The Federal government and the Attorneys General from 49 states have signed a deal with five major banks over charges of fraud, including reported acts of widespread perjury and forgery, in the so-called “robo-signing” scandal.

A few days ago we suggested that any deal be scored against five basic principles: openness, justice, restitution, deterrence, and reconciliation. It's clear that this deal falls short in every category. The best thing that can be said about it is that, thanks to a few tough holdouts led by New York AG Eric Schneiderman, it now allows additional civil and criminal investigations to proceed.

That's far from nothing, and it could be a big deal. But it will only be a big deal if the Administration stops coddling banks and devotes a lot more resources to helping homeowners and upholding justice.

Up to now, the fight has been to prevent the Administration from doing another cushy bank deal. Now that the door's been left open to further action, there's a new fight: to demand that they devote the Federal government's resources to investigating Wall Street crime.

Our own scoring of the agreement follows, based on the criteria we set out last week. Others may have a different opinion. But now that the deal's done, the way forward is clear. To paraphrase Joe Hill, don't mourn or celebrate: Organize.

The Score

Openness: Has the truth been brought to light? Do we finally understand what happened to us, why it happened, and who's responsible?

The agreement trades away the leverage that investigators gained by essentially catching bankers dead-to-rights as they broke laws on a mass scale through robo-signing. That means they can't use that leverage to “sweat” more information out of the banks.

We wrote in our scorecard that “there's a lot we don't know about bank malfeasance,” including the guilt or innocence of individual bankers. Sadly, we may never know. This deal appears to end ongoing investigations into “robo-signing.” If you see a bank CEO whining on television about his industry's bad reputation, we're not likely to ever learn if he ever personally signed off on criminal behavior. (Which would make him a criminal too, of course.)

There is, however, an upside. We wrote that “any settlement which closes the door to further investigations gets a much lower score.” This settlement does allow investigations to move forward in other areas. As the Washington Post notes, it “leaves open the possibility of other lawsuits regarding fair housing and fair lending laws, civil rights claims, and claims dealing with how loans were packaged and sold, a process known as securitization. In addition, it does not shield the banks from any criminal violations that arise.”

Continue reading »

A Missouri grand jury handed down multiple felony indictments for foreclosure fraud on Monday. That's the same kind of crime being negotiated in nationwide settlement talks with America's big banks. If people can be indicted for doing it, why should bankers be allowed to write a check and walk away?

"Robo-signing" is the nickname that's been given to the practice of hiring large groups of inexperienced workers (they called them "Burger King Kids" at JPMorgan Chase) to file false statements with local courts in order to process foreclosures. In a typical "robo-signing," someone signs a statement testifying that they had personally reviewed documents that prove the bank has title to a home that's being foreclosed — and might do that many times every hour. That's either perjury or forgery, depending on the way in which the "robo-signing" was done.

Forgery and perjury are serious crimes. It's an even more serious crime to ask others to do it for you.

Banks, and some friendly and lazy journalists, were quick to dismiss the whole issue as a "paperwork problem." If "robo-signing" is a "paperwork problem," then the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a "misplaced bullet problem."

"Robo-signing" alone is an enormous cloud of alleged criminality hanging over this country's banks. If you throw in all the well-documented instances of investor fraud, which have led to hundreds of millions in settlements, then our banks have committed a massive serial crime wave around mortgages.

But Monday's indictments weren't issued against a bank or a banker. They were issued against a home foreclosure processing company and its chief executive. That's today's news. Stay tuned.

Deal in Limbo

Meanwhile those settlement charges appear stalled, thanks to holdout Attorneys General from key states who refuse to give the banks blanket immunity. Another announcement deadline was missed on Monday, and the administration negotiators' subsequent announcement that "more than 40 states" have already signed on was just smoke and mirrors. More than 40 states signed on to a weaker agreement months ago, so the administration was hyping a non-event.

Tea-leaf readers have another busy day on Tuesday. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is a pivotal player for several reasons. He was the first and most influential holdout Attorney General, he was named co-chair of the president's heretofore lackluster mortgage fraud task force, and he filed a lawsuit last week against several major banks for their use of the electronically-driven shell game of a pseudo-corporation known as MERS Inc.

Continue reading »

The Susan G. Komen breast cancer fund reversed its Planned Parenthood action and the right wing anti-choice politician it hired has resigned. But the real lesson of this incident is broader than one decision or one person.

