Skip to content

Truly Incredible

Thursday, April 18, 2013

If you are still using RSS (I know, it’s so last year with Google Reader disappearing soon), add Wall Street on Parade to your feeds. Pam Martens covers all things Wall Street, and if you want to stay in a permanent state of despair about the country generally, and economic fairness specifically, you should read it religiously. She has been covering the Senate hearings on the foreclosure “settlement” and you won’t believe this:

The settlement was to consist of $3.6 billion in cash being paid directly to more than 4 million aggrieved borrowers with another $5.7 billion in soft dollar assistance such as loan modifications, principal reduction and forgiveness of deficiency judgments. Yesterday’s bombshell, that the $5.7 billion may only amount to a paltry $12 million, was captured in this exchange at the hearing between Senator Jeff Merkley and Deborah Goldberg, Special Project Director of the National Fair Housing Alliance:

Senator Merkley: “In your testimony Ms. Goldberg, on page 10, you note that ‘on a loan with an unpaid balance of $500,000, a loan modification that provides any amount of principal reduction – be that $1,000, $10,000, or $100,000 – will yield $500,000 worth of credit for the servicer.’ It’s hard for anyone apart from this process to truly believe that if you do a $1,000 reduction you get $500,000 credit. Yet, are you saying absolutely that’s the way it works?”

Ms. Goldberg: “That’s what it says in the settlement…”

Senator Merkley: “Well, I’d just like to point out that the roughly $6 billion in soft money that’s in the settlement, at that 500 to 1 rate, that is reduced down to $12 million. Six billion goes to $12 million. That’s a vast difference. Now you’ve pointed out Ms. Goldberg that this creates a pure incentive to do reductions on large loans. Now I live in a working class neighborhood, 3-bedroom ranch houses. There are no $500,000 mortgages where I live ‘cause there’s no $500,000 houses. So your point in your testimony is that working class communities, certainly communities of color, there’s an incentive to kind of bypass them. Why would the Fed and the OCC agree to a structure that allows a 500 to 1 or more, for that matter…why would they agree to such a fictitious form of accounting and a structure that incentivizes the bypassing of working Americans in this whole process.”

Ms. Goldberg: “I think that’s an excellent question Senator Merkley. I’m afraid I can’t answer it. It would be a good question to ask them to explain.”

There are multiple reasons to believe that the banks, with the sycophantic regulators in tow, have gamed the system with this settlement. As we reported last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered the bombshell in last week’s Senate hearing that the banks themselves were allowed to determine the potential number of harmed borrowers and classify them into categories of harm – thus effectively determining the monetary payments.

(via Wall Street on Parade)

Not to put too fine a point on it, it appears that the banks engineered a deal where they get to decide who they scammed, and then they get to call one dollar 500 dollars. (I wonder if I can repay my own mortgage using that kind of accounting?) For that matter, if they can find a million dollar mortgage out there they can convert a dollar into a thousand dollars. Plus, and why is this no surprise, they can get this rosy outcome by comforting the most comfortable among those they scammed (or decide that they scammed, and they are incentivized to decide they scammed the rich) while ignoring the most straitened. What a great country.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

One of Our Best

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Every year at this time we Groton Democrats honor one of our own. Truth be told, one purpose is raising money, but the honorees are all deserving, but this year’s is especially so.

Natalie Burfoot-Billing, a member of the storied Burfoot clan of Groton (brother Amby won the Boston Marathon lo those many years ago), has pretty much done it all.

Like yours truly, she has swept the table of elective offices here in Groton, having been a member of the Board of Ed, the Town Council, and the Representative Town Meeting. Unlike yours truly, she managed to get re-elected whenever she chose to run again.

But Natalie’s real worth, substantial as it was and is in those offices, is on the ground during political campaigns. We often don’t see much of Natalie at town committee meetings during the off season, but once the campaign season begins, she’s everywhere. Nothing gets done without a lot of willing workers, but those willing workers aren’t going to get much done without someone willing to take charge and make sure that the things that need to get done get done. That’s where Natalie shines. Calls get made, signs get posted, voters get tabulated. Those things wouldn’t happen in Groton without Natalie. Well, maybe they would, but not nearly as well as they do. We are a disparate bunch, but it all comes together during campaign season, and it’s Natalie that makes it happen.

One suspects that there’s someone like Natalie in every town committee-at least every successful town committee. We’ve had a lot of close elections in our neck of the woods, Joe Courtney’s first win being a prime example. Joe would be just another small town lawyer (like yours truly) if not for folks like Natalie.

