Posts tagged with 'foreclosures'
Weekly Audit: A Tale of Two Economies
Filed under: 
By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger
The U.S. economy has diverged: Wall Street is living high on the hog while everyone else is struggling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average eclipsed 10,000 for the first time since last October this week, even as unemployment continues to spiral out of control. And while President Barack Obama has taken some very real steps to help ordinary people, his administration’s efforts to save Wall Street have far outstripped their support of workers. (more…)
Weekly Audit: Protect Consumers, Not Wall Street
By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger
The economy is still getting worse. Foreclosures are surging above last year’s epic highs and the unemployment rate marches upwards every month. As the misery grinds on, Wall Street lobbyists and their allies in Congress are pushing hard to distract the public from the real causes of the current global economic crisis. Corporate America is trying to pin the blame for our empty pocketbooks on President Barack Obama and the phantom socialist menace, and cable news pundits are taking the bait. (more…)
Weekly Audit: We Need a ‘People’s Bailout’
By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger
The economic free-fall is finally slowing down, although nobody expects the recovery to be very pleasant. Job losses and foreclosures are expected to increase well into next year. But even if our economic system gets back to normal, it’s important to remember that gross inequalities are embedded in the global order. At home, minorities face significant barriers to economic security, while abroad, children in poor countries are denied access to basic nutrition. This is especially disheartening in the wake of the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, which demonstrated that the world’s economic leaders are more focused on bailing out banks than eradicating global poverty. (more…)
Weekly Audit: Obama’s Economic Hits and Misses
By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger
Eight months after President Obama was sworn into office, the foreclosure epidemic is even more dire and no laws have been passed to rein in Wall Street. While Obama has helped cushion the nation’s economic fall with a stimulus plan and other proactive measures, much more aggressive action is needed to protect workers and homeowners from reckless financiers.
In an a piece for The Nation, John Nichols dissects Obama’s recent speech on the one-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy. Obama praised the Bush administration’s bank bailouts and advocated for regulatory reforms, because after eight months in office, we still haven’t seen any new financial regulations. Quoting a recent New York Times article on the status of the federal budget deficit, Nichols notes:
“It is not programs that care for the children of immigrants or aid to poor countries that emptied the Treasury, and it is not the ‘threat’ of healthcare reform that worries serious economists. The federal government has become ‘the guarantor against risk for investors large and small’ while doing little to restrain CEO greed or to protect the citizens, consumers and communities that have been battered by banksters.”
There are some signs of hope, however. Obama’s decision to appoint Daniel Tarullo, a former assistant to President Bill Clinton on international economic policy, to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors appears to be paying off—though its been sorely underreported in the mainstream press. Salon’s Andrew Leonard highlights a Wall Street Journal story indicating that Tarullo is close to securing major restrictions on bank pay practices. That’s extremely good news: blockbuster bonuses don’t just fuel inequality. Bankers “earn” those paydays by taking on huge levels of risk so their companies can book short-term profits. Banks were literally rewarding their top managers and executives for sabotaging the global economy.
Unfortunately, Obama has also appointed deregulatory crisis-causers to major regulatory positions. The most recent outrage, as David Corn and Daniel Schulman detail for Mother Jones, is Republican Scott O’Malia’s appointment as a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC oversees a wide array of important trade activities, including much of the oil and energy market. O’Malia has a history of lobbying against regulation in these very markets. He spent years peddling political influence for an electricity company, Mirant, which has a history of stretching the law to profit at the public’s expense. In 2003, the year after O’Malia left the company, Mirant paid about $500 million to settle charges that it illegally ripped off California citizens during the state’s electricity crisis.
Presidents typically allow very few members on top regulatory panels to come from the opposite political party—the idea is to prevent independent regulatory agencies from becoming political hatchet teams. Unfortunately, Obama’s other appointments have been questionable as well.
Obama appointed Gary Gensler Chairman of the CFTC earlier this year, despite his record as a leading advocate against the regulation of complex financial products called derivatives in the 1990s. Gensler won the battle on blocking derivatives regulation, a move which helped drive the global economy into a massive recession in less than a decade. Much of the problem has to do with their complexity. Many people who traded these products did not understand just how risky they were. And as former Lehman Brothers investment banker Sony Kapoor explains in an interview with Paul Jay of The Real News, this confusing complexity was intentional. By making new financial derivatives hard to understand, major Wall Street brokerages like Lehman and Goldman Sachs were able to overcharge for them.