Our society is permeated with a culture of corporate greed, aggression, and power that reaches from the boardrooms of New York to the meeting rooms of Washington.

The Susan G. Komen foundation has raised millions to support vitally important work, but it has also reinforced some of the worst tendencies in our society. It has leveraged big-company resources so that it could dominate its "marketplace," usually by serving as a marketing arm for a client list that includes some very poorly-behaved corporate citizens. Then it has used its market dominance to bully other organizations, push its own political agenda, and try to reshape the course of U.S. cancer research in dangerous ways.

Just like its most prominent sponsor, the Susan G. Komen foundation has become too big to fail.

The Players

Karen Handel had some bitter words for her critics as she stepped down from her post as Komen's vice president for public policy. "I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it," Handel wrote.

But there was no "strategy," which Handel and others have defined as denying funding to any group that is under federal investigation. As we noted, and others reported as well, a number of other Komen grant recipients were under real federal investigation and were left untouched, while Planned Parenthood was to be cut for being the subject of a trumped-up, one-person investigation conducted by a right-wing member of Congress.

Nancy Brinker, Komen's founder and CEO, served in a number of positions under George W. Bush, while Handel was a Sarah Palin-endorsed gubernatorial candidate. Political affiliations shouldn't disqualify anyone from serving in a charitable role, of course. Like many people, I've often enjoyed working with ideological opponents on charitable issues of common interest. That kind of cause-based allegiance can help bind our society together.

But Brinker brings her ideology into her Komen work, and has done it so effectively that she's transformed the world of charitable giving ... for the worse. There isn't just the matter of her personal compensation, which the foundation reported as $531,924 as of 2010. Or the fact that she's the only employee who flies first class at the charity's expense, according to the fund's IRS financial filing. (See Komen's form 8453-EO for 2010.)

There's an argument to be made that highly effective fundraisers and executives should receive good, if not excessive, salaries and perks. We won't have that argument here. And for all we know, Ms. Brinker may donate her entire salary to charity. She did choose this career over corporate life, after all, which seems like an altruistic move.

Nor will we argue that Nancy Brinker hasn't been effective at her job. But how has she been effective?

Continue reading »

The reaction to January's jobs report shows how tragically our expectations have fallen, especially among some Democrats and their supporters. Their cheerleading isn't just bad policy or bad politics, although it is both of those things. It's also callous and insensitive to the misery of millions.

It's important to keep explaining what needs to be done to end that misery. To do otherwise is to serve, however unintentionally, an insidious agenda from the right that would lower our expectations until these tragic levels of unemployment are seen as the "new normal."

An increase in jobs is a good thing, of course, even if it's far from what's needed. Here's something else that was good about the report: Conservatives keep telling us that manufacturing jobs have moved offshore permanently, but 50,000 of them were created last month. Now we can put that argument to bed and can get to work creating more of them.

The Good, the Bad, and the Urgent

But millions of Americans - including minorities and the young - have already endured years of catastrophe, with years more to come if nothing is done. Why won't more people express support for their plight and explain what needs to be done to help them?

Here's the real story: Government intervention has created millions of jobs. But those interventions were too small, so we're still years away from fixing the problem. To claim anything else is to reinforce the delusions that created the problem in the first place.

If the president and his supporters make that case clearly and forcefully, the country will be able to choose between competing visions in November. It's more likely to choose an end to its misery. The pitch is pretty simple, really: The medicine's working, but let's not stop before the patient gets well. And despite this month's report, the patient is still very, very sick.

Help is needed urgently.

Continue reading »

You'd think Social Security would top the list of subjects for a Presidential debate in Florida. How many questions did Wolf Blitzer ask about it during Thursday night's Republican debate in Jacksonville?

Answer: None. The words “Social Security” never passed his lips.

It was almost as if there were a “gentlemen's agreement” among the five people on the stage. And we use that phrase advisedly, since Blitzer sealed the boy's club atmosphere by asking each of the candidates why his wife would make the best First Lady.

The candidates did mention Social Security a couple of times, but only in passing and only in the most misleading ways possible. It's too bad there wasn't, oh, a journalist nearby—one who was inclined to ask follow-up questions.

What was said that night? Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both attacked Newt Gingrich from the right on Social Security. Santorum suggested that the Speaker's proposals, which would cut benefits, were too expensive and would “create a brand new Social Security entitlement.”

Not true.

