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 He commanded the entire federal government to review every regulation on the books and get rid of “outdated” rules and “unnecessary paperwork.”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

D.C. Disconnect: Revolving Door Edition

When it comes to shaping the Obama administration’s economic policies, only those with tight connections to the nation’s too big to fail banks need apply.

The latest example is the new director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew.

He spent most of his career working in government and academia, with one significant exception – a stint as chief operating officer of Citibank’s Alternative Investments Division, which manages about $7 billion in investments in developing countries. Lew was one of those banking executives whose huge post-bailout bonus enraged the public.

In Washington, the issue barely surfaced in Lew’s confirmation hearings. Lew suggested he was too busy running Citibank to notice that the place was drowning in toxic collateralized debt obligations that nobody even understood.

Meanwhile, the guy Lew replaced, Peter Orzag, is headed for a high-paying banking post of his own – at Citibank.

Lew and Orzag were among the large, bipartisan banking-friendly crowd who apparently failed to comprehend or question what was going on around and beneath them in the years immediately preceding the financial crisis.

During that time, one of the places where Orzag and Lew would gather was the Hamilton Project, a high-powered D.C.-based think tank within the Brookings Institute where Democratic Party politicians and bankers could get together to drink in the wisdom of the project’s founder, Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, a major proponent of banking deregulation, mentor to current top Obama financial advisers Tim Geithner and Larry Summers – and then, the president of Citibank.

The Hamilton Project has been described as a “bastion of the fiscally moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” But it would be more precisely described as the home of the increasingly influential too big to fail bank wing of the Democratic Party.

And who showed up to welcome the launch of the project in 2006?

None other than then-Sen. Barack Obama, who told the assembled crowd, “I would love just to sit here with these folks and listen because you have on this panel and in this room some of the most innovative, thoughtful policymakers, people who have both ideas but also ways of implementing them into action. Our country owes a great debt to a number of people who are in this room because they helped put us on a pathway of prosperity that we are still enjoying, despite the best efforts of some.” (Watch it here.)

This door swinging jovially back and forth between Wall Street and Washington is so common that it registers as a non-event, and makes a mockery of the Kabuki theater of the supposed hostility between Obama and the financial titans.

Ira Stoll at The Future of Capitalism reminds us, in case we forgot, of other members of the Obama economic team who cashed in on Wall Street before it melted down and they joined the administration, like top economic adviser Laurence Summers and $5.2 million a year, one day a week job at the D.E. Shaw hedge fund, and former chief of staff and Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, who got paid $16.2 million for working for a year and a half at the investment banking firm Wasserstein Perella.

As for Orzag, his departure for Citibank created a faint stir in the mainstream media, where Ezra Klein of the Washington Post notes that Orzag doesn’t appear to be in it for the money, since he’s “fairly wealthy” already, and “his lifetime of public service positions does not suggest a man particularly motivated by income.”

But at the Atlantic’s blog, James Fallow viewed Orzag’s move as an example of Washington’s structural corruption. His comments strike me as stating what is blindingly obvious to anyone who lives and works outside the opaque world of Washington. “The idea that someone would help plan, advocate, and carry out an economic policy that played such a crucial role in the survival of a financial institution – and then, less than two years after his administration took office, would take a job that (a) exemplifies the growing disparities the administration says it's trying to correct and (b) unavoidably will call on knowledge and contacts Orszag developed while in recent public service – this says something bad about what is taken for granted in American public life.

For Baseline Scenario’s James Kwak, it’s also more than a straightforward conflict of interest. Why does a young, highly educated energetic member of the elite, who presumably doesn’t need a Wall Street paycheck, want to work at Citibank?

“Orszag wanting to work at a megabank — instead of starting a new company, or joining a foundation, or joining an NGO, or becoming an executive at a struggling manufacturing company that makes things, or even being a consultant to countries with sovereign debt problems — is the same as an engineer from a top school going to Goldman instead of a real company. It’s not his fault, but it’s a symptom of something that’s bad for our country.”

Around the Web / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2010

In Taxbreakistan, the Usual Casualties

Rather than confronting the country’s growing economic disparity and attempting to reduce it, our political leaders are pursuing policies that just make it worse.

