Geithner must go

Please, President Obama, fire Timothy Geithner today and hire a treasury secretary to fight for the U.S. economy as hard as Geithner fights to protect bankers’ profits.

I know you’re intensely loyal to Geithner and have resisted such calls in the past.

But Mr. President, times and circumstances have changed. For your own good and especially for the good of the country, you should reconsider. You’re in an especially close election and you need to cut yourself loose from the failed policies you’ve pursued for the past four years that have coddled the financial sector at the expense of the rest of the economy.

Your loyalties are with Geithner but his, Mr. President, are with the too big to fail banks, not with the public.

The most recent evidence comes from this Huffington Reports piece which details how Geithner, while president of the New York Fed responded when he heard about the big banks manipulating a key interest rate known as LIBOR when he was chair of the New York Federal Reserve in 2007.

Recently disclosed emails show that while Geithner expressed concerns over the integrity of the LIBOR, or London Interbank Offered Rate, he did little to investigate or stop the manipulation.

What he did to was cut and paste the bankers’ own proposals into his own proposal to the Bank of England about how to address the LIBOR concerns. It should have been an early warning sign of how Geithner and his big bank cronies spoke with one voice – theirs.

The public may not understand just how critical the integrity of LIBOR is, but you do, Mr. President. You know that it’s how it’s used as a benchmark for trillions worth of transactions every day, on everything from complex credit default swaps to credit cards.

You also shouldn’t underestimate the public’s ability to grasp what’s at the root of this LIBOR scandal, which is the same theme that’s underlying JP Morgan London Whale trading losses – that bankers have been manipulating the financial system for their own interests, with your administration either fully cooperating or looking the other way.

Don’t underestimate the ability of the ruthless and hypocritical Republican attack machine to clobber you with those policies even as the Republicans embrace more banker-friendly policies than you are.

They’ll get a good shot this week when Geithner testifies before the House Banking Committee over what he knew and what he did about banks.

The public may not be focused on the LIBOR in the middle of a hot summer, Mr. President, But the scandal is just beginning to wash up on the our shores after causing tremendous damage after it erupted in England, after Barclays Bank acknowledged its own LIBOR manipulation and cut a deal with regulators. Meanwhile the investigation into 16 U.S. banks and their LIBOR shenanigans is just getting cooking.  It could be heating up at the same time as the presidential race.

Mr. President, you have another opportunity to do something that is good politics and good for the country too, and will distinguish your policy on the banks from your opponent’s do-nothing approach.

Get rid of Geithner and begin to chart a new course toward a system not rigged in favor of big bankers and their fat bonuses. We need a treasury secretary who doesn’t measure prosperity solely by the size of bankers’ wealth.

LIBOR / Martin Column - 07/16/2012

Underwater secrets

Local governments'  have often stirred controversy with their use of eminent domain. While it's supposed to be used for the public good, too often it has been used to profit developers, while the public just feels ripped off.

Still, the idea of local governments using eminent domain as a tool to stabilize home prices in some of Southern California’s hardest hit communities is an intriguing one.

It’s the kind of bold action that’s been missing in the government’s limp response to the foreclosure crisis.

But the scheme that’s unfolding in Southern California’s Inland Empire, rated as the one of the most underwater in the nation, is a step in the wrong direction.

It smacks of politically-connected high-finance types, boasting of their access to politicians as their “secret formula,” wheeling and dealing in secret.

A san Francisco venture capital firm is cooking up a scheme in San Bernardino to use the government’s eminent domain power to seize some underwater mortgages from investors who own them and have been unwilling to offer borrowers principal reduction that would allow them to stay in their homes.

The firm’s idea, apparently, is to for San Bernardino County and other local government’s form a joint powers authority that would allow those government to act together to use eminent domain to seize mortgage loans, not the property, of underwater homeowners who were not behind on their payments at “market value.”

Then, according to the scheme, the firm would find investors to issue new mortgages to the homeowners at that lower, more affordable “market value.”]

The plan was hatched by San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners. That’s the firm originally headed by Phil Angelides, former state treasurer, real estate developer and venture capitalist best known recently for leading a congressionally-appointed investigation into the financial crisis.