If you’re a Groton Democrat, or wish you were, come to the Groton Motor Inn
99 Gold Star Highway (Rt 184) at 3:00 PM to honor Natalie and support your local town committee.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Colbert on Boston

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

A great bit.

Filed in Video | | Comments (0)

Con Men All

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

This type of thing is probably not unprecedented, but it’s particularly galling in a political environment in which it takes massive public pressure to even get debate on a bill people want, never mind an actual vote.

Last year, to much fanfare, and with support from both parties, Congress passed the STOCK act, an act designed to shed some light on the financial activities of public officials and political candidates. Among other things, the statute provided for a mechanism for ordinary people to obtain the information in easily readable downloadable formats. President Obama signed the bill, again to great fanfare, hailing it as a “good first step”.

Yesterday, to no fanfare at all, while the rest of us were worrying about Boston, Obama signed a bill that, while not quite repealing that “good first step” (that would be tacky and might draw attention), rendered it a meaningless shell. It was a Congressional con-job, enabled by an eager President. It passed with even broader Congressional support than the original act, proving once again a thesis I have propounded on occasion: the closer they come to unanimity the more reprehensible their product is likely to be:

Watchdog groups had hailed the passage of the bill last year, as it had wide bi-partisan support and satisfied the public need for added transparency. However, just months after the 2012 election, Congress furtively stripped the bill of major powers:

Both chambers of Congress quickly — and near silently — approved the repeal legislation at the end of last week by unanimous consent, just before heading home to their districts.

…

The Senate advanced the bill Thursday by unanimous consent, without debate or even briefly describing what it would do. The House signed off on the bill Friday using the same approach.

And, unfortunately, yesterday, President Obama completed this rope-a-dope deception by signing this new bill, which stripped key provisions from the STOCK Act and rolled back a lot of the progress that the original bill made in promoting transparency and open government. The bill was signed without any cameras or fanfare, which is in stark contrast to the very public signing of the actual STOCK Act. It seems President Obama was glad to parade around the signing of the pro-transparency bill, but was not so open about his reversal of the most important parts of it a year later! Open Secrets describes the key provisions stripped out of the bill and labels this action “A reversal of the STOCK Act”:

(via Daily Kos: Pres Obama Signs Bill Killing Anti-Corruption, Pro-Transparency STOCK Act Provisions)

I’m as cynical as the next guy, and I knew from the start that Obama was not the next Lincoln (even Lincoln wasn’t really Lincoln) but I have to admit that I’m astounded by the con job that Obama pulled off- not once, but twice. Now, we really had no choice, the alternatives being so much worse, but the second time around even I managed to get a little enthusiastic, and the first time I really had hope (remember “hope?”).

Of course this minor piece of treachery is nothing compared to Obama’s seemingly implacable desire to repeal the New Deal. I mean, even the right wasn’t exactly clamoring for privatization of the TVA, and they were by no means demanding that we cut Social Security, though of course they welcome the chance to do so and then blame the Democrats. And, lest you think that Obama honestly thinks that chained CPI is really a more honest way to calculate changes in the cost of living, think again. As Dean Baker observes, The Obama Administration Is Scared of an Accurate Consumer Price Index:

It would have been helpful to note this fact in an article discussing the Obama administration’s proposal to cut Social Security benefits by adopting a chained consumer price index as the basis for Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA). The piece notes claims that the chained CPI provides a more accurate measure of the rate of inflation, then tells readers:

“Some argue that the chained CPI would cheat seniors by understating inflation for the elderly, who spend more on health care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found conflicting evidence on that point.”

Actually the Congressional Budget Office did not find conflicting evidence on this point, it just noted that the evidence is not conclusive. If the White House was interested in an accurate measure of the rate of inflation seen by seniors then it could instruct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to construct a full elderly CPI that would track the actual consumption patterns of the elderly. It has steadfastly refused to consider this proposal, which could lead to a higher annual COLA.

The Post should have made this point so that readers would recognize that the goal of the Obama administration is to cut Social Security, not make the COLA more accurate. Some people may be confused on this point.

(via Beat the Press)

There is a distinct disadvantage to the current situation. Had Romney been elected, the battle lines would be clear. Romney would no doubt have wanted to do exactly what Obama is trying to do, but Democrats would have had a clear and powerful political incentive to oppose him. They now go into battle with a leader who is essentially fighting for the other side. If both major parties are intent on selling people out, and if voters cast about for an alternative, this country being what it is; our media being what it is; the power of money being what it is; that alternative will be from the right, dressing itself up in populist rags. Obama, unless our Congresspeople, against all odds, engage in massive resistance, is handing the Social Security and Medicare programs over to the tender mercies of the Republican Party, which will pose as their savior, and proceed to reform them to their deaths.