Some derivatives enabled other destructive economic activities. Credit default swaps provided insurance against losses from loans. If a bank was worried that a loan would not be paid back, they could go to AIG and buy insurance. The bank would pay a modest monthly fee to AIG, and if the loan ever went bust, AIG would pay the bank the full value of the loan. The swaps actually encouraged reckless subprime lending. And while plenty of Wall Streeters failed to recognize the risk associated with derivatives, almost everybody knew that subprime lending was a disaster in the making. But since Wall Streeters didn’t want to give up huge short-term profits associated with subprime lending, credit default swaps allowed them to have their cake and eat it too. Banks could book the outsized profits from subprime lending, but insure themselves against the inevitable losses by going to AIG for insurance. In effect, these crazy derivatives were actually fueling the subprime lending boom.
And the foreclosures spawned by exotic mortgages are nowhere near their peak. Laura Flanders of GRITtv interviews Rosemary Williams and Ann Patterson, two Minneapolis homeowners with adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) trying to fight off foreclosure. During the housing boom, banks pushed millions of borrowers into ARMs—loans that start with a low interest that resets higher after a few years—without worrying about whether they could afford the higher payments. Those loans are only beginning to reset now, with the vast majority scheduled to pinch pocketbooks over the next two years.
The government’s support for citizens laid off as a result of the recession has not been generous. Obama fought hard to pass his economic stimulus package immediately after entering office, helping create some jobs and providing a very modest expansion of unemployment benefits to laid-off workers (I do mean modest—it’s an extra $25 per week). But while the stimulus package helped slow the economic plunge, the private sector is not likely to start hiring new workers for years, as Roger Bybee notes for In These Times. The social cost of unemployment, Bybee emphasizes, is absolutely enormous. For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate that is sustained over six years, 47,000 people actually die, while prisons and mental hospitals are flooded with inmates and patients.
Congress would be happy to sweep financial regulation under the rug and pretend the problem has passed. Obama is capable of making good decisions on the economy, but he’ll have to go to the mat for reform if we want any hope of fully recovering from the Bush era.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy and is free to reprint. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Depression-Era Inequality, Only Worse
By Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire blogger
A new study by Economist Emmanuel Saez revealed this week that income inequality in the U.S. is more severe today than at any time since World War I, and the current recession is taking its heaviest toll on the worst-off members of our society. As our government rebuilds the financial sector using taxpayers’ money, it’s important to remember that both financiers and the government are responsible to our communities, not just bank shareholders. If we want to strengthen our country’s economic foundation, we need to demand better wages for workers and an end to all kinds of predatory lending.
Saez’s new data on income inequality is, as Paul Krugman put it, “truly amazing.” Saez, who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley, found that the top 0.01% of U.S. earners had 6% of total U.S. wages, more than double the level in 2000. Earners in the top 10%, meanwhile, took home an astonishing 49.7% of all wages. That gap is larger now than during the Great Depression or the Gilded Age of the Roaring ’20s.
“We’re seeing Depression-era inequality again—only now it’s slightly worse,” writes Steve Benen for The Washington Monthly. Benen also notes that this level of inequality is not an inevitable consequence of a market economy: It’s an extreme historical aberration. In the U.S., prosperity for much of the 20th Century was shared. But in 2007, at the economic bubble’s peak, the wealthy simply got wealthier.
In that context, it is beyond absurd that the government is allowing 8-figure bonuses to be doled out by bailed out banks. Writing for Salon, Robert Reich dissects the policy implications of Citigroup’s plans to pay its top executives an average of $10 million this year and award over $100 million to its top trader, a man who literally owns a castle in Germany. Citigroup was one of the most reckless U.S. banks during the housing bubble, a major subprime offender that received $45 billion in direct bailout money, as well as hundreds of billions in federal guarantees. How much is $45 billion? With the median U.S. home price at $174,100, that’s the full market price of over 258,000 foreclosed homes. The company says that $10 million a head is necessary to attract and maintain top “talent,” which Reich notes is a somewhat misleading term, given recent history. The problem is not just that Citigroup and other Wall Street firms are paying tons of money to a few people, it’s that these people are being rewarded for the same kind of activities that got us into this mess to begin with: Risky, highly leveraged securities trading.
“Over the last several years Wall Street has exhibited a truly astonishing lack of talent,” Reich says, noting that, “The Street is back to the same, relentlessly untalented tactics that made it lots of money before the meltdown—which also forced taxpayers to bail it out, caused the world economy to melt down, and tens of millions of people to lose big chunks of their life savings.”
In truth, Reich argues, most large financial firms in the U.S. are much more like public utility companies than private-sector businesses. Even in good times, they depend on government guarantees and other support systems to function. In bad times, we bail them out. Instead of paying financiers tens of millions of dollars to reinforce a flawed system, Reich argues that we should impose rules that result in salaries similar to the public utilities sector, where top earners are generally restricted to 6-figure incomes.