After issuing a report highly critical of the banks, Angelides didn’t stump the country to put pressure on authorities to follow up on his report with prosecutions.

He went into the mortgage business himself, swaddling his efforts to make profits from distressed mortgages in good intentions of finding solutions to the foreclosure crisis.

It was Angelides who boasted in a letter to potential investors that his firms’ secret formula was its connections to public officials. Reuters reported that Angelides told potential investors they could generate 20 percent profits.

After Angelides’ involvement in the firm was publicized earlier this year, he stepped aside. Replacing him was Steven Gluckstern, a hedge fund veteran who was one of President Obama’s major bundlers in the 2008 election.

According to published reports, Mortgage Partners would make its profit charging a fee on every mortgage seized. How much will it be paid and how? That hasn’t been disclosed. But according to Naked Capitalism, its sources say that the firm expects to make a 5.5 percent fee on each mortgage ­– paid for by having the government seize the mortgages at a discount and sell them back to the homeowner for a profit.

The most serious general flaw in the scheme is that has unfolded behind the cloak of confidentiality agreements between government officials and Mortgage Resolution Partners, with no public disclosure or debate on the concept or details, giving the whole deal the stink of a sweetheart deal, not a solution.

When the Riverside Press-Enterprise sought written records of communication between county officials and the mortgage firm, they were told there were none.

The use of eminent domain is highly controversial because it has often been justified as benefiting the public when it ends up benefiting real estate developers. In this case, investors who own the mortgage loans have already weighed in opposing the plan. Though the plan’s backers say eminent domain has been used to seize intangible goods, they acknowledge it hasn’t been used to seize mortgage loans before. So investors are likely to challenge the process in court.

But I wouldn’t shed too many tears for the investors, who have stood in the way of principal reductions or any other means of helping homeowners.

Another question raised by the current plan: why is only Mortgage Resolutions Partners being considered as a partner for the joint powers authority? The idea should be put out for an open bid. Maybe other firms would have even better plans and offer a better deal.

And there are plenty of other issues surrounding the plan. Walter Hackett is a former banker who is now lead attorney in the Legal Aid Riverside’s branch near San Bernardino. While he likes the idea of using eminent domain as a tool to stabilize home prices,

he questions why eminent domain would be used to seize mortgage loans – which are more difficult to set a price on – rather than property itself. Seizing the property and paying the investor for the fair market value of the property, rather than the mortgage, would extinguish the old mortgage and the new investors could then issue a new one to the borrower at the market value.

Hackett also questions why eminent domain would be used only on mortgages deemed current, so-called performing loans, rather than including properties that have already fallen into foreclosure that are still owned by investors. “Former owners, or others might be able to afford reduced payments once the properties are priced at market value, rather than at the price of the underwater mortgage,” Hackett said.

Hackett’s unusual background, having been a banker and represented homeowners in foreclosure, would be invaluable in redesigning such a proposal. It should not be left only to the venture capitalists and the county politicians.

I’m not suggesting that local governments shouldn’t find a way to use eminent domain or find other creative solutions to help struggling homeowners. But we also need to stop assuming that when the financiers and politicians go into the back room, they come out with something that’s in our interest – even if they say it is.

We learned from the bailout and the government’s subsequent coddling of the financial industry how the secrecy and lack of transparency undermine trust in both our financial system and our government.

However inconvenient to the bankers and hedge fund honchos, such proposals must be hammered out with full public participation and debate. We don’t need any more secret formulas” brewed with corporate cash and political connections in back rooms with you and me kept out.

 

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 07/12/2012

London calling – is anyone listening?

Here we go again.

The scandal over bank manipulation of a key interest rate is just the latest strong signal that bankers rigged the system to benefit themselves and screw everybody else.

Not that we need another signal.

The scandal stems from something called LIBOR – the London Interbank Offered Rate. It’s an integral part of the global banking system. LIBOR is supposed to reflect the interest rate at which banks loan money to each other. It’s also a benchmark rate for other transactions, everything from home mortgages and credit cards to complex derivatives.

That means that the cost of the mortgage loan is pegged to whatever LIBOR is. On a home mortgage loan, for example, the interest rate might be a few points above LIBOR. The Financial Times estimates that about $350 trillion worth of contracts are tied to LIBOR.