Remember when we were told that the bailout was supposed to save our economy? It worked amazingly well for those who are well off – the banks are back in the black, the bankers are pocketing huge bonuses, corporate profits are soaring and the stock market is humming along.

But for those less fortunate, the situation remains dire: unemployment is stuck around 10 percent, wages are stagnant, state and local governments face staggering cutbacks in all services, and foreclosures continue unabated.

The most recent example of this glaring callousness is the deal President Obama reached with GOP leaders to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for keeping unemployment compensation coming for 13 months.

Both the president and the Republicans profess to be unhappy with everything they had to give up and said nasty things about each other. The president insisted it was simply the best deal to be had to get some stimulus in the face of Republican intransigence.  But the president never took to the airwaves to challenge the Republicans on the tax cuts or the unemployment insurance. After his party’s “shellacking” in the midterms, he just headed for the back room to make a deal on his own, without ever trying to galvanize public opinion, which according to the polls, wasn’t even sympathetic to the high-end tax cuts.

So far the Senate has appears ready to pass the deal with votes to spare but the House has balked.

Back when he was candidate Obama, the president had no qualms about proclaiming just how unfair the tax cuts for the wealthiest were, how little they do for the rest of the economy, and how worthy they were of opposing. Now the president labels as `sanctimonious’ those who agree with the position he took so forcefully when he ran for president.

But the tax cuts for the wealthy won’t work any better now that that they’re the Obama tax cuts than they did when they were the Bush tax cuts.

The Center for American Progress breaks the $954 billion Obama tax cut deal into two parts: first, a $133 billion tax cut for the wealthiest, including $120 billion in lower taxes for the top 2% of U.S. households, plus $13 billion in estate tax savings. The other $821 billion consists of government cash for unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class and small-business job-creation incentives.

The deal is supposed to create somewhere between 2.2 and 3.1 million jobs, though some find those estimates vastly inflated. CAP contends that the deal offers a relatively expensive way to create those jobs.

Economist Dean Baker questions a lot of the phony hysterics being used to sell the deal as scare tactics. He doubts the president’s assertion that is the only way or last chance to extend unemployment benefits. If unemployment stays above 8 percent as the Federal Reserve projects that it will, both Republicans and the president will feel pressure to extend benefits.

But one of the worst aspects of the deal is the way that it actually raises taxes on the working poor, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s because the president has agreed, as part of the deal, to phase out his own Making Work Pay tax cut (implemented as part of his previous stimulus package) and replaced it with a temporary Social Security payroll tax cut. The Making Work Pay tax cut was focused on the working poor, giving single people with incomes of at least $6,452 and less than $75,000 a $400 tax break and couples making less than $120,000 an $800 tax break. People at the lower end of those income ranges would do worse under the present Obama tax cut deal. Wealthier taxpayers meanwhile, stand to do better with the payroll tax break than they did under Making Work Pay, which phased out at higher income brackets.

To me the tax deal looks suspiciously like the bailout – shoveling money to those who have suffered the least, without any conditions imposed to require that they plow some of that cash back into the economy, only the vain hope that they will share their prosperity.

We assumed that’s what the bailout recipients would do with all of our tax money.

We know now how that worked out.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / TARP - 12/14/2010

`Bloodbath' in Taxbreakistan

Welcome to Taxbreakistan, where the same guys who profited from the financial crisis have launched a treacherous two-fisted propaganda campaign: attacking the benefits of the increasingly fragile middle class while protecting the gains the wealthiest accumulated from the bubble economy and the bailout.

The propaganda war is couched in terms of paternal sobriety and facing up to financial realities, making tough choices and sharing sacrifices.

According to the propaganda, the only thing preventing the anemic economy from taking off is that the wealthiest Americans who have an ever-increasing share of the nation’s wealth don’t have enough money yet. Aside from the wealthy not having their permanent tax cuts, the main impediment to the economic recovery, according to the propaganda, is continuing to pay unemployment checks to those out of work.

What a load of twaddle.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and right-wing think tanks are leading the propaganda campaign, one of the leading bomb throwers in this war is former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, who President Obama appointed to co-chair a commission to examine options to reduce the federal deficit. A fierce advocate of budget cutting, Simpson, a Republican, said recently that he couldn’t wait for the `bloodbath’ that will ensue when Republicans take a meat cleaver to the federal budget in exchange for raising the federal debt limit.

