private school tuition, summer rental and the upgrade to his Brooklyn duplex.

Bonuses were down about 14 percent across the financial industry last year in the wake of a second annual plunge in profits of more than 50 percent.

Noting that profits plunged a lot more steeply that the bonuses, the New York Times Dealbook column, which often takes the Wall Street view, couldn’t summon much sympathy. Reporter Kevin Rose sniffed, “It is apparently going to take more than shrinking bank profits to put a big dent in Wall Street bonuses.”

Wall Street bankers remain by any measure well paid, with an average annual compensation, including bonuses, of $361,180 in 2010, the last year for which averages are available. That’s 5 ½ times the average pay for Americans.

So to help put the bankers’ problems in perspective for the rest of us who might be having a hard time working up any empathy, Bloomberg rustles up a high-priced accountant.

“People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress,” said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. “Could you imagine what it’s like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?”

What a load of malarkey.

What the Bloomberg report neglects to mention is that the financial industry actually compensated for the lower bonuses by raising bankers’ salaries.

While some bank defenders claim the brouhaha over bonuses is just envy, a report from New Bottom Line earlier this year puts the bankers’ bonuses into sharp focus. It found that bankers’ total compensation at the six biggest banks amounted to $144 billion last year – second only to the total paid out in 2007 before the meltdown.

Since the 2008 financial collapse, the banks we bailed have paid out a total of half a trillion dollars in compensation.

According to the report, if the bankers let go of just half of their compensation packages, banks could afford to underwrite principal on all the underwater mortgages in the country.

If bankers chose to forgo just 72% of their bonuses, they could fill the nearly $103 billion budget gap plaguing the nation’s city and states.

The bankers aren’t getting this money because they have contributed so much to the well being of the country. They’re getting it because they’ve captured both the political system and their regulators, who continue to do the bankers’ bidding. We can’t expect them, the bankers or the politicians or the regulators, to stop on their own.

We’re going to have to do it.

Check out our constitutional amendment to undo U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which opened the gates wide for bankers and other corporate titans to influence our government with an unlimited and anonymous tidal wave of cash.

 

Bonuses / Martin Column - 03/06/2012

A "landmark" we still can't see

For the most part, the big media and housing nonprofits have bought the government’s hype on the recent foreclosure fraud settlement, lauding it with great fanfare as a historic landmark.

It’s a good thing that not all our national landmarks are as phony as that settlement has turned out to be.

If they were, none of them would still be standing.

If big media had taken a more objective view, rather than just copying the authorities’ press releases, they might have chosen another, much less dramatic description, such as “yet to be released.”

The best description might take a few more words: “designed to make the Obama administration and state attorneys general look like they’re doing something while letting banks off the hook and leaving homeowners out in the cold and taxpayers and investors holding the bag.”

The settlement continues to raise more questions than it answers. For example, California’s attorney general Kamala Harris announced that the state would get $18 billion in foreclosure relief from the national settlement.

But then a couple of days later, Jeff Collins of the Orange County Register reported that Harris hadn’t offered a complete explanation.

As it turns out, the state might get only $12 billion.

The amount, Harris’ people explained to Collins, depends on which of two methods you used to calculate it.

“There are two sets of numbers,” said Linda Gledhill, a Harris spokeswoman told Collins.

Hah! Who knew?

One method calculates the cost of the settlement to banks, which as explained in the settlement’s “executive summary” are required to provide $25.2 billion in a variety of forms of assistance to borrowers. But providing that assistance doesn’t actually cost them $25 billion.

Apparently the settlement only requires the banks to pay out $5 billion in cash, with the balance consisting of a yet to be released complex system of credits that the the government will give the banks credit for offering the assistance, with details yet to be announced.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times (registration required) has been parsing the sparse publicly available details about the settlement. Their prognosis: The settlement shifts the costs of modifying mortgages from the banks to the taxpayers and to investors who bought securitized mortgages. As a result, it resembles another bailout more than it does a settlement.

Neil Barofsky, the former Inspector-General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program told the FT:

“If the banks are doing something under this settlement, and cash flows from taxpayers to the banks, that is fundamentally an upside-down result.”

And keep in mind that the actual settlement agreement still hasn’t been released yet, more than ten days after it was announced. What exactly is the hangup?

Do the authorities really expect us to take their word for it? How gullible do they think we are?

Remember how the 2008 bank bailout started: a three-page document submitted by the treasury secretary.

As my colleague Harvey Rosenfield warned when the President first announced the settlement, we’ll be in for a lot of surprises when the actual settlement is actually released, whenever that will be.

And something tells me they won’t be the good kind of surprises.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris / Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / SIGTARP - 02/22/2012

Second-Half Score Depends on Who Calls the Plays

Clint Eastwood’s Chrysler ad during the Super Bowl knocked me out.

It was stunningly effective piece of work. It resonated deeply with me as a skillfully crafted message – even as I knew it wasn’t telling the whole truth about the comeback of Detroit, my hometown.

Still, I wanted to believe, if only for a few minutes, that we could work together to confront our national problems, and millions of other Super Bowl watchers joined me in that yearning.

It reminded me of another inspired piece of highly distilled corn-pone football-inspired poetry: what Coach told his players on `Friday Night Lights,’ “Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose.”

With its irresistibly simple pep-talk pitch, the ad stirred up strong feelings, both for what it said and what it left unsaid about what’s actually going on in Detroit and the U.S.

It showed once again the power of plain language, delivered in Eastwood’s classic growl.

It reminded me how ineffective those of us who oppose corporate power have often been in claiming for our cause our deeply rooted patriotism and our pride in how every-day Americans have fought again and again, against terrible obstacles, to build a democracy that would work for everyone.

It also provoked deep feelings about Clint Eastwood, the ever-evolving artist.

He's been a great champion of Detroit. He made one of his finest films, “Gran Torino,” in the city. Released in 2008 in the wake of the financial collapse, it tells the story of the redemption of a retired autoworker, recently widowed and deeply racist.

Reviewing the film, Manohla Dargis wrote in the New York Times: “Melancholy is etched in every long shot of Detroit’s decimated, emptied streets and in the faces of those who remain to still walk in them. Made in the 1960s and `70s, the Gran Torino was never a great symbol of American automotive might, which makes Walt [Eastwood’s character’s] love for the car more poignant. It was made by an industry that now barely makes cars, in a city that hardly works, in a country that too often has felt recently as if it can’t do anything right anymore except, every so often, make a movie like this one.”

Eastwood made `Gran Torino’ under the generous tax breaks of a program designed to encourage filmmaking in Detroit, a program that has since been limited by the state’s current Republican governor, eroding the promise of the nascent film industry.

For the Chrysler ad, the auto company enlisted not only Eastwood, but hired a top ad agency, Wieden-Kennedy; the director of several terrific films, David Gordon Green; and two top-notch writers: Oregon-based poet Matthew Dickman and Texas-based fiction writer, Smith Henderson.

Even so, it’s an ad, meant to sell cars by inspiring hope and pride in Americans’ ability to get up and come back after a hard punch.

So the ad doesn’t quite tell you the real score at the end of the first half, nor does it come entirely clean on who's been playing on which team.

If the 99 percent were writing the script, not Chrysler, Eastwood might have something very different to say about our game plan as the second half gets underway.

It doesn’t mention that the majority owner of Chrysler is now Fiat, an Italian auto firm, or that Chrysler, newly profitable after it $12.5 billion taxpayer bailout, now pays new employees $14-$16 an hour, about half of what Chrysler employees used to be paid.

“The gratitude that many Detroit workers felt just after the bailout,” Reuters reported last October, “has given way to a frustrated sense that blue-collar workers have not shared equally in the industry's comeback.”

I wonder what Clint Eastwood’s characters might say about our current predicament.

Something tells me Eastwood’s iconic Dirty Harry character wouldn’t think much of our state attorneys general’s settlement with the big banks, which lets the bankers off the hook for fraud in the foreclosure process in exchange for ineffective and inadequate assistance for homeowners.

Describing the $26 billion settlement, the Times acknowledges it would “help

a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure.”

Meanwhile, while it will be good for the banks to get the foreclosure fraud charges behind them, it remains unclear how much the settlement will help the “moribund” housing market, the Times reports.

The $26 million will be distributed to states according to a complex formula. Actual victims of foreclosure fraud are supposed to get about $1,500 apiece. An undetermined number of underwater homeowners will get their principals written down by about $20,000. Some funding will also go to further investigation into banker fraud and consumer education.

Unfortunately neither the Obama Administration nor the AGs’ credibility is very good in living up to previous promises to help homeowners. Previous administration efforts, as well as previous AG settlements, have delivered much less than they initially promised, plagued by inadequate oversight and relying on voluntary bank participation. For more details, check Naked Capitalism; for more critique, Firedoglake.

What would Eastwood’s Dirty Harry think?

Just another day at the office, with the thugs getting away with their crimes in a world gone awry.

I couldn’t help wondering: would Dirty Harry negotiate with an intruder who robbed your house? Would he suggest to the intruder, “OK, just give back 30 percent of what you took and clean out the rain gutters and we’ll call it even?”

Unlikely. Dirty Harry would track down the crooks, scowl and start blasting away with his trademark .44 Magnum.

One of our previous presidents, Ronald Reagan, understood the visceral power of Dirty Harry and evoked him in a fight with Congress, when it was threatening to raise taxes. Reagan said he would veto any tax increase. “Go ahead,” the former president said, quoting the Dirty Harry character, “make my day.”

You’ll find very little of that spirit among the Obama administration officials and lawmen and law women assigned to the big bank beat.

Walt, the character in  `Gran Torino,’ and Dirty Harry are very different characters, separated by age and experience. They both live in broken worlds, filled with violence and cynicism. But confronted with today’s bankers, they would recognize them for what they are: shameless bullies, terrifying our neighborhood. And they would recognize the Obama administration and the state AGS who negotiated with them rather than investigated them for what they have become: cowards.

 

 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris / Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 02/10/2012