Skip to content

One teeny step

Harry Reid scored a minor victory yesterday. Republicans caved and allowed a vote on some executive branch nominations, getting nothing in return, but the Senate remains incapacitated and Obama’s judicial nominations remain frozen. What else is new, right?

Well, what’s new, apparently, is that this entire unprecedented situation is the fault of both parties, as everything is in our media’s fantasy world:

The agreement came after a meeting on Monday night where 98 Senators vented for over three hours. Members of both parties admitted some culpability in the political fighting, with Democrats conceding that their headlong drive to alter the rules may have been overly aggressive.

(via NYTimes.com)

Well, that paragraph sent me to the dictionary in much confusion, for I had never seen the words “headlong” and “aggressive” applied to a group of people that endured 6 years of provocation and then boldly insisted on a half measure response. We all have our blind spots, and maybe I missed school the day these words were defined. So, I clicked on the American Heritage Unabridged, 4th, and here’s the definition of “headlong”:

In an impetuous manner; rashly.

Well, that couldn’t be right. So it occurred to me that maybe the meaning recently changed, so I went to the 5th edition, where much to my surprise I found the same definition. This left me in such confusion that I couldn’t bring myself to look up “aggressive”. Let it lie, I thought. The Times must have added its very own dictionary to its stylebook. Or perhaps, by virtue of the media’s iron law of partisan equivalency, these words were necessary to “balance” the story. After all, if everyone’s to blame, then no one’s to blame, and that is the all purpose meme that the media has no desire to abandon.

By the way, lest you think what happened yesterday signals a brighter tomorrow, check this out. In all likelihood Obama’s judicial nominees will all spend their remaining days as lowly lawyers rather than exalted jurists. Harry Reid has won his skirmish, but like McClellan, he’ll likely avoid battle in future days. Pity the man who can be outfoxed by Mitch McConnell.

Privatizing lawmaking

Life is good for bankers, in good times and bad. When you commit massive fraud you get a slap on the wrist that barely eats into the profits realized from that fraud, and you get to decide who you’ve ripped off too. But, the icing on the cake is that you’ll never get caught for committing that kind of fraud again. Not that you won’t do the same thing. It’s just that you’ll get it made legal.

The top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee has tucked a provision into his mortgage finance reform bill that would create a privately held “National Mortgage Data Repository.” The repository would basically look like MERS, the bank-owned electronic database tracking mortgage transfers. The difference is that, while MERS’ activities have drawn legal challenges across the country, the National Mortgage Data Repository would have the force of statute to carry out the exact same behavior. According to the bill text, any document arising from this repository would be seen as presumptively legal, pre-empting state and federal laws on demonstrating the right to foreclose.

(via Naked Capitalism)

Read the linked post for the whole story. Boiled down, it comes to this. The bill would legalize MERS, and hand over to the banks the right to determine what is and what is not good evidence of their right to foreclose. They would only have to prove as much as they would require themselves to prove, and if that means that your house gets foreclosed by someone who has no documentary proof that you owe them a dime, well tough luck. Well, that’s not fair. They’ll always have documentary proof, because this bill gives them the right to manufacture it out of thin air.

By the way, many people did get their homes foreclosed when they were not in default. I had a case myself, which happened to have a happy ending for the homeowner. She successfully defended a foreclosure by proving that she had made payments to the lender and its successors, who succeeded each other in rapid sequence. The bank’s lawyer then wrote her a letter telling her that the bank realized it had lost the first time, but it still felt she was in default (she was not) and it intended to start all over again. In the end, we got money from the law firm for unfair debt collection practices and, sort of bizarrely, got the mortgage itself voided, so she ended up with the house and no debt. That happy ending is an outlier, however. This proposal would make sure such unusual events never took place, while enhancing the odds that people would lose their homes without cause.

It’s good to be a bank. Almost as good as being the king.

Honor among thieves, American style

This morning as I perused the Times, I read this article about Hillary Clinton, who is currently following her husband’s career path and raking in big bucks on the lecture circuit. My immediate reaction was to condemn such fees as a transparent investment, a payment to assure favorable treatment if Hillary should in fact succeed Obama, both temporally and philosophically. But, sort of coincidentally, shorty after I read a post on Americablog, and realized that I was in fact wrong:

Ex–Obama Treasury Secretary and former official with the New York Fed, Tim Geithner, has arrived on Thank-You Street.