You may recall Simpson’s earlier colorful quote, in which he compared Social Security to a “milk cow with 310 million teats.”

A couple of weeks ago, Simpson threw down the gauntlet in a draft report he wrote with his co-chair Erskine Bowles, a former Democratic Party honcho and hedge fund partner. They proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare and a host of other sweeteners long sought by big business, such as caps on medical malpractice verdicts, that have little to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with a corporate political agenda. The full commission’s report could be released this week.

Meanwhile, Congress jockeys over how to deliver a sloppy wet kiss to the nation’s wealthiest in the guise of continuing their Bush era tax cuts, supposedly as a means to stimulate the economy, even though the tax cuts themselves add $700 billion to the deficit. While President Obama expresses opposition to extending the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year, the president hasn’t been much of a force in the propaganda war over our economic future.

For their part, the Republicans have dug in their heels on behalf of the nation’s gajillionaires.

The whole propaganda campaign is based on the fraudulent notion that tax cuts for the rich help the economy. That’s not how they started out, before the second George Bush was elected president. He intended them as a way to “starve the beast” – giving back the government surplus that had built up during the Clinton era boom as a way to shrink government. His advisers argued that if the government kept that money it was likely to spend it.

Only later, as the economy began to soften, did Bush add the economic stimulus argument. But the evidence that the tax cuts did anything to boost the economy has always been slim at best. Deficit hawks like Simpson and Bowles are trying to jack up the public’s fear about the deficit in a slow-motion version of the fear-mongering that preceded the no-questions asked bank bailout of 2008, and subsequent highly secretive Federal Reserve money giveaway to the nation’s big banks. We shouldn’t fall for it.

A coalition of progressive-leaning nonprofits have offered an alternative, which favors stimulating the economy first, then cutting the deficit. You can check it out here.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 11/30/2010

What the President SHOULD Say

Republicans may have driven the car into the ditch. But voters know the difference between a sales job and reality.

That’s why they didn’t trust President Obama and the Democrats’ pitch that they had gotten the car out of the ditch and gotten it running again.

It didn’t ring true because far too many Americans are still stuck in the ditch.

And all of the presidents’ talk about how much worse off we’d be without his team’s hard work fell on deaf ears.

From the time he took office through the election, the president and his team failed to adequately acknowledge how deep the ditch was. By all accounts, the president is a brilliant man, and he’s hardly the first president to suffer a midterm “shellacking.” And his opponents haven’t exactly been overflowing with creative ideas for how to get the economy going again for those of us who aren’t bankers.

I also realize it’s not just up to the president – we all have a responsibility. So here’s my humble contribution to help the president make a mid-course correction: some suggestions for what the president might say.

My fellow Americans:

You sent me a strong message on November 2. I have to admit it stung. It’s taken a while to sink in, but I get it now.

I haven’t taken the economic pain that many of you are feeling seriously enough. The range of solutions I’ve chosen have been far too narrow and not nearly ambitious or imaginative enough. I’ve paid too much attention to not riling the markets and not enough attention to getting you back to work and keeping you in your houses. For that I owe you an apology. I have also belittled your concerns that our government has fostered a system that favors the wealthy and connected over other Americans. I’m sorry for that too.

I know that words without action ring hollow. So I’m replacing my entire economic team with men and women who are more attuned to the economic crisis that many of you find yourselves in. We’re fortunate that we have such a distinguished group to choose from – Paul Volcker, Robert Reich, Bill Black and Brooksley Born among them.

I have previously attributed the lack of popularity of some of my administration’s policies to my inability to sell them properly. But in retrospect, I see that the problem wasn’t the message. It was my previous unwillingness to fight, and fight hard, for stronger policies, stronger solutions to the country’s economic problems. I should have done so earlier.

But I will do so now.

Make no mistake. These solutions will cost money. Putting people back to work will cost money. But that money is an investment in a future that we can all live with, not just the well-to-do, and that will pay dividends later. I know that my opponents have raised concerns about the federal deficit, and I share some of those concerns. But my top priority for the next two years will be putting Americans back to work and making sure that we have a recovery that works for everybody. If my opponents want to have a debate on the deficit, I welcome that. If they want to have a debate on whether the government can truly help people or whether the government itself is the problem, then I welcome that too. Let’s have it on television.