Ron Paul said that Gingrich's claim to have helped cut the Federal deficit was false—which is true. But then he said that the reason it's untrue is because Gingrich “doesn't count the money he takes out of Social Security”—which is false!

Confused yet? Stick around. The layers of artificial reality became as mind-bending as a Philip K. Dick novel when Gingrich responded.

Gingrich attacked Obama from the left on Social Security:

I propose that we take Social Security off-budget so no president can ever again threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.

Continue reading »

The GOP Presidential candidates continue to play their parts in an implausible story of a world that could never exist, acting out nonexistent conflicts while delivering dialog that insults the intelligence. That's not because they're stupid. It's because they think you are.

It's like watching a low budget science-fiction movie from the fifties: Dr. Strange vs. The Vulture in the Caverns of the Moon. It's badly executed, even by the low standards of its genre, complete with cheap sets, bad special effects and wooden acting.

They're counting on their audience to provide that state of mind which literature professors call "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Three of the candidates are selling an nearly identical story of hardy earth people who are only able to save their planet once they've been freed from taxes and regulations.The fourth, Ron Paul, is offering a different script, a 10,000 Years BC scenario of unparalleled economic savagery.

Sure, Dr. Paul seems like a likeable guy. And it's great that he's saying things about war, terrorism, and human rights that nobody else will, including Barack Obama. But he wants to lead us into a blood-drenched, kill-or-be-killed world. (Remember when he was willing to let an injured man die because he hadn't paid his health insurance premium?)

The candidates' scripted lines weren't all that was "retro,"either. In the year 2012, Wolf Blitzer actually asked them which of their wives would make the best First Lady. What would he have done if they hadn't answered - held a pie-baking contest? As the scientists' young assistant said when the monster entered the laboratory: Eek!

What did we learn tonight about the Republicans' collective and individual economic fantasies?

We come from a distant planet with news of a world vastly unlike your own ...

Rick Santorum was the first out of the box this time. By invoking the magic word, "deficits," he called the economic coven to order.

The New York Times analyzed the tax plans put forward by Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum to determine how much each of them would add to the national deficit in a single year. Romney's would add $600 billion. Santorum was tied with Gingrich at $1.3 trillion, or more than twice as much.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax altogether, making the economic future under his Presidency as difficult to predict as the space-time continuum inside a black hole. That's probably why the Times didn't try. (It would be an interesting project, though.)

Let's be clear: All of those deficit estimates - $600 billion for Romney, more than twice that for Santorum and Gingrich - vastly understate the true explosion in the deficit we'd see under any one of them.. They only consider the income lost through tax cuts. But other aspects of their economic plan would lead to greatly increased unemployment, prolonged recession, and an increased likelihood of another financial crisis brought about by deregulation.

Continue reading »

[Image via Flickr]

There's nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing, that is, but this report of a minor incident in Russellville, Arkansas: “Democratic Congressional candidate Ken Aden’s campaign manager returned home to find his family pet slaughtered, with the word 'liberal' painted on the animal’s corpse.”

A statement from the Aden campaign describes the cat as an adult mixed-breed Siamese and included a graphic description of the pet's injuries.

The statement said that the four children of campaign manager Jacob Burris “discovered the gruesome scene as they exited the family vehicle to enter their home” after “the perpetrators scrawled 'liberal' across the cat’s body and left it on the doorstep of Burris’ house."

“To kill a child's pet is unconscionable,” the candidate is quoted as saying.

I know, I know. It's not the most important story in the news this week. In a time of war and financial crisis, there are a lot bigger stories to report than the death of a house cat. It was just an ordinary pet like millions of others, a playmate to some children and a companion to their parents.

Nor is this an electoral scandal. The Aden campaign said they “did not believe the Womack campaign to be responsible,” adding that “before Christmas ... a (radio) station owned by Womack’s father, actually promoted a toy drive held by Aden’s campaign for children in the Third District.”

People, especially conservatives, will rush to say it's an isolated incident of random violence that could've happened to anyone. They've said that before. Lots of times, in fact.

The shooting of churchgoers at a liberal Unitarian church in Knoxville was an isolated incident.

The shooting of police officers in Pittsburgh was an isolated incident.

The shooting of deputies in Okaloosa, Florida was an isolated incident.

The killing of a Tucson man and the shooting of his wife and daughter (the nine-year-old was shot in the head at point-blank range) was an isolated incident.

The murder of an African-American woman and the raping and wounding of her sister, followed by the killing of a homeless man, was an isolated incident.

The killing of an African-American security guard at the Holocaust Museum was an isolated incident.

Except …

Continue reading »

Yesterday there were reports of an agreement between the nation's five biggest banks, a number of state Attorneys General, and several Federal agencies. The specifics weren't available, but the agreement appeared to settle a number of potential civil and criminal charges for an amount that ranges between $19 billion and $25 billion. By contrast, the total estimated mortgage loan amount being repaid to banks for housing value that no longer exists is $700 billion, and that figure hasn't been adjusted for further declines in the real estate market.

We discussed these reports on Rick Smith's radio show about that afternoon, shortly before new reports surfaced which suggested the deal may not close anytime soon. Whoever hyped the agreement apparently did so prematurely.

The settlement would allegedly allow one million homeowners to receive a principal reduction of $20,000 each. That's less than one in ten of the more than 11 million underwater homes. currently underwater. (That's a growing number too.) Another 750,000 would supposedly receive $1,800 each, an insulting figure for wrongful foreclosure.

The banks would be able to choose which mortgages to write down, which means they'll almost certainly pick mortgages they bundled and sold - often deceptively - to investors that include pension funds.

Worst of all, it would leave potentially lawbreaking behavior uninvestigated, although some reports said that individual state lawsuit investigations might proceed.

A number of news stories announced the deal this morning, saying that it was about to be sent to the states for review and adding that the President intended to to announce it tomorrow night in his State of the Union address. Then later yesterday afternoon the office of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading the investigations, announced that there is no deal and it may not be completed this week. Let's hope that no deal like this is ever consummated. The recorded interview (below) has more about what's wrong with it.

R ESKOW on RICK SMITH RE THE DEAL

DOWNLOADS: (118)

PLAYS: (563)

Embed

Mitt Romney probably pays a lower percentage of Federal income tax than you do. At a press conference today, Romney said that the effective rate he's been paying is "probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything."

Mitt makes out like a bandit because capital gains are only taxed at 15 percent, whereas ordinary folks who earn above $35,000 are taxed at 25 percent (the rate gradually goes up to 35 percent above that). He also scored big because nonproductive game-players like Bain Capital take most of their fees as a percentage of the money they invest -- which is also taxed at 15 percent!

Then there are all the other tax breaks for millionaires, which is why 1,470 households made more than a million dollars and yet paid nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- in Federal income tax in 2009.

Sure, these tax breaks benefit Mitt. And they help the people he cares most about. (Some of those "people" are corporations ...) But they're hurting everyone else. Before we cut Social Security to reduce the deficit (to which it doesn't contribute), let's see what would have happened if Mitt had paid his fair share of taxes.

Romney's worth $250 million. Let's see: What would Mitt Romney's proper tax contribution on that money -- just Mitt's, nobody else's -- have provided for the nation that has given him so much?

Continue reading »

Here it comes again. This holiday weekend we'll see a lot of media coverage of Martin Luther King, Jr. But we'll hear very little about what he really was -- a brave and visionary leader whose vision is as relevant today as ever.

One year ago I listed ten quotes by Dr. King, and mourned the lack of a movement that would advance his kind of vision. Then came the uprising in Madison and the Occupy movement, which began a long-overdue national debate about economic, as well as racial inequality.

Once again, Dr. King's insights offer insight and vision for today's movement activists -- and tomorrow's.

1. "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." Where Do We Go From Here? August 1967 speech.

"Bain Capitalism" - a.k.a "vulture capitalism" -- didn't happen out of nowhere. It was made by politicians. It should be un-made by politicians. The system is the problem and it needs to change.

A long list of corporations and banks enriched itself by triggering the events that led to the Great Recession, and many of them took Federal bailout money when it happened. Each of them has a Corporate Social Responsibility policy, designed to show they're good citizens who give back to the community. And each of them has a fleet of lobbyists working to protect their privileged status and tax benefits.

Meanwhile the poverty rate, which had been declining, started to rise again in 2000. That year it stood at 11.3 percent, but by 2009 the Census Bureau reported that it had climbed back to 14.3 percent. At last count, 46 million Americans lived in poverty, more than 15 percent of the population. More than 16 million of them are children, which means that nearly one in four American kids (22 percent) is living in poverty.

Is that OK with you?

Continue reading »