Geithner’s share of the legal DC bribery — $400,000 for just three speeches, with more to certainly come.

(via Legal bribery: Tim Geithner earns $400,000 for 3 speeches)

The post provides all the facts any reasonable person would need to conclude that Geithner is being paid for services rendered. I beg leave to add another proof: anyone can make the case that some people might actually want to pay to hear Bill Clinton; some might, if we stretch a point, want to pay to hear Hillary Clinton, but no one on earth would want to listen to little Timmy, unless they themselves were paid. And the likelihood is that both Bill and Hillary are now being rewarded for past services; for in the one case his time is past, and in another her future may not be anywhere near what some suppose.

But I come not to condemn those whose heels rest securely on our heads. I come to praise them. For in what other pack of criminals is such honorable behavior so widespread? Most bribe takers demand money up front, some few will accept it as due upon services rendered, but only in the USA can a bribe taker consider his payment to be, shall we say, as safe as money in a government guaranteed bank, be its promised payment date ever so far in the future. Truly, these folks are the most honorable of thieves and the most admirable of men (and women), for one man’s wink and another’s nod forms a mutual bond that neither would think of breaking. So Geithner could rest assured that though his time for true riches must needs be deferred, it most surely would come, and indeed it has, with only the skimpiest of fig leaves to hide the obscene goings on.

Not sure about this

I’m a big Elizabeth Warren fan, and I’m also firmly convinced that the Glass-Steagall Act should never have been repealed, and should be reenacted. That being the case, why am I a bit reluctant to cheer on Elizabeth after receiving her email asking me to support her recently introduced 21st Century Glass Steagall Act. Well, it was this paragraph:

Now it’s time to launch the next push. I joined forces with Senators John McCain, Maria Cantwell, and Angus King to introduce the 21st Century Glass Steagall Act of 2013 to reinstate and modernize core banking protections.

Why, oh why, do Democrats continue to believe that getting John McCain on board of a bill will bring anything but grief, not to mention the real possibility that he will vote against his own bill. And, I am sorry to say, Angus King’s name on the list doesn’t fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings, after he gave aid and comfort to the Republican efforts to kill student loan relief.

Who knows, it may work this time. But please Elizabeth, beware of the company you keep.

Reid threatens, Republicans yawn

Harry Reid is once again threatening to end the filibuster, and it looks like this supreme political strategist has chosen his approach: threaten to hit ‘em where it will hurt the least (and then not follow through):

Democratic sources confirmed a New York Times report that leaders are weighing a change that would end filibusters on presidential picks for administrative posts, but not for judgeships. It’s a plan that appears to have been in the works for some time. HuffPost reported in May that Democrats were gearing up for a fight around Cordray’s job this month.

(via Huffington Post)

Well, I’m not being fair. It would hurt the Republicans even less, at least at the moment, if the Democrats confined their filibuster reform to filibusters of legislation, seeing as nothing useful will ever pass the cretin filled House. But this is harmless enough, since the Republicans will have succeeded in preventing a two term Democratic president from appointing anywhere near the number of judges that he should have appointed. That’s a shame really, because by and large, Obama’s judicial appointments have been pretty good, unlike most of his administrative appointments (e.g., Jack Lew and James Comey). It’s the judges that make the decisions, and anything decent Cordray does will certainly be set aside by the DC judges, to whose number Obama has been forbidden by filibuster to add. Recall that the Republicans threatened to change the rules on judges, and the Democrats didn’t merely cave, they really quite sincerely caved. Don’t look for the Republicans to cave to similar pressure, if it’s ever threatened. They’ve taken Reid’s measure, as they’ve taken Obama’s. Reid will cave in the end, when McConnell once again promises to be good. Reid’s heart isn’t in it. Collegiality (strange word to apply in these circumstances, but they all use it) is more important than good government.

