Watch as the perfectly reasonable Sen. Elizabeth Warren backs these government hacks into a corner over protecting crooked banks from consequences of their illegal actions. How naive -- she actually believes regulators are supposed to work for the people!

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) embarrassed government regulators during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday morning as she demanded to know why they won’t reveal how frequently big banks illegally foreclosed on homeowners. In January, regulators abandoned a case-by-case review of foreclosure fraud conducted by some of the nation’s largest banks in favor of a $9.3 billion settlement. Under the deal, most of the 4.4 million homeowners who were foreclosed on in 2009 or 2010 received less than $1,000 each.

Fair housing advocates and Democratic lawmakers panned the agreement, claiming that it short-circuited a more detailed review process (known as Independent Foreclosure Review) and let banks off the hook for illegally foreclosing on millions of homeowners. Regulators had initially claimed banks broke the law or made errors in 6.5 percent of all the loans reviewed, though the number has since been revised upward.

During the hearing, Warren pressed officials from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve for answers about how frequently banks broke the law, only to discover that regulators didn’t know the exact number before reaching their settlement and were now unwilling to publicize the error rate.

“You’re saying that the [you] did not have an estimate in mind of how many banks had broken the law and how many home owners were the victims of illegal activities?” Warren asked in disbelief. She pressed for public disclosure, but was told that the information about banks’ illegal activities is proprietary and may not ever be released:

WARREN: So you have made a decision to protect the banks but not a decision tell the families who have been illegally foreclosed against?

RICHARD ASHTON (FEDERAL RESERVE): We haven’t made a decision about what information we would provide to individuals. [...]

WARREN: So I just want to make sure I get this straight. Families get pennies on the dollar in the settlement for having been the victims of illegal activities or mistakes in the banks’ activities. You now know individual cases where the banks violated the law and you’re not going to tell the homeowners or at least it’s not clear if you’re going to do that?

Gee, it all sounds so sleazy when she says it like that! Huffington Post reports that Sen. Sherrod Brown also kicked some ass in these hearings, so let's give him props, too.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this shocker. But then, considering how many things BP has misrepresented to regulators and the media, perhaps not so much. I have to say, between this and reports that BP is not paying its cleanup contractors, I wonder if this is a company that's planning to file for bankruptcy:

BAYOU LA BATRE, Ala. -- Ken Feinberg said today he hasn't been able to start writing claims checks because BP PLC has not yet deposited any money into the $20 billion escrow fund it promised to create.

Feinberg, who was appointed last month to administer individual and business claims stemming from the oil spill, held an early morning town hall meeting in Bayou La Batre on Saturday before meeting with the Press-Register editorial board in downtown Mobile.

Feinberg said he is leaning toward giving partial payments to companies and people who are indirectly impacted by the spill -- an outlet store in Foley hurt by the decline in beach traffic, for example.

He also said he would do something for real estate owners to cover a decrease in property value.

BP officials and President Barack Obama agreed last month that the oil company would put $5 billion a year over the next four years into an account to pay for spill-related costs, such as claims, environmental restoration and cleanup costs.

Oh dear God, I hate admitting it when anyone over at the Corner is right about something but... AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH... Nicole Gelinas is right:

The financial system's failures made themselves obvious starting in 2007 in part because legislators and regulators thought that they could conjure up on command not only wisdom and competence but omniscience.

In the years leading up to the financial crisis, regulators allowed financial firms such as AIG to create derivatives that evaded the old-fashioned limits on borrowing and trading. The people in charge figured that the financial guys had figured out every angle and made these things perfectly safe.

Regulators, too, allowed banks to borrow far more than old-fashioned rules would have allowed on mortgage-related securities and other instruments rated AAA — because competent people had determined that such securities could never fail.

Finally, regulators allowed people to buy houses with no money down — even though we learned in the 1920s that it's not a good idea to let people borrow limitlessly to speculate that the price of something will continue to rise.

The lesson to be learned here is that we need borrowing and trading rules that apply to everyone and everything for those times when bankers, regulators, and tens of millions of ordinary Americans aren't right.

The bill offers no evidence that anyone in Congress has learned this lesson.

The essential problem with the financial reform package the Democrats have put together is that it relies far too much on the discrepancy of regulators and not enough on hard law. So instead of breaking up banks whose assets exceed a certain level of GDP, we have merely given regulators the ability to break up banks if and when they pose grave risks to the economy. As anyone who has followed the wacky hijinks of our government during the Bush years knows, regulators often suck, especially when they're sleeping with the people they're supposed to be regulating.

So here's how it's going to play out: At some point in the future, we will have a Republican president who will appoint Levi Johnston to head up the SEC or Treasury or the Fed. Levi will have all kinds of powers at his disposal, whether it's breaking up big banks, raising interest rates to curtail asset bubbles or enforcing strict leverage requirements. But instead of utilizing any of the vast powers at his disposal, Levi smokes dope and pleasures himself while watching porn all day long. Five days after taking office, the economy crashes again and Levi is trotted out in front of the cameras to tell us that "nobody could have predicted" this sort of thing would ever happen.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you put your faith in the competence of regulators rather than creating hard law. A real financial reform package would have held the banks to strict leverage requirements, would have forced them to stop prop trading if they wanted to retain access to the Fed's discount window and would have broken up the largest financial institutions. Instead we have a large complex nightmare that is riddled with loopholes that will allow the banks to behave just as irresponsibly as they've done in the past.

So take comfort, America. The only thing now saving us from another financial crisis is the wisdom and competence of Federal Reserve Chairman Levi Johnston. Huzzah!

DOWNLOADS: (576)

PLAYS: (2220)

Embed

This video was provided by unnamed sources at British Petroleum to illustrate their latest attempt at plugging the oil leak:

BP's latest attempt to stop the oil rushing into the Gulf of Mexico is to place what amounts to a mile-long catheter into the gusher.

BP PLC technicians have been guiding deep-sea robots to thread the 6-inch tube with a rubber stopper into the 21-inch pipe spewing oil from the ocean floor.

As they tried to plug the leak, the company learned that federal regulators approved spraying chemical dispersants beneath the sea. This was a contentious development because it has never been done underwater.

Here's hoping it works!

Regulators are starting to pay attention to the widespread practice of using unpaid interns as free labor. It's about time. In addition to being illegal, the practice also means that poorer students are shut out of career-track opportunities, leading to a concentration of the privileged and well-off in influential occupations like the media and public policy:

Convinced that many unpaid internships violate minimum wage laws, officials in Oregon, California and other states have begun investigations and fined employers. Last year, M. Patricia Smith, then New York’s labor commissioner, ordered investigations into several firms’ internships. Now, as the federal Labor Department’s top law enforcement official, she and the wage and hour division are stepping up enforcement nationwide.

Many regulators say that violations are widespread, but that it is unusually hard to mount a major enforcement effort because interns are often afraid to file complaints. Many fear they will become known as troublemakers in their chosen field, endangering their chances with a potential future employer.

The Labor Department says it is cracking down on firms that fail to pay interns properly and expanding efforts to educate companies, colleges and students on the law regarding internships.

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy J. Leppink, the acting director of the department’s wage and hour division.

Ms. Leppink said many employers failed to pay even though their internships did not comply with the six federal legal criteria that must be satisfied for internships to be unpaid. Among those criteria are that the internship should be similar to the training given in a vocational school or academic institution, that the intern does not displace regular paid workers and that the employer “derives no immediate advantage” from the intern’s activities — in other words, it’s largely a benevolent contribution to the intern.

Robert Farley at Lawyers Guns & Money sums it up:

Good on ‘em. Let’s be clear; the unpaid internship effectively excludes a wide socioeconomic swath from gaining useful experience and making effective connections in business, government, and NGOs. For example, it was utterly impossible for me to even consider an unpaid internship as an undergraduate; paying the bills was difficult even with loans and full time work. Lots of young people lack significant parental support, and require minimum payment to have any hope of making ends meet. Moreover, even for those with support the “payment” for unpaid internships (connections, experience, and recommendations) often has no lasting effect on the intern’s job prospects. If you’ve ever wondered why DC NGOs and journalistic organizations are dominated by Ivy Leaguers, it ain’t just because they’re smart.

I don't know why this is suddenly such big news. Car companies have been negotiating recall compromises with the government for decades, leading to such strange consumer "solutions" as the "hidden warranty", under which dealers don't have to inform you of a manufacturing defect (or pay for it) unless you specifically ask them: "Is there a hidden warranty on this?"

Toyota Motor Corp. officials took credit for saving hundreds of millions of dollars by persuading federal regulators to limit or avoid safety recalls and rules, a company document released Sunday shows.

The document, an internal company presentation, depicts an automaker focused on getting what it termed "favorable recall outcomes" from regulators, with a goal of saving money even as the death toll climbed from accidents in which Toyota vehicles accelerated uncontrollably.

The presentation by executives in the company's Washington, D.C., office was addressed to Yoshimi Inaba, Toyota's top U.S. executive, and dated July 6, 2009 -- months before the sudden-acceleration problem was widely known outside Toyota and the federal highway regulatory agency.

The document, released by congressional investigators, describes the automaker's regulatory agenda and highlights a wide-ranging string of "wins for Toyota."

The acid test for me will be: What does Elizabeth Warren think? It's probably a good idea because the story quotes a "senior administration" as expressing "concern" about reducing the Fed’s powers any further and said it was "really critical" that the Fed maintain direct supervision of the large financial firms.

Which could be Rahm, Summers or Geithner, and if they told me the sky was blue, I'd have to double check:

WASHINGTON — The Senate and the Obama administration are nearing agreement on forming a council of regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to identify systemic risk to the nation’s financial system, officials said Wednesday.

The issue is one of the most fundamental in the contentious effort to overhaul regulation after the financial crisis, and addresses one of the primary lessons of the near debacle: that no one had been assigned to ensure the stability of the system as a whole and detect the kinds of excessive risk-taking and imbalances that could rock an entire economy.

Assigning the Treasury Department the job of spotting incipient trouble and addressing it quickly has support among senators from both parties, though several important provisions, including whether the council would have the ability to bypass existing banking regulators and impose its own rules on huge financial firms, remain to be worked out.

The effect would be to diminish the authority of the Federal Reserve, whose regulation of banks has been criticized for failing to head off the problems.

Talk about understatment. Considering that the boys at the Fed were in on the con game, you can see why Rahm, Larry and Timmy might be concerned about them losing control. Matt Taibbi:

Con artists have a word for the inability of their victims to accept that they've been scammed. They call it the "True Believer Syndrome." That's sort of where we are, in a state of nagging disbelief about the real problem on Wall Street. It isn't so much that we have inadequate rules or incompetent regulators, although both of these things are certainly true. The real problem is that it doesn't matter what regulations are in place if the people running the economy are rip-off artists. The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn't going to work, no matter what we do. Sure, mugging old ladies is against the law, but it's also easy. To prevent it, we depend, for the most part, not on cops but on people making the conscious decision not to do it.

That's why the biggest gift the bankers got in the bailout was not fiscal but psychological. "The most valuable part of the bailout," says Rep. Sherman, "was the implicit guarantee that they're Too Big to Fail." Instead of liquidating and prosecuting the insolvent institutions that took us all down with them in a giant Ponzi scheme, we have showered them with money and guarantees and all sorts of other enabling gestures. And what should really freak everyone out is the fact that Wall Street immediately started skimming off its own rescue money. If the bailouts validated anew the crooked psychology of the bubble, the recent profit and bonus numbers show that the same psychology is back, thriving, and looking for new disasters to create. "It's evidence," says Rep. Kanjorski, "that they still don't get it."

More to the point, the fact that we haven't done much of anything to change the rules and behavior of Wall Street shows that we still don't get it. Instituting a bailout policy that stressed recapitalizing bad banks was like the addict coming back to the con man to get his lost money back. Ask yourself how well that ever works out. And then get ready for the reload.

Now why doesn't President Obama nominate more judges like this one?

As President Obama traveled to Wall Street on Monday and chided bankers for their recklessness, across town a federal judge issued a far sharper rebuke, not just for some of the financiers but for their regulators in Washington as well.

Giving voice to the anger and frustration of many ordinary Americans, Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a scathing ruling on one of the watershed moments of the financial crisis: the star-crossed takeover of Merrill Lynch by the now-struggling Bank of America.

Judge Rakoff refused to approve a $33 million deal that would have settled a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the Bank of America. The lawsuit alleged that the bank failed to adequately disclose the bonuses that were paid by Merrill before the merger, which was completed in January at regulators’ behest as Merrill foundered.

He accused the S.E.C. of failing in its role as Wall Street’s top cop by going too easy on one of the biggest banks it regulates. And he accused executives of the Bank of America of failing to take responsibility for actions that blindsided its shareholders and the taxpayers who bailed out the bank at the height of the crisis.

The sharply worded ruling, which invoked justice and morality, seemed to speak not only to the controversial deal, but also to the anger across the nation over the excesses that led to the financial crisis, and the lax regulation in Washington that permitted those excesses to flourish.

Implicit in the judge’s remarks were broader questions on the anniversary of one of the most tumultuous weeks in Wall Street’s history: What do the giants of finance owe their shareholders and the investing public? And who will adequately oversee these behemoths?

Congress is pondering these issues as it prepares to reshape the power structure of financial regulators in Washington, including the S.E.C. President Obama is pushing lawmakers to pass tougher regulations this year that would touch everything from bonuses to the structural soundness of Wall Street’s most powerful banks, even as some Democrats fret that the health care debate makes it unlikely that financial reform can be achieved.

“We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis,” Mr. Obama said in his speech before several hundred banking executives, lawmakers and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

Such consequences were at the heart of the dispute that came before Judge Rakoff, who had demanded that the S.E.C. and the bank explain which executives were responsible for failing to tell the bank’s shareholders about the payout of Merrill’s bonuses. That information, together with evidence of large undisclosed losses at Merrill, may have led shareholders to reject the merger at a time when the government wanted to forestall a worse meltdown of the financial system.

The judge accused Bank of America and the S.E.C. of concocting the settlement to effectively absolve themselves of further responsibility.

“The S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger,” he wrote, and “the Bank’s management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators.”

  Not particularly surprising, unfortunately. What protection can you expect from a government whose guiding philosophy is that governing is the problem?

YahooNews: Government regulators never acted on calls for stepped-up inspections of leafy greens after last year's deadly E. coli spinach outbreak, leaving the safety of America's salads to a patchwork of largely unenforceable rules and the industry itself, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The regulations governing farms in this central California region known as the nation's "Salad Bowl" remain much as they were when bacteria from a cattle ranch infected spinach that killed three people and sickened more than 200.

AP's review of data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act found that federal officials inspect companies growing and processing salad greens an average of just once every 3.9 years. Some proposals in Congress would require such inspections at least four times a year.

In California, which grows three-quarters of the nation's greens, processors created a new inspection system but with voluntary guidelines that were unable to keep bagged spinach tainted with salmonella from reaching grocery shelves last month.

Despite widespread calls for spot-testing of processing plants handling leafy greens following last year's E. coli outbreak, California public health inspectors have not been given the authority to conduct such tests, so none have been done, the AP review found.

FCC clears 'Simpsons,' 'Friends' of indecency raps

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators on Monday denied 36 complaints of broadcast indecency in connection with popular TV shows like “Friends,” “The Simpsons,” and “Gilmore Girls.”

The complaints to the Federal Communications Commission were all filed by the Parents Television Council, a conservative watchdog group which frequently complains about sex and violence on television.

“None of the segments were patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, and thus not indecent,” the agency said in a statement.

As reported earlier, PTC is responsible for 99.8% of FCC complaints.

Jeff Jarvis has a much more thorough article on the story here.