It turns out that British-based Barclays Bank was manipulating the rates to increase their own profits, and to disguise how the bank was performing­ – possibly with the collusion of their regulators. The conservative Economist calls it “the rotten heart of finance,” and cautions that it is about to go worldwide.

The scandal hit home in England first, causing Barclays’ Bank president to resign and pay a record fine, and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic promising to get to the bottom of it.

But there are strong suspicions that Barclays wasn’t alone, that other too big to fail banks might have also engaged in the same shenanigans. The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 16 banks are under investigation, in three criminal and 10 civil probes.

It’s bad enough that Barclay traders have been caught discussing the manipulation in emails, referring to the rate manipulation as “the fixings” and requesting a particular rate as casually as if they were ordering a double latte.

What’s worse, the Financial Times started raising questions about the LIBOR-rigging five years ago and the Wall Street Journal cast doubt on the banks’ LIBOR practices in May 2008. 2008. So any regulator or prosecutor with an iota of curiosity could have been digging into LIBOR since then.

As we already know, curiosity about bankers’ malfeasance has been a rare commodity among the officials who are supposed to be scrutinizing their bank behavior. Remember President Obama’s repeated promises to get tough on bankers, most recently in his State of the Union speech in January?

Don’t expect Mitt Romney to make an issue of it – at least 15 of Barclay’s most senior U.S.-based bankers have donated the maximum $2,500 contribution to his presidential campaign. The CEO who resigned, Bob Diamond, had been among the co-hosts for a London fundraiser when Romney goes to London for the Olympics. (Barclays’ political action committee has also contributed significant amounts of cash to Democrats, though not the president, over the years.)

The LIBOR scandal rips the curtains away from one of the nastiest Big Lies on both sides of the 2012 presidential campaign: the president’s line that his Dodd-Frank reform has fixed the financial system, and Romney’s pitch that regulation is the problem and that we should leave bankers alone to run their business as they see fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 07/09/2012

Guide to congressional cosmetics

President Obama praised the STOCK Act when he signed it into law in April as a good first step to rid Congress of financial conflicts that undermine public confidence.

But it’s really no more than a fast makeup job to cover up the continuing blemishes on our democracy and give the president and members of Congress some talking points for the campaign trail.
The STOCK Act is supposed to prohibit legislators from profiting from the nonpublic information they get on the job. The STOCK Act also prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings unavailable to the public, and provides some additional public disclosure of congressional stock trading.
But we already know that members of Congress do better than civilians when they invest in the stock market. According to a 2011 study, investment portfolios of members of the House beat the market by about 6 percent annually, mimicking the performance of the stock portfolios of their Senate colleagues.
As an example, the Washington Post reported, four congressmen sitting on a committee investigating deceptive billing practices by video game makers sold their stock in the country’s biggest video game maker, GameStop, one of the companies under investigation.
One of the most egregious examples is Sen. Tom Coburn, the Republican Oklahoma senator who has made a name for himself preaching government austerity and self-righteously criticizing both parties for not having the courage to make the cuts needed to reduce the debt.
But austerity and sacrifice were apparently not on Sen. Coburn’s mind when he bought $25,000 in bonds in a genetic technology company at the same time he released a hold on legislation that the company supported. A hold is an informal Senate practice by which a senator can stall a piece of legislation. Coburn, meanwhile, cast one of the few votes against the STOCK Act, dismissing it as nothing more than a stunt.
One clue to just how innocuous the STOCK Act is: it was opposed by only two votes in the House and three in the Senate. This confirms my theory that whenever you see much ballyhooed-bipartisanship at work, you can be sure that members of Congress are either doing the bidding of the 1 percent, or covering their own butts.
The bottom line is that while members of Congress pass laws that prohibit other government officials from presiding over companies and industries in which they have a financial interest, Congress effectively exempts itself from such broad restrictions.
Writing on Yahoo Finance, Ron DeLegge outlines the STOCK Act’s major flaws and omissions: it still allows the sleazy, little-known practice of members selling “political intelligence” to lobbyists as well as continuing to allow members of Congress to own stock in industries over which they can exert influence.
The STOCK Act reminds us, when it comes to Congress, we shouldn’t be distracted by lame cover-ups or blather about bipartisanship, we should follow the money.
And we shouldn’t forget: it’s not their money.
It’s our money.