But mostly I welcome my opponents’ ideas about how to put Americans back to work. Because the American people don’t just want an endless debate. You want action.

We’ll have a debate and then we’ll get to it. I know that you’re impatient. You also don’t want excuses. You won’t get any from me. What you will get is a plan to reduce unemployment, stabilize housing and reduce the widespread economic misery. I promise you that will be my number one priority.

Thank you for the great trust you have placed in me.

Can I guarantee success if my opponents decide to stand in the way rather than cooperate? Probably not. But I promise you that for the next two years all of my energy, intellect and passion will be harnessed to this effort, whatever the obstacles or political costs.

Martin Column / Outrage / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 11/05/2010

BIPARTISANSHIP FOR BIG BANKS

With 2 weeks to go to the midterm elections, President Obama and the Republicans have found an issue they can agree on: if they just do nothing, the foreclosure scandal will go away.

They’re betting that the use of robo-signers to process foreclosure documents without actually reading them will just amount to a pile of sloppy paperwork.

They’re betting that blaming borrowers will trump public outrage over banks holding themselves above the rule of law that states they have to prove that they own a mortgage note before they can foreclose.

You can understand the Republicans’ position; they argue that the government has no responsibility and is only capable of making any problem worse.

President Obama’s approach can’t be much of a surprise either, after leaving his financial policy in the hands of Wall Street apologists, fighting the most robust financial reform, providing a failed foreclosure relief program and not raising a finger to help when banks opposed his own proposal and not using his bully pulpit to push it. The president, despite his occasional bursts of rhetoric, has never assumed the role of tough regulator and reformer he promised on the campaign trail, preferring to act as the big bank’s collaborator-in-chief.

The president’s name may not be on the ballot November 2. But many of the Democrats who are facing the voters advocate a more robust response: a foreclosure moratorium while the very real legal issues are sorted out.

The Obama administration has taken to sending signals to the voters, hoping that might allay their worries. The feds announced the formation of that entity designed to show concern while guaranteeing that no action will be taken for the foreseeable future: a task force.

A number of banks had started their own voluntary moratoriums on some foreclosures. But two of those banks, Ally and Bank of America, have already canceled them. Meanwhile all 50 state attorney generals have announced their own investigations into the mess.

Despite the efforts of bank apologists to minimize it, the foreclosure debacle continues to shape up as a series of nasty legal battles, with a dramatic, unsettling impact on the housing market.

Opponents of a foreclosure moratorium portray it as a way of giving homes to people who haven’t been making their mortgage payments. But that’s a phony argument. A moratorium will not end up causing anybody who hasn’t been paying their mortgage to own a house they didn’t pay for.

As far as borrowers living in their houses for free, let’s be clear: that’s happening now, and it’s not the fault of any moratorium. It’s happening as a result of the banks’ own chaotic approach to foreclosure, often not wanting to take possession of property that has lost its value or not hiring enough staff to manage the properties properly.

This is the terrible irony about the banks’ fear-mongering. While they’re always predicting awful consequences to any action that limits their own power, the banks create the consequences all by themselves, or with the help of their willing collaborators.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/20/2010

Around the Web: Outsourcing Foreclosure `Catastrophe'

You wouldn’t think the leader of the free world would be so willing to outsource a massive foreclosure scandal to state attorneys general, judges, regulators and the big banks that created the mess in the first place.

But that’s exactly what President Obama has done, standing aside while 50 state attorneys general launch investigations, while banks implement their own voluntary moratoriums, announcing they have halted some, but not all, foreclosure proceedings.

A growing number of politicians, civil rights and consumer groups and labor unions have called for a nationwide moratorium amid allegations that banks violated foreclosure laws by using sloppy, false or fraudulent paperwork to kick people out of their homes.

But President Obama doesn’t like the idea of a foreclosure moratorium, which he fears could put the kibosh on his fragile recovery.

Where is the administration’s effort at finding some other creative solution to the mess the big banks have created across the country? What we find instead are regulators that have been ignoring clear warning signs about the banks’ troubled foreclosure crisis.