The banks want your money, and no credit union is going to stop them

Periodically issues crop up that give an accurate, and usually depressing, indication of the extent to which our alleged democracy is or is not the captive of the elites. Here’s one that’s been flying under my radar, at least, and probably almost everyone else’s. It seems the banks have discovered that special tax breaks are a bad thing. No, I’m not talking about the fact that hedge fund billionaires get taxed at half the rate we peons pay; I am of course referring to the tax break that allows credit unions to provide an alternative place for the rest of us to plant our ever decreasing supply of money.

Given the steady growth of consumers turning to responsive credit unions for their banking, the oligopolistic banks that brought you the crash of the American economy – and made you lend them money to survive – are now trying to crush credit unions.

The vehicle being used by the large financial institutions – many of whom are still engaged in risky and unethical if not illegal actions – to remove credit unions as competition is to get their pawns in DC to pass legislation that will remove their tax exemption.

According to a July 6 LA Times article:

The tax exemption is crucial to credit unions, which by law can’t raise capital through public stock offerings the way that banks can, said Fred R. Becker Jr., president of the National Assn. of Federal Credit Unions, a trade group with about 3,800 federally chartered members.

“They’ll have to convert to banks, which is what the banks want,” he said. “Then they’d have, for lack of a better term, a monopoly.”

(via Buzzflash)

Sort of an acid test. There is no policy reason to do this, other than to hand the banks yet another bonanza. Even removing the tax break would mean a reduction in federal government tax receipts:

A 2012 economic study commissioned by the trade group found that removing the tax exemption would cost consumers about $10 billion a year through higher fees and interest rates on loans, as well as lower interest rates on savings.

That loss of income would end up costing the federal government $1.5 billion a year in lost tax revenue, the study said.

It’d be interesting to keep an eye on this and see who steps forward to crush the credit unions at the banks’ behest. Why does the name Chuck Schumer pop to mind?

We have nothing to lose but our Schumers

Some thoughts provoked initially by a mass email I received today, in which Hullabaloo’s digby offered me a chance to win a Neil Young souvenir if I donated money to Daylin Leach, a proud progressive running for Congress in Pennsylvania. Apparently, the powers that be in the Democratic Party would prefer a corporate Democrat run in his place.This got me thinking about how asymmetric the current situation is between the parties. The Republican Party is in thrall to its base, to the point where its continued existence as a national party is threatened. The Democrats, on the other hand, are in many ways totally divorced from their base.

Mr. Leach, for instance, appears to be on the outs with Steny Hoyer because he strongly takes traditional Democratic positions that are more and more being relegated to the sidelines as the Beltway Democrats seek to please their corporate masters. Meanwhile, from the President on down, party “leaders” feel no shame about shilling for Wall Street and the banks, while ever so silently sticking it to us on core issues like Social Security. I’ve linked to stories about Gary Gensler before, but haven’t written about him, but his story is a case in point.

Mr. Gensler is the one Obama appointee (chair of the Commodity’s Futures Trading Commission) that has actually turned his back on his banker past and sought to vigorously regulate the derivatives market in accordance with the weak, but better than nothing, dictates of the Dodd-Frank act. As a reward Obama has fired him, but the effective date, and I assume Obama had no choice about this, won’t arrive until after the new regulations become effective. The banks are crying foul; they want the U.S. to await some international standards that they fully expect will allow them to continue their criminal enterprises unabated.

Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer of New York is writing letters and pounding the table to try to stop sweeping new regulation of derivatives from being put into effect by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) four days from now on July 12.

Schumer is leading an assault against Gary Gensler, Chair of the CFTC, who wants to impose cross-border rules which would prevent firms like JPMorgan Chase from simply moving its derivative trades to London or another foreign trading venue to escape U.S. rules – the situation that allowed JPMorgan to lose $6.2 billion of deposits in its infamous London Whale derivatives episode.

Schumer’s actions and those of other Senate Democrats who joined with him in a letter to Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary, brought a sharp rebuke last week from the editorial board of the New York Times:

“In the letter to Mr. Lew, the senators say that to avoid confusing the banks, the C.F.T.C. cross-border guidelines should not take effect until the Securities and Exchange Commission completes a separate set of derivatives rules. That is ridiculous. The C.F.T.C. oversees virtually all of the multitrillion-dollar derivatives market; the S.E.C. a relative sliver. The C.F.T.C. has diligently issued its required rules under the Dodd-Frank law over the past three years and has set a deadline of July 12 to put the cross-border guidelines into effect. The S.E.C. first got around to issuing a pathetically weak derivatives proposal in May.”

