I will be celebrating (mourning?) my twentieth year since coming to work in Washington next year. I came here with the Clinton team, and even though I was President Clinton’s liaison to the progressive community, I still came to town with a bunch of moderate Democrats. Given my banging away on so many topics in my blog posts, I do get asked from time to time whether I have moved to “the left” over the years. The answer is absolutely not. I still believe virtually the same things about politics and the economy I believed a couple of decades ago, including:

1. That the America I grew up in during the 1960s and ’70s, which had a broad and prosperous middle class and a sturdy safety net for those down on their luck or too old to work, was a great country to live in for most Americans, but that the middle class had been squeezed right and left by big corporate interests and the conservative movement.

2. That the growing extremist conservative movement, which had taken over the Republican Party, blindly worshiped the free market along with the wealthiest and most powerful among us, and was determined to roll back social progress of all kinds.

3. That the Democratic Party was deeply flawed because too many Democrats were not willing to fight for progressive policies that would help the middle class and poor, but that they sure were better than the scary extremists who controlled the Republican Party.

4. That party politics alone would never win the progress we needed; that we need a strong progressive movement to fight the good fight.

5. That the New Deal and Great Society policy victories of the 1930s through the early ’70s were what moved this country forward more than any other set of policies. Social Security and Medicare gave senior citizens a measure of economic security they never had before. Labor unions were able to grow and expand, ensuring that middle-class incomes would rise, and that more working class people would get a secure foothold in that middle class. Banks were strongly regulated and kept to a reasonable size, ensuring that the financial crises that periodically wracked the country’s economy in the decades before and after those years didn’t happen. The minimum wage, the end of child labor, OSHA, and the 40-hour work week ensured more dignity and safety on the job. A wave of school building, the GI Bill, Pell Grants, the development of community colleges, and other educational initiatives meant that more Americans got good educations than ever in history. Civil rights, voting rights, and new anti-discrimination laws for women meant far more fairness and equality of opportunity for all Americans. Unemployment compensation, Medicaid, school lunch programs, food stamps, Head Start, and legal services meant that even low-income Americans had a modest amount of financial security in the hard times. The Clean Air, Clean Water, and Superfund acts made our environment far cleaner for all citizens. All of these new policies helped create the wealthiest economy, and most prosperous middle class in world history, and that our goal in politics should be to build on that success rather than tear it down.

I believed all that the day I moved to Washington to be part of the Clinton administration, and I believe it still, so I don’t feel like I have moved to the left at all. I feel very certain that I am solidly within the mainstream of the Democratic Party and progressive thought in America.

But I do think something important has changed. The corporate stranglehold on our media, government, and ideological parameters has shifted, and the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party has grown steadily stronger.

Continue reading »

My mother used to quote my nana's favorite sayings, and one of them was, "The fishmonger never yells 'Rotten fish for sale!'" Nana, of course, didn't understand that with the right financial instruments, the fishmongers could not only sell rotten fish, they could make quite a bundle of money on the back end by explaining to selected people that they were indeed selling rotten fish:

As homeowners were falling behind on their subprime mortgages, wreaking havoc for investors that owned slices of their mortgages in securities peddled by Wall Street, Goldman Sachs was "well positioned," according to internal company emails from top executives.

The firm had "the big short," declared chief financial officer David Viniar -- Goldman Sachs was making money off the souring of the very securities it had peddled to the market.

The internal emails released Saturday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations paint a picture long known by most of the country, yet never before so vividly and explicitly articulated by Goldman officials. (Scroll down to see the full text of the emails.) As early as May 2007, as homeowners were being crushed under the weight of subprime mortgages, the most profitable firm on Wall Street had long taken out a form of insurance on those delinquencies.

The firm made money on the upside -- originating, securitizing and selling subprime mortgage-based securities to investors -- and on the downside, thanks to the insurance.

"Bad news," a May 17, 2007, email began from one Goldman employee to another. A security the firm had underwritten and sold had just lost value, costing Goldman about $2.5 million.

Further down in the email, the employee, Deeb Salem, wrote "Good news...we own 10mm protection...we make $5mm."

The firm made $5 million betting against the very securities it had underwritten and sold.

This is the second wave of the mortgage crisis, one that was predicted by the liberal economists who inhabit the blogosphere. It's unlikely that we'll see a sustained economic recovery until after this shakes out:

By the end of 2010, about half of all commercial real estate mortgages will be underwater, said Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, in a wide-ranging interview on Monday.

“They are [mostly] concentrated in the mid-sized banks,” Warren told CNBC. “We now have 2,988 banks—mostly midsized, that have these dangerous concentrations in commercial real estate lending."

As a result, the economy will face another “very serious problem” that will have to be resolved over the next three years, she said, adding that things are unlikely to return to normalcy in 2010.

I hope this works. But we're facing a wave of commercial mortgage failures, and I don't think we have a stable enough economy to take it:

For more than a year, the government pulled out the stops to revive home buying by driving down mortgage rates.

Now, whether the housing market is ready or not, the government is pulling out.

The wind-down of federal support for mortgage rates, set to end in two months, is a momentous test of whether the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have succeeded in jump-starting the housing market and ensuring it can hold its own. The stakes for the economy are massive: If the market again falls into a tailspin, homeowners could face another wave of trouble, and it would deal a body blow to President Obama's efforts to get the economy on track.

Keeping the mortgage rates at historic lows, which required a commitment of more than $1 trillion, was viewed within the administration as a central plank of the economic strategy last year, senior officials said. Though the policy did not attract as much attention as rescue efforts to bail out banks, it helped revitalize home buying in some parts of the country and put money in the pockets of millions of homeowners who were able to refinance into lower monthly payments, the officials added.

"We did what we thought was necessary to stabilize the market, but we don't think the government should continue special efforts forever," said Michael S. Barr, an assistant secretary at the Treasury Department. "As you bring stability, private participants come back in. We do expect this now that the market has stabilized. I'm not going to say there will be no effect on rates, but we do think you are seeing market signs and market signals that there should be an orderly transition."

You see why the bully boys of Wall Street dislike Sheila Bair - and Elizabeth Warren? Because they actually think of the people hurt by the financial industry's long, drunken binge and are trying to repair the damage. No wonder these women are unpopular with the in crowd:

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair indicated Thursday that she is exploring the idea of reducing the principal on as much as $45 billion in mortgages her agency has acquired from failed banks.

That would be the first significant government attempt to employ a measure that some economists and consumer advocates have long argued is the only really effective way to stop foreclosures.

Although the $45 billion in mortgages only amounts to less than half of one percent of mortgages nationwide, the move would be significant because the idea of reducing principal has been all but dismissed for the last nine months by the Obama administration.

Economists like Yale University's John Geanakoplos, however, have argued that cutting the principal on delinquent loans should have been the administration's practice all along. For the nearly quarter of American homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth, it's by far the best way to keep them in their homes and reduce foreclosures, Geanakoplos said in an interview last month.

Bair made her comments in an interview with Bloomberg News. She has not yet discussed her proposal with the Treasury Department, a senior administration official said Thursday in a brief interview. Though unfamiliar with the details of her proposal, the official said it was promising.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation no longer owns the mortgages directly; but when it sold them to solvent banks, it agreed to shoulder some of the future losses. Bair's move would effectively make sure that homeowners directly benefit from that guarantee, not just the lenders.

Who could have guessed? Apparently all those people losing their homes are helping the economy recover faster than expected. So let's look on the bright side of all those homeless, helpless families:

The pain of millions of people across America losing their homes hardly inspires confidence in the future. But in a brutal way, it could be restoring the financial health of the U.S. consumer faster than many recognize.

One of the biggest clouds on the economic horizon is the vast amount of debt U.S. households took on during the boom years. The Federal Reserve puts total household debt, including mortgage debt, at about $13.7 trillion, or 125% of annual after-tax income, a burden that many economists believe will take several years to pare down to what they see as a more sustainable level of 100%. During that "deleveraging" process, the logic goes, U.S. consumers -- whose spending makes up more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy and about one-fifth of the global economy -- won't be able to play a leading role in any recovery.

The gloomy forecasts, though, miss an important point: Debts have value only to the extent that they are being paid, and a rapidly rising number of U.S. households aren't doing so. Those defaults are leading to losses at banks, a wave of foreclosures, trouble for neighborhoods and strife for families. But they are also providing an immediate, albeit radical, form of debt relief.

"It's not ideal, because it carries other costs," said Karen Dynan, a consumer-finance specialist at the liberal Brookings Institution think tank who recently served as a senior adviser to the Federal Reserve. But it is "going to help get household balance sheets back to the right place."

If one accounts for defaults, U.S. households' debt burden is shrinking a lot faster than the official data suggest. First American CoreLogic, which tracks the performance of mortgage loans, estimates that some 9.3% of the nation's 52.4 million mortgage holders were 60 or more days behind on their payments as of July. That represents relief on about $1.2 trillion in loans. The official data miss most of that, because the Fed doesn't erase debts until banks have foreclosed, sold the homes and taken the loans off their books, a process that can drag out for more than a year.

As a result, some economists are expecting a sharp improvement as widely watched indicators of consumers' finances catch up to reality. Joseph Carson, director of global economic research at AllianceBernstein, expects the share of households' after-tax income that goes to pay loans, rent and other financial obligations to fall to 16.3% by the middle of next year, well below the average for the 20-year period leading up to the housing boom. As of June, it stood at 18.1%.

"It's part of the cleansing process of a downturn," he said. "And it's happening a lot faster than people realize."

Via Raw Story, this very enlightening news that the Bush administration blocked efforts to enforce laws against predatory lending. We are so shocked:

Federal regulators in the Bush administration blocked attempts by state governments to prevent predatory lending practices that resulted in the financial crisis now stalking the American economy, a new study from the University of North Carolina says.

In 2004, the Office of the Currency Comptroller, an obscure regulatory agency tasked with ensuring the fiscal soundness of America's banks, invoked an 1863 law to give itself the power to override state laws against predatory lending. The OCC told states they could not enforce predatory-lending laws, and all banks would be subject only to less-strict federal laws.

Now, a research paper (PDF) from UNC-Chapel Hill's Center for Community Capital shows that those anti-predatory lending laws had actually worked. States that had stricter regulations on issuing mortgages were found to have fewer foreclosures.

"We believe that these findings are remarkable, since they suggest an important and yet unexplored link between [anti-predatory lending laws] and foreclosures," the study's authors state.

The study may be the first scientific evidence to back up claims made by many critics that the Bush administration and earlier administrations allowed last year's financial crisis to happen by not enforcing common-sense regulations on lenders.

Last year, seven months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing government banking bailout, then-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer wrote a Washington Post column in which he described how the Bush administration blocked states' efforts to prevent a crisis in the mortgage industry.

Spitzer wrote:

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Spitzer's Post column ran a month before the New York Times reported that federal authorities were investigating Spitzer as a patron of high-end hookers, ending his political career and long-running crusade against corporate malfeasance. Some observers, including investigative reporter Greg Palast, say this was not a coincidence.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. But hey, isn't it great that lobbyists have managed to prevent Congress from letting bankruptcy judges lower mortgage payments? Win-win!

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Mercy James thought she had lost her rental property here to foreclosure. A date for a sheriff’s sale had been set, and notices about the foreclosure process were piling up in her mailbox.

After Ms. James had her tenants move out, vandals hit the home. It is set for demolition, but the title is still in her name.

Ms. James had the tenants move out, and soon her white house at the corner of Thomas and Maple Streets fell into the hands of looters and vandals, and then, into disrepair. Dejected and broke, Ms. James said she salvaged but a lesson from her loss.

So imagine her surprise when the City of South Bend contacted her recently, demanding that she resume maintenance on the property. The sheriff’s sale had been canceled at the last minute, leaving the property title — and a world of trouble — in her name.

“I thought, ‘What kind of game is this?’ ” Ms. James, 41, said while picking at trash at the house, now so worthless the city plans to demolish it — another bill for which she will be liable.

City officials and housing advocates here and in cities as varied as Buffalo, Kansas City, Mo., and Jacksonville, Fla., say they are seeing an unsettling development: Banks are quietly declining to take possession of properties at the end of the foreclosure process, most often because the cost of the ordeal — from legal fees to maintenance — exceeds the diminishing value of the real estate.

The so-called bank walkaways rarely mean relief for the property owners, caught unaware months after the fact, and often mean additional financial burdens and bureaucratic headaches. Technically, they still owe on the mortgage, but as a practicality, rarely would a mortgage holder receive any more payments on the loan. The way mortgages are bundled and resold, it can be enormously time-consuming just trying to determine what company holds the loan on a property thought to be in foreclosure.

In Ms. James’s case, the company that was most recently servicing her loan is now defunct. Its parent company filed for bankruptcy and dissolved. And the original bank that sold her the loan said it could not find a record of it.

“It is what some of us think is the next wave of the crisis,” said Kermit Lind, a clinical professor at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and an expert on foreclosure law.

I never had anything to begin with, and I can't tell you how strange it feels to watch all my friends free-falling down to my level:

WASHINGTON — Americans' net worth plunged a record 17.9% in 2008 as the value of their homes, stocks and other assets dropped swiftly, the Federal Reserve said Thursday in a report that did not bode well for consumer spending and the overall economy this year.

With net worth dropping so much, consumers are likely to focus on saving, not spending, as they realize they can't rely on their homes and stock portfolios as ever-rising sources of income, says RDQ Economics senior economist Conrad DeQuadros.

Such saving, while good in the long run, will likely prolong the economic slump. Consumer spending drives more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.

"This does point to further weakness in consumer spending going forward," DeQuadros says.

"I was confident before that I was doing fairly well," says Sullivan of Venice, Fla. But, "I have no chance at all of recouping the money by the time I need it."

U.S. net worth, a measure of households' assets minus their liabilities, such as debt, was $51.5 trillion in 2008, the lowest since 2003. The record annual drop in net worth, the first since 2002, accelerated as the year progressed. In the fourth quarter, household net worth dropped 9%, the biggest decline since quarterly records began in 1951, the Fed said.

Other details from the report:

• The value of household real estate fell for a second-consecutive year in 2008, declining 10.5%, the biggest drop on record. At $18.3 trillion, the total value of U.S. homes was the lowest in five years.

• Stock market wealth plunged a record 39.9% in 2008 to $5.5 trillion, the lowest since 1996.

• Corporate profits fell 10.8% in the September-December quarter and were down 8.8% for the year as a whole.

DOWNLOAD (264)

PLAY (278)

Hallelujah. This plan not only offers help for families in foreclosure, but also for owner-occupants of underwater mortgages. True, it doesn't address the root cause of inflated housing values (and that must be addressed at some point), but it's a smart, comprehensive plan of attack - and as a whole, a very good beginning. Color me impressed:

MESA, Ariz. — President Obama pledged on Wednesday to help as many as 9 million American homeowners refinance their mortgages or avert foreclosure, an initiative he said would shore up distressed housing prices, stabilize neighborhoods and slow a downward spiral that he said was “unraveling homeownership, the middle class, and the American Dream itself.”

The plan, more ambitious than many housing analysts had expected, was unveiled by Mr. Obama in a high school gymnasium here, in a community that is among the nation’s hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.

“This plan will not save every home, but it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild,” the president told the crowd. “It will prevent the worst consequences of this crisis from wreaking even greater havoc on the economy. And by bringing down the foreclosure rate, it will help to shore up housing prices for everyone.”

The plan has three basic components. One would help homeowners who continue to make loan payments on time, but are paying high interest rates and would otherwise not be able to refinance because they do not have enough equity or their houses are worth less than they borrowed. A second would assist people who are at risk of foreclosure by providing incentives to lenders to alter the terms of loans to make them substantially more affordable to struggling homeowners. The third would try to assure there is plenty of credit available for mortgages by giving $200 billion of additional financial backing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-controlled mortgage finance companies.

The announcement came a day after Mr. Obama signed his $787 billion economic recovery package, and administration officials like Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, made the case that they will work in tandem. In announcing the housing plan, Mr. Obama struck a populist note, criticizing speculators and “lenders who knowingly took advantage of homebuyers” with the same vehemence he used in going after Wall Street bankers for giving themselves bonuses as their companies were seeking government help.

“It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell,” he said, adding, “And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford.”

The plan will take effect March 4, when the administration publishes detailed rules explaining it. Most of the plan can be enacted by Mr. Obama though his executive powers, although part of it — including changing the bankruptcy laws to allow homeowners to seek changes to their mortgages through bankruptcy proceedings — will require legislation. Mr. Geithner said the administration is already in discussions with lawmakers on how to proceed.

In allowing homeowners who are not delinquent to qualify, the plan marks a sharp break from the housing policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr. Geithner and the new Housing secretary, Shaun Donovan, said the administration’s research had determined that, with 10 percent of American homeowners either in foreclosure or in danger of it, it was better to intervene early.