Filed in Hypocrisy, Obama | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-Two Ladies

Friday, April 12, 2013

One of the unwritten rules for the Friday Night feature is that I don’t repeat an artist, but since it’s unwritten and since I unwrote it, I can break it any time I like. In any event, I’m running out of artists, though I’ve never, so far as I can recall, posted anything with the first Elvis, and probably never will.

This comes to mind because I’ve begun drawing inspiration from the obituaries. As people die, one must pay tribute, or, in rare cases, refuse to do so for the truly undeserving. So, this week, the good Elvis returns, giving Margaret Thatcher her due. I personally am not a fan of the tendency to give a pass to the evil dead and I’m glad that Elvis got his wish.

Annette Funicello also left us this week. For those of us of a certain age she was an icon, though by the time she was 25 she was already a relic of a more innocent (in some ways) age. She may not live in the collective memory as long as Thatcher, and she may not have had the same impact as Maggie, but she compares well. She didn’t make the world any worse, and for some at least, made it a tiny bit better, and from all I’ve read, she endured her multiple sclerosis with grace and dignity. If you were there at the time, and the right age, I doubt you can watch this clip without tearing up. If not, you’ll just marvel at the naiveté, I suppose.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Go Bears! (We’re Number 1!)

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Many of my readers may not instantly realize who the Bears might be. Some local readers may think I refer to a Stonington High athletic team, and some may think I’m referring to the denizens of Jellystone Park. But the cognizanti will know that I can only be referring to Bowdoin College (and bears of the polar variety), of which I am a prouder alumni today than yesterday, for we are now the number one academic target of the paranoid and racist right, and what greater source of pride could a school have:

The president of Bowdoin College responded forcefully Wednesday to a scathing, 360-page critique of the small, selective Maine college released last week by a conservative-leaning higher education advocacy group.

“Let me be clear and direct: The report by the National Association of Scholars is mean-spirited and personal,” Bowdoin president Barry Mills wrote in a statement posted online at the college and e-mailed to nearly 20,000 alumni and parents of current students. “It exaggerates its claims and misrepresents both what we do at Bowdoin and what we stand for.”

The response from Mills lagged a week behind the ­report, titled “What Does ­Bowdoin Teach?” The report is being championed by the conservative ­Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

A college spokesman said that officials needed time to ­review the lengthy document but grew concerned as misrepresentations of the school pulled from the report gained traction on talk radio and in the blogosphere this week, prompting some angry calls to college offices from anonymous critics.

(via The Boston Globe)

The report was apparently a made to order hatchet job, paid for by a rich racist who got mad at Bowdoin President Barry Mills for implying that he was a rich racist:

But the origins of the report have raised questions about its intent. Its funder, New York money manager Thomas ­Klingenstein, has a contentious history with Mills dating to 2010, when the two men first met on a golf course in Maine.

A few weeks later, Mills briefly described their encounter in a speech at Bowdoin. Without naming Klingenstein, the college president said his golf opponent had told him he would not donate to Bowdoin — or to Williams College, ­Klingenstein’s alma mater, for that matter — because of their “misguided diversity efforts,” a pronouncement Mills said left him with “despair and deep concern.”

So, the National Association of Scholars, an oxymoron if ever there was one, always on the look out to soak a rich conservative, agreed to conduct a study of what’s wrong with education today, allegedly using Bowdoin as representative of the type. (Read the article for the full story) Surprisingly, folks weren’t terribly excited about cooperating, so in the end, they had to base their previously formed conclusions on rather scanty evidence:

At Bowdoin, the researchers were tolerated, but did not get much help, said Wood, who ­described canceled interviews and curt replies to requests for information. Mills sent an ­e-mail to faculty making clear that the college did not endorse the study, but adding that “as always, you are free to discuss any matter you deem appropriate with whomever you choose.”

As a result, Wood said, the final report relies heavily on documents — course catalogs, minutes of meetings, student newspaper articles — that he said resulted in a stronger report.

Yes, truly, a stronger report, such as the conclusion reported later in the Globe’s article:

Alex Williams, a 2012 graduate of Bowdoin, challenged the study’s criticism of a rally held in 2011 after racist graffiti appeared on a student’s door. Students gathered to make public statements about their diversity, an episode the authors find troubling because speakers emphasized race or ethnicity, not their identities as scientists or mathematicians.