(via Wall Street on Parade)

By any reasonable standard, what Shumer is doing is anathema not just to his base, but to the rest of the country. Yet he will go on, and will take no risk in doing so. His position will remain secure, for the corporatists and “moderates” who have captured the Beltway Democratic Party are securely in the saddle.

Now, one could argue that the Democrats are only doing the right thing by ignoring their base, for look what has happened to the Republicans, who have been captured by theirs. But there’s an important distinction between the two bases. The Democratic base is, to a great degree, merely asking for preservation of the status quo, or a return to the status quo that prevailed prior to the regulatory surrender to the banks in the late 90s. What we want is quite popular. We want social security preserved. So do almost all Americans, except the Beltway punditocracy, the Randian billionaires and their too-numerous Democratic fellow travelers (looking at you, POTUS). We, along with most Americans, are even willing to pay more, though we think the untaxed rich should do more paying (as do most Americans). We want Wall Street regulated (still looking at POTUS). We want people to be allowed to vote. We want women to be able to decide their fates for themselves. We want religion out of our schools and we want our schools to be public, not privatized. We are happy to let gay people get married. With few exceptions, these positions have super-majority support and the rest have at least majority support. They are not fringe positions; indeed, for the most part all we want is to preserve the good choices this country has made in the past, which corporate rent seekers and religious zealots are trying to destroy.

So, perhaps it’s time for we folks in the Democratic Party to take a page from the Tea Party playbook and start primarying people like Chuck Schumer. We’d probably lose the first few fights, but that would stop eventually if we took another page from that book and didn’t give up. Recall, after all, that it was an eventually unsuccessful attempt to unseat Joe Lieberman that finally got the Democratic Party to oppose the Iraq war in earnest. It might take even less heat to get them to start supporting the New Deal.

Friday Night Music, 4th of July Edition (A look back), and a bit of a rant

Well, another national natal day has passed, but just barely, and festivities certainly go on around our great land, so it’s only appropriate that we give another listen to the song that should be our National Anthem. This performance is by Pete Seeger, Bruce Springsteen, and the assembled multitude. It brings back memories of those early days, when we thought we’d elected a president who bid fair to become another Roosevelt. Well, we got that wrong, and we never got that Hope and Change, or hardly enough to matter. Still, we can’t give up hope, the other side of that wall still belongs to you and me if we can only get ourselves together to jump it.

Lest it be claimed by some people that I am too hard on Obama, let me say that he appears to be holding his own in the affections of the people. Yesterday the Groton Federation of Democratic Women had cardboard Barack on its parade float, see below, and he and they were very well received by the crowd: many cheers and only scattered naysayers.

P7041904

In a weird sort of way the man is blessed by the enemies he’s made. Most people are totally unaware of the extent to which he’s sought to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. Fox and the right wing have pushed so hard on their “radical socialist” meme that most folks assume that Obama is at least inclined in that direction. As for yours truly, I face facts, albeit reluctantly sometimes. The guy we thought or hoped we elected doesn’t exist. He coulda been a contender, right up there with the big guys; the times were right, and the country was primed. Instead, he’ll merely take his place as the best president of this century so far, and given the competition, that’s saying nothing at all.

A Thought Experiment

Digby notes that at least one protestor, an asshole openly carrying a gun in order to assert his “second amendment rights” and his rights under a crazy open carry law, gets an inordinate amount of respect from the cops that confront him . I’ve seen the video before, but if you haven’t, you can view it at the link.

So here’s my thought experiment, one that could actually be carried out. Suppose someone-someone black and male-walking down that same street carrying that same gun was confronted by the same cops. Who would want to bet against me that the respectful and humble tone the cops took with the asshole would be repeated?

Monday Night Music-Wendy

This is the sort of thing that makes me re-think my position about re-opening talks with the Confederacy. We definitely want to keep folks like this. The Bright Light Social Hour of Austin (where else in Texas?), honors the most famous state senator in the world: