With the hurricane taking over the new cycle not much has been able to break through - but this outstanding piece in the New York Times was posted yesterday that talks about the unfortunate backlash from the Citizens United ruling.

"The event was not a fund-raiser for Mr. Romney’s campaign, however, but for Restore Our Future, a political action committee founded by his allies. And only when Mr. Romney left the room did one of the group’s officials stand up to brief the donors on their plans: to raise and spend millions of dollars in unrestricted campaign donations — something presidential candidates are forbidden to do themselves — to help elect Mr. Romney president."

Romney has been on of the leaders in using open campaign finance laws to raise unlimited amounts of money through state PACs, super PACs, as well as his presidential committee.

"The fact that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is weighing a run for president in 2012, has an active political action committee in Alabama might seem puzzling.

It is, after all, not a critical early-voting state for the Republican nomination, where these kinds of leadership PACs are often set up by potential presidential candidates.
Upon closer inspection, though, Mr. Romney’s interest in Alabama snaps into focus. The state has among the most permissive campaign finance rules in the nation, allowing contributions of unlimited size from individuals and corporations.
As a result, the Alabama affiliate of Mr. Romney’s federal PAC, Free and Strong America, has raised more than $440,000 this year, with many of the contributions amounting to tens of thousands of dollars each."

It shouldn't be shocking that's the reason that the President intends to raise over $1 billion for his campaign. The graph below shows the difference in time that candidates spend with voters when they're campaigns are being publicly financed through clean elections vs. when they're being paid for by donors.

Continue reading »

enlarge

So why are American homeowners extrimmensaordinarily screwed? Well first, there's this:

Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the biggest U.S. lender by assets, is segregating almost half its 13.9 million mortgages into a “bad” bank comprised of its riskiest and worst-performing “legacy” loans, said Terry Laughlin, who is running the new unit. [...]

The legacy portfolio will hold 6.7 million of loans with outstanding principal balance of about $1 trillion, according to a presentation to investors today. The split leaves home loan President Barbara Desoer with about half her previous portfolio, as well as new lending going forward.

Laughlin’s portfolio will include loans that are currently 60 or more days delinquent as well as riskier types of loans the bank no longer originates, such as subprime, Alt-A, interest- only and option adjustable-rate mortgages, he said. He said the portfolios will be completely split by March 31 and that his will be liquidated over time. Of the 13.9 million loans Bank of America services, about 3.5 million are held by the company on its balance sheet. The rest are owned by other investors.

You got that? Literally half of BofA's mortgages are garbage that the company wants to sweep under the rug. Here's the punchline:

“It’s a way to get investors focus on the good,” said Paul Miller, a former examiner with the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and analyst at FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia. “It’s a way to talk about good things and ignore the bad.”

I'm not sure how declaring that nearly 7 million of your mortgages are worthless pieces of trash gets anyone to focus on the positive, but hey, whatever gets you through the night and so forth.

Meanwhile, America's attorneys general have released their proposed settlement terms with the banks over their widespread use of fraudulent practices during thousands of foreclosure cases across the country. Needless to say, the proposal is underwhelming. Felix Salmon breaks it down thusly:

For those who can wade through it, however, it really is a code of best practices for servicers and it’s sorely needed. There’s much to love here, but it all basically comes down to the golden rule: treat your borrowers with honesty and humanity and common sense and you’ll be fine. Do servicers really need to be told that if they make more money from a loan mod than from a foreclosure, they should do the loan mod? Or that “sworn statements shall not contain information that is false”? Evidently, yes, they do. [...]

[T]he big question here isn’t whether the settlement is reasonable — yes, it’s entirely reasonable. Instead, we should ask what the penalties for non-compliance are, since just about every servicer will be non-compliant for the foreseeable future.

Those penalties come at the end of the document and they’re extremely vague: there’s talk of “monetary penalties and additional remedial actions”, but there’s also talk of “failure to meet timelines”, which implies that much of this stuff could be pushed off far into the future and of “a special master or referee to resolve violations”, with no indication of how such a person might be chosen.

This is pretty much what I've come to expect from the American government when confronted with a case of widespread, systematic fraud committed by the financial services industry: Issue a bunch of vaguely-worded guidelines, lightly chide the banks for their ever-so-naughty behavior and make murky declarations that maybe in the future someone will be held accountable for defrauding people, but not right now.

Stephanie at FedUpUSA drops her jaw at the fact that part of the AGs' "settlement" mandates that banks promise to, you know, obey laws that apply to just about everyone else:

Continue reading »

Sweet Jesus, you just can't fix this level of stupid:

Did extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) really say Sharia law has "taken hold" in some U.S. cities? Pretty much.

One of the last questioners asked about "Muslims taking over the U.S.," including a question about Angle's stance on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

"We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it," Angle said.

"Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States. It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."

I'm not entirely sure exactly what Angle's even trying to say here. She said she doesn't know "how that happened in the United States." How what happened?

Both Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas both have predominantly Muslim populations, but the last time anyone with a reasonable grasp on reality checked, the cities had not given over their municipal laws for Sharia law. But apparently, the presence of Muslims in such a strong plurality apparently means to Angle that American law no longer applies.

Sigh. Like I said, you just can't fix that level of stupid.

When Ireland made the decision to protect all of its banks from losses and cover those losses by imposing austerity measures in 2008, Paul Krugman made hash of the conservatives' argument for adopting that policy. As it turns out, he was right.

Ireland relented on Sunday and formally applied for a rescue package worth tens of billions of dollars, after months of trying to survive its financial crisis with austerity measures and strict budgetary planning.

European Union officials, who had been pushing Ireland to accept help, quickly agreed to the request, committing a staggering amount of funds to an ailing member for the second time in six months.

Ireland's fiscal crisis, like ours, has a mortgage meltdown as its root cause. However, the decision to impose severe austerity measures, including a big tax hike on Irish workers while insisting that the corporate tax rate remain one of the lowest in the world has not proven itself to be effective.

An Irish bailout would mean humiliation for the government ahead of possible national elections early next year. Ireland would lose some control over its finances in return for loans, which could mean being forced to give up the country's rock-bottom corporate tax rate – a key attraction to businesses that annoys other EU countries that have much higher rates.

Because of the concern over panic and contagion, Ireland will request the bailout, and receive it. They should also raise those corporate tax rates sooner rather than later. Enough is enough. It's proven time and again that low corporate tax rates will not sustain economic growth. Ireland's austerity failure stands as a solid argument against conservative austerity nonsense here, there, and elsewhere.

enlarge

While all of that is true, the idea of permanently extending the upper-end tax cuts is really not on the table. What is on the table, and what has been on the table since Peter Orszag wrote his New York Times column is to extend the Bush rates on the upper tier for 2 more years. Elmendorf's chart gives exactly the political cover necessary for Congress to do that.

Elmendorf doesn't deny that tax cuts stimulate the economy. But they don't stimulate it that much, he says, and over the long run, the net economic growth from the tax cuts will be quite small. The net deficit impact won't be. "Lower tax revenues increase budget deficits and thereby government borrowing," Elmendorf said, "which crowds out investment, while lower tax rates increase people’s saving and work effort; the net effect on economic activity depends on the balance of those forces."

The first two bars compare permanent versus partial extension of the cuts. The second two compare a full extension and partial extension through 2012. They point to a negligible effect on the economy if a 2-year extension is granted, whether full or partial.

This is a terrible idea. Terrible. I don't really care what the economic argument is for it at all. From a political standpoint, there could be nothing worse than extending those upper-tier cuts until 2012. Here's why:

1. It pushes the entire debate into the next Presidential election, giving Republicans the ability to promise making them permanent, just like they are now.
2. It ignores the very real deficit issues. We already know the upper tier does not spend or invest tax savings, but simply sits on those funds, which is neither stimulative nor helpful.
3. It's time to face the fact that fighting two wars cost this nation something, and start paying it down. What Bush did with the tax cuts is exactly what some folks did with these subprime loans. They borrowed money they shouldn't have for stuff they shouldn't have spent money on, and in the end, it hurt the entire global economy.

In early 2008 I wrote a post saying what no one wanted to: tax increases were inevitable, no matter which party was in power. Nothing has changed since then. There should not even be a debate about this. It is as simple as this: As a nation, we owe a whole lot of money for trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time to start making payments.

Deferring the debate to 2012 is cowardly and stupid. There's not enough political payoff in it for anyone to make it worthwhile. Yet, I guarantee you this chart will give Democrats exactly what they need to push for a 2-year extension. Someone needs to tell them gently or harshly that the answer is no. Let them all expire if necessary, but an extension is political suicide.

Evidently John Boehner is so incensed over that tanning tax in the Affordable Care Act that he's vowed to do everything within his power to stop the implementation of "Obamacare". His remarks came in the context of his reassurance that he really, really doesn't want to shut down the government, but then, there's that pesky health care law...

Of course, in a divided government, the likelihood of a government shutdown depends almost entirely on how flexible Republicans and Democrats are during negotiations over the budget and federal spending. So if Boehner's pursuit of "smaller, less costly, and more accountable government" is dramatically out of sync with President Obama's priorities (like implementing his health care law), a temporary shutdown may just be inevitable.

"I am committed to doing everything that I can do and our team can do to prevent Obamacare from being implemented," Boehner said. "When I say everything, I mean everything."

So that we're clear here, Boehner is prepared to shut down the entire federal government to prevent the following:

• Non-discriminatory coverage for all Americans (e.g., no more pre-existing conditions exclusions)
• Government assistance to make insurance costs affordable for individuals
• Coverage of children until they reach age 26
• Preventive care and wellness
• Elimination of lifetime and annual limits on coverage
• Expanded Medicaid coverage for the poor

These are just a few benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Whether or not you believe there was a better way to go with this, these are still very real, very important benefits, especially elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions.

John Boehner has vowed to shut down the government to stop this from happening. The entire government. He justifies it this way:

"Our goal is to have a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government here in Washington, DC," Boehner told reporters. "Our goal is not to shut down the government."

A less costly government? Pretty laughable coming from the man who wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent at a greater cost than the entire 10-year bill for "Obamacare".

Democrats have to stop running from the Affordable Care Act and own it, straight up. On September 23rd -- 7 days from now-- insurers will no longer be able to terminate policies when people get sick. They'll have to cover emergency services without prior authorizations that leave patients in ER hallways. Women will have access to OB/GYN care without a referral from a primary doctor. Children under the age of 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions. Lifetime dollar limits are a thing of the past, policies cannot be rescinded, and preventive health coverage is included at no additional cost.

These are meaningful to many, many people. Democrats need to start taking ownership of this instead of letting John Boehner re-prioritize tax cuts for the rich as a more important agenda item.

Infrastructurist: Conservative mag tells conservatives why they should care about public transit

The Mahablog: No cause, just movement

Climate Progress: Judge rules against Cuccinelli's witch-hunt aimed at Michael Mann and climate science

Blog of Rights: If the government thinks you should be dead, it should at least tell you why

Economist's View: Economists of all stripes will descend upon Robert Barro over the next 36 hours.

Vagabond Scholar: Engaging the opposition, and a wingnut checklist

Good ol' Joe strikes against the neocons' drumbeat for war:

Iran's influence in Iraq has been exaggerated and Tehran's efforts to shape parliamentary elections in the country "utterly failed," US Vice President Joe Biden said on Monday.

In a speech to veterans, Biden played down Iran's role in Iraq, defended the scaled-back US mission in Iraq and argued that the country was on the road to political stability.

"Iranian influence in Iraq is minimal. It's been greatly exaggerated," Biden told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Indianapolis, Indiana.

"The Iranian government spent over 100 million dollars trying to affect the outcome of this last election to sway the Iraqi people, and they utterly failed," he said, referring to the March polls.

"And it's because politics and nationalism has broken out in Iraq. The Iraqi people voted for their desired candidates, none of whom, none of whom -- let me emphasize this -- none of whom were wanted by Iran."

Biden said that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his rival for the premiership, Iyad Allawi, were both deemed "persona non grata" by the authorities in neighboring Iran.

US officials and some lawmakers in Congress have previously voiced concern about Iran's role in Iraq.

I bet that just makes William "Always Wrong" Kristol so hopping mad. After all, he's been lobbying for and predicting an imminent attack by the US of Iran for years.

DOWNLOADS: (657)

PLAYS: (728)

Embed

Lots of Arizona politicians were upset by President Obama's speech on immigration last week, but apparently none more so than Crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

Arpaio: Right now, because of that speech, we're going to get more and more people crossing that border. They want to get here quick so they become U.S. citizens if we have amnesty. So stay tuned for more people coming in because of the president speaking out.

Yeah, because all these people are coming here not for jobs and work but for citizenship and freebies and handouts, right?

Fact is, the economic downturn and the lack of jobs has dramatically slowed immigration rates for over a year now -- and it won't be rising because people watched Obama's speech. No doubt Arpaio is perfectly aware of this, but he has to keep coming up with justifications for his Bull Connor policies.

One hopes that DOJ investigation into his racial-profiling practices wraps up soon -- along with the FBI's abuse-of-power probe. He's been forestalling the inevitable for too long now.

Another Broken Record

via Think Progress

Another record was broken this year - the number of serious international terrorist attacks in a single year more than tripled, from a record of 175 in 2003 to 655 last year, according to recently released U.S. government figures.

This data, however, will no longer be in the annual report on international terrorism submitted to Congress by the State Department. Just over ten days ago the State Department decided to eliminate the report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” entirely.

All this comes not even a year after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had to publicly apologize for the first edition of the 2003 report - which severely undercounted the number of terrorist attacks. “The numbers were off,” Powell said, and “we have identified how we have to do this in the future.”

Apparently Condoleezza Rice doesn’t agree - her office had suggested an alternative method for counting attacks, and when the National Counterterrorism Center decided not to use this new method, the State Department eliminated the terrorism statistics in the congressionally mandated report altogether.