Bipartisanship / Congress / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 07/06/2012

Bankers' gambles – now with a bailout guaranteed

After the 2008 banks bailout, we were promised that financial reform was going to prevent future bailouts.

Never again.

But as we approach the fourth anniversary of the financial collapse, we’re learning just how hollow those promises were.

The most recent example stems from reports that regulators have secretly designated derivatives clearinghouses too big to fail in a financial emergency.

That means that in a crisis, such clearinghouses, in which risky credit default swaps are traded, would be bailed out at taxpayer expense through secret access to cheap money at the Federal Reserve’s credit window.

That’s where the big banks and the rest of corporate America lined after the 2008 to borrow trillions at low interest – with no strings attached.

The Fed didn’t require the banks to share that low interest with consumers or homeowners. The Fed didn’t require that banks make some attempt to fix the foreclosure mess. The Fed didn’t require corporations hire the unemployed or lower outrageous CEO pay.

The Fed just shoveled out the cheap loans.

Now the Fed is planning to extend that generosity, as a matter of policy, to derivative clearinghouses – which puts taxpayers directly on the hook for Wall Street’s risky gambles, like the ones that recently cost J.P. Morgan Chase $2 billion.

While those trades didn’t threaten to sink the economy, it was the unraveling of those kinds of complex gambles that tanked the economy in 2008.

Nobody knows for sure how large the derivatives market is, but the estimates are truly mind-boggling. One derivatives expert estimates that there were $1.2 quadrillion in derivatives last year – 20 times the size of the world’s economy.

While requiring these derivatives to be traded on clearinghouses is supposed to increase transparency, that assumes regulators are aggressive, diligent and understand the trades.

But signaling that these derivatives should be eligible for a bailout is nothing short of insane, at least from the taxpayers’ perspective. From the bankers’ perspective, it’s a pretty good deal, and a reassuring indication that nothing much has changed since the financial crisis: the regulators are still deep in the bankers’ pocket.

Meanwhile, the real reforms that might have a shot at actually fixing the problems and protecting our economy from the big bankers’ addiction to risk get little or no consideration in what passes for political debate.

The best step we could take is to re-impose the Depression-era   Glass-Steagall Act, which creates walls between safe, vanilla, and consumer banking (which have traditionally been federally guaranteed, and riskier investment banking and derivatives trading But the bankers oppose Glass-Steagall, and for the present, they remain in control of both political parties and the regulators’ financial policies.

Federal Reserve / Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 06/26/2012

Obama and Romney share bed with a monster

How’d you like your own private court, tilted in your favor, where you could take your complaints against the government?

Pretty sweet deal, huh?

That’s exactly what a bunch of corporate lobbyists are setting up in secret right now, under the guise of negotiating a massive new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And this slimy secret deal is being pushed by the Obama administration.

It’s a complete betrayal by President Obama, who as a candidate campaigned strongly against previous secret trade agreements, like NAFTA, that cripple government’s ability to enforce their  own worker safety, environmental, public health or financial regulation. In an effort to distinguish himself from his primary opponent, now Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the president said: “Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America…Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have.”

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama also said: “We can’t keep passing unfair trade deals like NAFTA that put special interests over workers’ interests...”

Since he became president, he’s signed trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. But the TPP, which includes along with the U.S, Australia, Brunei, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru and Vietnam, and Malaysia, is the first trade deal created solely on President Obama’s watch. And it’s being concocted just like previous trade negotiations: with the corporate lobbyists firmly on the inside and the rest of us, as well as our elected representatives, shut completely out.

If you’re waiting for the Republicans to raise a stink, don’t hold your breath.

Mitt Romney has already said the Trans-Pacific agreement should be pushed through as quickly as possible. The Republican presidential candidate’s support for TPP is also a foul betrayal  – of all the free market principles he supposedly holds so dear.

Last week, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch ripped the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the TPP when it got hold of a document that detailed the secret court and leaked it.

I wrote about the dangers of the TPP back in April, calling it a “free trade Frankenstein,” a monster that in fact is not free and has nothing to do with trade. It should be called a “corporate bill of rights” that grants big business all kinds of special privileges to stomp on the rights enjoyed by the rest of us.

Lori Wallach, Global Trade Watch’s executive director, compared the TPP to another monster, one that also flourishes in the dark.

Wallach told Democracy Now that “these agreement are a little bit like Dracula. You drag them in the sunshine, and they do not fare well. But all of us, and also across all of the countries involved, there are citizen movements that are basically saying, `This is not in our name. We don’t need global enforceable corporate rights. We need more democracy. We need more accountability.’ ”

Wallach pointed out that under similar provisions in NAFTA, special “trade courts” have forced governments have paid out $350 million to corporations which claimed to have been wronged by a variety of zoning laws, bans on toxic materials and logging regulations.

Shame on President Obama for reversing himself and hatching this monster in the dark. Shame on Governor Romney for slithering into bed with it so cozily as if it was a beauty queen he couldn’t resist.

The time to stop it is now.

The way these trade deals work is that the administration jams it through Congress with no debate allowed on its various provisions, only an up or down vote.

Does this sound anything like democracy?

Ironically, the TPP “negotiations” resume the 4th of July weekend at the Hilton Bayfront in San Diego.

If you’re in the neighborhood, stop by and suggest that the “negotiators” should do their patriotic duty and deliver the wretched mess where it belongs – to the nearest toxic waste dump.

If you’re elsewhere, let your congressional representative know you won’t be fooled by “free trade” anymore, and neither should they.

We know a monster when we see one.

 

Martin Column / President Barack Obama / TPP - 06/16/2012

King of the Hill

Though we need to wait until November to find out who the next president will be, we already know who the king is.

That would be JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who got the regal treatment from the Senate Finance Committee this week when he was called to testify about the disastrous trades that has cost his firm more than $3 billion so far and reduced the firm's market value by $27 billion.

You know, the trades that Dimon originally dismissed as a “tempest in a teapot.”

Which gives you some idea of the teapots that President Obama’s favorite banker can afford. President Obama has particularly close ties to the bank: JPMorgan’s PAC was one of the top donors to his 2008 campaign, offering more than $800,000, and the president’s former chief of staff, William Daley, was a top executive there.

Dimon is equally popular on Capitol Hill. Instead of a grilling him about his failure to take action for months after questions were raised about the strategy surrounding the failed trades, most of the senators treaded lightly.

Instead of scrutinizing the foreclosure fraud and failure that led to JPMorgan’s $5.3 billion share of a $26 billion settlement with state attorneys generals, several senators took the opportunity to offer Dimon a platform to continue his campaign against regulation of Wall Street, including modest reforms like the Volcker rule which many say could have prevented the JPMorgan loss – had it been in place.

For his part, Dimon denied that he knew anything, took some vague responsibility and minimized the losses as an isolated event.

The route to traditional royalty is through birth or marriage. Dimon won his political crown through another time-honored path – he bought it. Most of the senators he faced had benefited from the generosity of his bank’s campaign contributions. As the Nation’s George Zornick reported, the senators had received more than $522,000 from JPMorgan, about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

The staff of the Finance Committee and JPMorgan are connected through a web of revolving door contacts. The banking committee’s staff director is a former JPMorgan lobbyist, Dwight Fettig. One of the banks’ top lobbyists is a former staffer for banking committee member Sen. Chuck Schumer, while three of its outside lobbyists used to work for the committee or one of its members.

J.P. Morgan has pummeled Congress and regulators with more than $7.6 million worth of lobbying in an effort to get banking rules written to favor the bank.

The king’s appearance before his subjects on the Senate Finance Committee was a powerful demonstration, for those who still need it, of just how little of the spirit and the practice of real democracy remains in an institution that is supposed to embody it.

If our representatives were truly beholden to us, rather than to Dimon and others with large supplies of cash to dole out, his testimony would have had a starkly different tone.

He has a lot to answer for. So do those who let him off so easy.

And it’s not just Dimon that the senators have failed to oversee. While bankers’ profits are back, the banking system is still broke.

If those senators were serving us, rather than serving as lapdogs to bankers, Dimon and other Wall Street monarchs might be looking at prison cells, not red carpets.

 

Martin Column / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 06/14/2012

How Retired Justice David Souter Can Save the Supreme Court

The reputation of the United States Supreme Court is in trouble. Americans’ approval of the Court dropped fifteen points from 2009 to 2011, according to the Gallup Poll. Faith in the Supreme Court is dropping right along with confidence in government as a whole. Less than 2/3 of Americans say they trust the judicial branch, Gallup says.

And with good reason. Beginning with Bush v Gore in 2000, the court has issued a series of starkly partisan rulings in favor of conservative and corporate causes.

The decision of the high court that has most inspired outrage and derision in recent years is Citizens United. The Supreme Court rewrote the First Amendment to equate money spent on influencing elections and lobbying elected officials as a form of free speech under the First Amendment. Then the Court granted corporations the same First Amendment rights as humans. This twofer has unleashed a spree of legalized bribery by corporate America that will reach epic proportions in elections this year. It’s also ignited a grassroots firestorm. Where’s Our Money, and many other organizations, are backing a Constitutional Amendment to restore the primacy of humans to American Democracy.

As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his blistering dissent to the majority’s opinion in Citizens United, the decision overturns a hundred years of  Supreme Court rulings upholding restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Such a sudden and profound reversal in what the Constitution supposedly means is an offense in itself. It flouts a core principle of the American judiciary, known as “stare decisis,” which requires judges to respect the judicial decisions of their predecessors. “Stare decisis” is the basis for public faith in the integrity and honesty of judges and courts.

Perhaps for that reason, the Citizens United decision seems to have inspired several former justices of the Supreme Court to speak out.

In late May, now retired Justice Stevens, in a speech at the University of Arkansas, condemned the majority’s opinion in Citizens United as internally inconsistent because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that “the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech,” something that can’t be squared with the text of the First Amendment – even as interpreted by the Republican majority in that very case.

Stevens also defended President Obama for taking on the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union speech in 2010, right in front of several of the justices. Which may or may not have something to do with why Stevens was at the White House last week to receive the Medal of Freedom. Stevens took the opportunity to again criticize Citizens United.

Another retired justice has also weighed in, perhaps involuntarily. As Jeffrey Toobin reported in the New Yorker two weeks ago, Citizens United started out as relatively modest challenge to a federal campaign finance law. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative fellow travelers on the Court subsequently decided to use the case as an opportunity to rewrite the First Amendment in favor of big corporations. But Justice David Souter, a fiercely independent and revered jurist, objected to this tactic. According to Toobin, Souter, scheduled to retire in June, 2009, “wrote a dissent that aired some of the Court’s dirty laundry. By definition, dissents challenge the legal conclusions of the majority, but Souter accused the Chief Justice of violating the Court’s own procedures to engineer the result he wanted.” Toobin describes Souter’s draft dissent as “an extraordinary, bridge-burning farewell to the Court.”

To avoid a published dissent that would have profoundly questioned the integrity of his Court, Chief Justice Roberts set the case for re-argument on June 29, 2009.  This highly unusual move kicked the decision over until the next court term. Toobin says that Roberts did this knowing that Souter would be gone by then.

The source for this explosive reporting could be Justice Stevens... or it could be retired Justice Souter himself.

Souter has donated his papers – including presumably his draft dissent in Citizens United – to the New Hampshire Historical Society. Unfortunately, he has barred any access to them for fifty years.

We can’t wait that long. It’s hard to estimate how much damage to American politics will be done between now and 2056. A nation dominated by corporations and mega-wealthy CEOs for the next half-century will look a lot worse than even the corrupt system in effect today.

And the erosion of trust in the integrity of the Supreme Court is something all Americans – not merely we lawyers devoted to justice – should be alarmed about. The judicial branch used to be the one branch of government where the average person could take on City Hall or a giant corporation and expect to be treated equally, free of political influences. Lose that option, and what’s left for the 99%?

Retired justices typically refrain from criticizing their former colleagues. A sense of decorum, and the sanctity of the judicial process, mandates a quiet retirement for most departed members of the Supreme Court. But the integrity of the institution itself is now in question. The rule of law is being supplanted by the political preferences of the appointees on the Court. It won’t be long before the monstrous swelling of money in politics spread by Citizens United directly infects the composition of the high court itself. Those who care about the independence of the judicial branch should do everything in their power to save the Supreme Court. This includes justices who have left the Court.

Like everything else in our democracy, exposure is the first step toward healing. Americans deserve to know what is going on behind those closed bronze doors, above which reads the promise, “Equal Justice Under Law.”

Justice Souter should permit the immediate release of his original draft dissent in Citizens United.

Citizens United / Harvey Column - 06/06/2012

The Super Heroes vs The Super PACs

The Men in Black kicked the Avengers’ butts last weekend at the box office. The Avengers and the Mibsters both kicked the aliens’ butts (or their biological  equivalent). Gigantic movie battles between innocent, minding-their-own-business Americans and evil-doing invaders intent on destroying our cities have become a Memorial Day tradition. And it’s always the grit and chutzpah of a handful of superheroic patriots that saves the country and the planet.

Why do Americans especially embrace these fantastical films of victory against seemingly invincible enemies during a holiday that recognizes those who have given their lives for their country? It’s probably a coincidence. After all, how many Americans celebrating Memorial Day actually know what it stands for, apart from shopping, barbequing and movie-going?

Not many, is my guess. One reason is that only one half of one percent of the U.S. population – that’s 0.5% – has been on active duty in the military at any point during the last ten years, according to the Pew Research center.  Only a quarter of Americans say they “closely follow” news of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan. About half told pollsters the wars “made little difference” in their lives and that neither was worth the cost. This is hardly surprising; in fact, it was a deliberate strategy by the nation’s leaders.

There was never the congressional Declaration of War that our Founders mandated, in the Constitution, to ensure that the decision had the support of a majority of the country. To avoid a national draft, which they believed would be massively unpopular, Bush Administration officials disastrously outsourced a huge chunk of the work of the two conflicts to private corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater (both have since changed their names).  And war itself increasingly became a sterile and distant affair: U.S. soldiers directed drone attacks from buildings on U.S. soil, using high-tech weaponry much like blockbuster video games.

There was nothing like the clarity of purpose or mission that arises when a galactic Hitler seeks to wipe out the species  - the kind of “live free or die” choice that led a united United States to enter World War II. We were threatened – that much we knew – but the rest of the details were shrouded in secrecy and overt lies.  The post 9/11 wars were under the radar for many – maybe most –Americans.

That’s bad news for our democracy.  Countries whose populations were disengaged from the wars conducted in their name have not fared well in history, beginning with the archetypal example: ancient Rome.  As pointed out by Cullen Murphy, that city’s infamous decline and fall bears a distressing similarity to the privatization, coarsened discourse and elite-driven political establishment that characterizes contemporary America. A sense of betrayal and powerlessness – felt most painfully over the last few years as a result of the Wall Street debacle and bailouts – was behind the Tea Party (until it got take over by corporate interests) and Occupy uprisings.

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, the disenfranchisement of average Americans has only accelerated since the crash while a small class of the warrior elite has been elevated: the political consultants. Their mission: to manipulate the judgment of citizens as they attempt to exercise the right to vote.

Back in the day, political consultants were restrained by whatever boundaries were imposed by the candidates and elected officials they represented. The candidates, in turn, were bound by rules limiting how much money special interests could give them.

No more, reports the New York Times.

Ruling in the outrageous Citizens United case that corporations and their leaders have the same First Amendment rights as people, the Supreme Court has cut the tether between candidate and consultant. Now, practitioners of the dark arts of domestic poly-sci warfare can work directly for corporate funded Super PACs without having to worry about anyone’s sensibilities. “You don’t have kitchen cabinets made up of well-intentioned friends and neighbors who don’t know what they’re doing but eat up a lot of your time,” a Republican consultant told the Times. “Super PACs don’t have spouses.”

The Supreme Court has done away with the middleman – the candidate – and, perhaps inadvertently, torn away the modest cloak of legitimacy that the old campaign finance laws used to provide to a fundamentally corrupt system.  Now the corporations and malefactors of wealth exercise with zeal their First Amendment freedom to blast their political opponents into oblivion.

Looking for the Avengers? If we are going to preserve our democracy against this final assault, citizens are going to have to become the superheroes.

Harvey Column - 05/31/2012

With friends like these...

Who would squawk about giving California homeowners a little more protection against bankers, who have paid billions to settle charges of outright fraud in the foreclosure process?

Well, bankers of course.

You expect bankers to fight back when state officials take steps to rein in their illegal and improper practices.

That’s not a surprise.

Even though we bailed out the banks to help them survive, we have grown accustomed to their absolute devotion to their own interests at the expense of everybody else.

But why would an Obama administration federal regulator step in to interfere in a state’s business – on the banks’ behalf?

That’s what’s happened in California, where a proposal for a “homeowners’ bill of rights” by the state’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, has faced tough opposition from the bankers.

You would think that the Obama administration, if it were going to take a side, would want to be on the side of the state’s homeowners, not to mention Harris, who has been a co-chair of the president’s campaign and one of his strongest allies.

After all, President Obama, in his populist campaign mode, has paid strong lip service to homeowners and holding banks accountable. But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the general counsel of the Federal Home Financing Administration, Alfred Pollard, weighed in with a condescending letter to Democratic legislators fighting for the homeowners measure, warning that the legislation would “restrict mortgage credit and hamper necessary home seizures.”

Harris’s proposal sounds dramatic enough, a collection of six bills calling itself a “bill of rights.” But it’s actually a modest set of common-sense protections: for example, establishing civil penalties if banks continue their illegal practice of robo-signing in the foreclosure process, giving homeowners the right to challenge a foreclosure in court if banks don’t follow proper procedure, and prohibiting so-called “double-tracking,” in which banks foreclose while they’re negotiating a loan modification with the homeowner.

Banks have already promised to stop having their employees forge other people’s signatures on documents or verify that documents are accurate when in fact they haven’t even read them. The banks got off with barely a wrist slap for robo-signing and other foreclosure fraud in the recent “settlement” with state attorneys general and the feds. The settlement only costs the big banks $5 billion out of pocket while they negotiated another $20 billion in credits for taking a variety of remedial actions, some of which the banks were doing anyway – even without getting credit.

You might think that Pollard and his FHFA colleagues, who are responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, might be more circumspect in lecturing others about screwing up the housing market.

During the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie, which were originally set up by the government to support the housing market but went private in 1968, adopted all the bad behavior of the big banks, cooking its books, taking too much risk, throwing around their political muscle through lobbying and political contributions to stave off questions about their business shenanigans.

Then the government placed them in conservatorship, under the supervision of FHFA. Since the financial collapse, the agencies have not exactly put much muscle into helping homeowners facing foreclosure. The head of FHFA, a Bush Administration holdover named Ed DeMarco, has been particularly insistent that helping homeowners avoid foreclosure through principal reduction would be bad for taxpayers. But it turns out that in 2010, according to internal documents, Fannie Mae was about to launch a principal reduction program that its research showed said would save not only homes, as well as taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was abruptly cancelled.

The principal reduction program was based on a model of “shared equity,” in which if the value of the home later rose, a homeowner would share any gains with the bank.

While the recent foreclosure fraud settlement with the big banks commits them to do some principal reduction, that agreement specifically excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A couple of Democratic congressman, Elijah Cummings of Maryland and John Tierney of Massachusetts, have written to DeMarco demanding an explanation.

“Based on the documents we have obtained, it appears that the shared equity principal reduction pilot program should have been implemented years ago, and the failure to do so may have resulted in unnecessary losses to U.S. taxpayers,” Cummings and Tierney wrote. “This was not merely a missed opportunity, but a conscious choice that appears to have been based on ideology rather than Fannie Mae's own data and analyses.”

Even for an administration that has been kowtowing to the banks from day one, FHFA’s failures, and its lame venture into California’s legislative process, represent a new low.

For a start, California legislators should ignore Pollard and his FHFA’s cronies lame advice. Even better, the president should pitch him and FHFA’s entire leadership out of the administration and replace them with people who know how to support the housing market, not just bankers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 05/24/2012