“The white, male authors of the NAS report display a sociopathic capability for removing this event from its immediate context,” Williams notes. “The identities that mattered for this demonstration were precisely the ones targeted by hateful speech.”

Well…duh.. You don’t even need to get into a highly selective institution to figure that one out, but apparently no one from the “National Association of Scholars” could do so.

So, anyway, I’m totally thrilled that my college is now the right wingers target one for their complaints that conservatism is not given proper respect in academia. Now, when I was there, there were a fair number of conservative professors. In fact, my favorite teacher was a conservative Republican, though, if he still lives and breathes, he must be mystified by the folks who’ve hijacked both those terms. Were I Barry Mills, I’d point out that today’s conservatives have forfeited their right to academic respectability by turning their backs on science and reason. We rational types neither expect or get respect in the seminaries and bible colleges; they should expect none from us.

I must say, however, that this incident has given me new found respect and appreciation for Barry Mills and the job he has to do. Barry was a classmate of mine, but if we ever exchanged two words, I can’t recall. I’ve been skeptical about the high salaries college presidents pull down these days, but from this article I can now see that they’re deserved. Imagine having a job that requires you to 1) play golf …2) with people like Klingenstein. It must be hard to spend a lot of your time kissing the asses of the entitled rich, and having to do it while spoiling a good walk must make it even worse.

Postscript: I told my wife I was going to title this post “Take that, Swarthmore!”, but she, a loyal Swarthmore alum (my younger son went there too), objected, though I couldn’t see why. It was my way of gloating about the fact that Bowdoin had overtaken Swarthmore as a target of conservative scorn. It’s quite an honor unseating a champ that, time out of mind, has held an undisputed crown. So I couldn’t resist adding this postscript, to gloat a bit, but also to tip my hat to the former champ. We Bowdoinites can only hope we can live up to its example. We salute you, Quakers!

Update: The report is even worse than I thought. Check out Conservative Scholars’ Investigation Says Bowdoin College Is Awesome

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

This list is too short

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Time for some Connecticut Congress folks to get on this list. Joe Courtney was right to take offense on Stephen Spielberg’s placing Connecticut’s representatives on the wrong side of history. This is Joe’s chance to make sure he’s on the right side.

Filed in Social Security | | Comments (0)

Malloy gives it to LaPierre

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Nice to see Malloy take him on.

It truly boggles my mind that people who have worked their way up to working in network news can give any credence to the argument that since criminals won’t obey a criminal law, there’s no point in passing it. By LaPierre’s logic, shouldn’t we repeal the laws against murder, since they do make it harder on the occasional law abiding person who kills in self defense. We pass criminal laws in order to allow us to punish people who are doing things we don’t like. We don’t expect that passing such a law will stop everyone from engaging in the proscribed behavior. That’s why we have cops, courts and prisons.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Newt’s Contract on America nears fruition

Sunday, April 7, 2013

A good history at Angry Bear of the roots of Obama’s quest to slash Social Security. Is it surprising that it is yet another right wing idea that has become middle of the road by virtue of ceaseless repetition on the right and no pushback from what passes as the left in the Beltway. It began with Newt’s contract on America.

There is no need to ask anymore as to the reasoning behind the policies and offers in negotiations that is Obama. It is what he wants. We are living the continual implementation of the conservative economic and thus social ideology that came in with Reagan and fully came out with Gingrich and The Contract with America.

(via Angry Bear – Financial and Economic Commentary)

We may get a temporary reprieve due to the irrational Obama hatred on the right, but we can drive a stake through the heart of this thing only by letting every Democratic office holder know that we will accept nothing less than total opposition to this attack on the middle class and poor.

On a related subject, check out Dean Baker’s recent post, in which he compares the impact of Obama’s tax increases on the rich to that of implementing chained CPI on the rest of us.

President Obama’s proposal would reduce benefits by 0.3 percent for each year after a worker retires. After ten years benefits would be cut by 3.0 percent, after twenty years 6.0 percent, and after 30 years 9.0 percent. Over a twenty year retirement, the average cut would be 3.0 percent.

This cut would be a bigger hit to the typical retiree’s income than President Obama’s tax increases at the end of 2012 were to the typical person affected. A couple earning $500,000 a year would pay an additional 4.6 percentage points on income above $450,000. This would amount to $2,300 a year (4.6 percent of $50,000). That is less than 0.5 percent of their pre-tax income and around a 0.6 percent reduction in their after-tax income.

(via Beat the Press)

Filed in Obama, Social Security | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, April 5, 2013

Dedicated to the commander in chief and his new budget.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)