The federal response so far has been limp at best: a Justice Department inquiry (short of an investigation) and a call by a federal regulator for the banks to voluntarily verify that their foreclosure paperwork is in order.

Recent press reports call into question whether the banks have even implemented the foreclosure moratoriums they promised. Meanwhile more banks, this time Wells-Fargo, acknowledge they have also violated the laws governing foreclosure by submitting unverified documents to take people’s homes. Isn’t there an election coming up where the Democrats are fighting to maintain control of Congress, with their entire agenda at stake? Isn’t there already one party that has expertly cornered the whole do-nothing stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach to unemployment and foreclosure? Doesn’t the president know how awful it looks to most people to have the bailed-out banks getting away with yet more hanky-panky?

You would think the president would want to appear more engaged in this issue that’s so close to the heart of our on-going economic troubles.

His treasury secretary fears “unintended consequences". Apparently the administration would prefer the banks continue to foreclose on people using phony documents. While Wall Street predicts a catastrophe if a moratorium is implemented. If the big bankers want to know who created a catastrophe that will cost them billions, they only need to look in the mirror.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 10/15/2010

Fumbling the Foreclosure Crisis

Remember when former President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier less than 2 months after the Iraq invasion while a banner unfurled to declare, “Mission Accomplished?”

President Obama hasn’t surrounded himself with the dramatic props, but he reminds me of his predecessor when he brags about how he and his administration have reformed the recklessness and lack of accountability of a seriously out of whack financial system.

Unfortunately for all of us, the bombs going off in the middle of what’s supposed to be a budding economic recovery keep reminding us that the system is as broken as ever.

We still have a system where the big banks play by one set of rules (that favor them) while the rest of us have to live by another set of rules.

The latest proof are the big banks' foreclosure follies, now unfolding across the country after it was revealed that bank officials were improperly submitting key documents in foreclosure cases without actually reading them in what has been labeled “robo-signing.”

Among the widespread irregularities: bank officials who claim to have verified how much borrowers owe when in fact they hadn’t determined the amount, documents related to the foreclosures with signatures that appeared to be forgeries and documents that were improperly notarized.

Lawyers who challenge foreclosures say this is not just a technical problem.

Because of the way mortgages were sliced and diced in the securitization process, these lawyers have uncovered a variety of problems in the foreclosure paperwork – most importantly. the inability to determine who exactly owns the mortgage at issue in a particular foreclosure. Banks, overwhelmed by the flood of foreclosures, have made serious mistakes – including illegally foreclosing on homes. In Florida, for example, a man paid cash for his house, but then Bank of America foreclosed on it anyway.

In the wake of the latest disclosures, a number of big banks have now halted some, but not all, foreclosures while they sort the mess out. There’s no help for those in some of the worst-hit states in the foreclosure crisis, such as California, which is known as a non-judicial foreclosure state.

Basically that means that under state law, lenders can foreclose on your property without going to court. So if you want to challenge your foreclosure you have to sue. But the laws are tough and lawyers in California have had little success in getting judges to block foreclosures. Judges have been reluctant to challenge the way big banks do their business on behalf of distressed borrowers behind on their mortgage payments.

The foreclosure fiasco points out the failure of the Obama administration to come up with a robust remedy, in part because banks have resisted government interference that would force them to acknowledge how much value their real estate holdings have lost. The administration’s foreclosure program, which offers meager incentives for banks to reduce payments for borrowers who are about to lose their homes, has been a dismal failure. President Obama failed to fight for his own proposal to give bankruptcy judges the power to adjust mortgage payments, which could have encouraged judges to modify more mortgages on their own. That proposal was defeated last year in the Senate in the face of bank opposition.

So we’re left with the spectacle of the banks that made their own rules in the real estate bubble continuing to make their own rules in how to deal with the collapse, still largely unaccountable to government officials or courts.

Now would be a good time for the president to get the message: asking nicely has not worked. Pretending to solve the problem hasn’t worked. It’s time to make the big banks play by the same rules everybody else has to play by.

If the president chooses not to get the message he won’t have the Republicans to blame. He’ll have nobody to blame but himself.

Bank of America (BoA) / Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/04/2010