The American Prospect features two pieces emphasizing problems in the current financial sector. Under a law known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted in 1977 we require banks to make loans in communities where they collect deposits. The loans have to be to dependable borrowers and they have to be relatively inexpensive. The law works very well—institutions covered by it made only a tiny fraction of the high-interest subprime loans that brought down the financial sector, as National Community Reinvestment Coalition President John Taylor notes for the Prospect. But CRA only applies to actual banks. You know, the places where you deposit your paychecks. CRA does not apply to subcompanies owned by the same corporation, and it does not apply to giant Wall Street securities firms like Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs. Taylor says we need to expand CRA to cover these other big players in the financial world.
Why? As Alyssa Katz details in a piece for the Prospect funded by The Nation Institute, many Wall Street firms are bidding on foreclosed properties and selling them at rip-off rates to low-income borrowers.
But as Mary Kane notes for The Washington Independent, banks have also devised several methods of making money without making a loan. By charging tremendous fees on borrowers for minor infractions, banks generate billions of dollars without producing anything of social value. One of the worst forms of abuse, Kane writes, comes in the form of overdraft fees. When you withdraw too much money from your bank account, the bank fronts you the money, and then charges you a fee for this “protection.” The trick is, banks almost never tell you that this has occurred, and often play around with the timing of your charges and deposits to maximize the fees they collect. Banks are on track to collect $38.5 billion in such fees this year alone. The worst part is, the fees come from the poorest customers—rich people don’t overdraw their bank accounts, because they have tons of money.
In the case of credit cards, banks routinely slap borrowers with outrageous fees and interest rate hikes when the borrowers are making payments on time. Over the years, banks have targeted younger and younger credit card customers, as Adam Waxman notes for WireTap. After years of declining wages for all but the wealthiest citizens, consumers have been turning to pricey plastic to finance basic necessities.
Sadly, corporate America does not seem very focused on helping workers establish their financial independence. The Real News talks with Richard Wolff, an economist with the New School who emphasizes that, while worker productivity has jumped in recent months, wages have not made the corresponding increases. Quarterly productivity numbers tend to jump around a lot, but the trend of not compensating workers for improved efficiency has been around for years.
In a consumer-driven economy, major problems can’t be fixed by giving lots of money to a few people, especially if those few people are already rich. To support broad, meaningful economic growth, we need to tailor our policies that empower those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. And when we bail out giant corporations with taxpayer money, we need to make sure those companies arrange their business to improve the lot of taxpayers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy and is free to reprint. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Fixing the Foreclosure Problem
by Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire blogger
The U.S. job market may be showing signs of life, according to a report issued by the Labor Department on Friday. The unemployment rate dropped in July, something no economist expected. Under the most optimistic interpretation, the news indicates that the worst of the recession is finally behind us. But the scenario isn’t really so rosy, as our government has yet to relieve the foreclosure pandemic. Even if unemployment is leveling off, there will be no economic recovery if the the foreclosure problem isn’t fixed.
July’s unemployment rate only fell from 9.5% to 9.4%, and even the most bullish Wall Street economists think the rate will hit double digits by the end of the year. The fact that July’s tiny drop in unemployement counts for good economic news says a lot about how severely the economy has deteriorated over the past year and a half.
But when you dig a little deeper, the numbers get worse. As Tim Fernholz explains for The American Prospect, even though the unemployment rate dropped, the nation’s economy actually shed 247,000 jobs in July. The rate was pushed down because 400,000 people gave up looking for a job in July; as such, they are no longer included in the statistic. So, while we “only” lost 247,000 jobs, we also lost 400,000 workers.
The government also adjusts its job loss figures for seasonal developments. When the Labor Department says we lost 247,000 jobs in July, that isn’t the actual number—it’s the number relative to what the Department considers a normal July. This summer has been unique for the U.S. economy, and especially in the case of the automobile industry. Auto companies usually lay off workers in the summer: The factories close while companies prepare the next year’s models. So many factories were already closed earlier this year that the seasonal shutdowns haven’t really happened this summer. Even though car companies laid people off in July, the government’s seasonally adjusted numbers marked an increase in car manufacturing jobs.
Things get even more complicated when you include the Cash for Clunkers program, which started on July 24. The plan offers people up to $4,500 to trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient new car. Whether the program helps the environment is somewhat controversial, but there is no doubt that it has created a lot of unusual demand for new cars. As Ed Brayton notes for The Michigan Messenger, the government’s plan to pump an additional $2 billion into the program has analysts predicting a big boost for manufacturers in July and August.
So we don’t really know if the labor market actually improved last month, or if the report is just an exaggeration of statistical anomalies resulting from the recession itself, or even some of the government’s recovery efforts. But as Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, even if the numbers come with a healthy dose of uncertainty, it’s still better to see them come in good than bad. “There hasn’t been encouraging news on the job front in quite a while, and given the severity of the economic crisis, today’s report offers at least some relief,” Benen says. “The job numbers beat expectations, the overall unemployment rate declined, earnings went up, and the manufacturing sector improved.”
But even if unemployment is finally slowing down, the housing market remains awful. Foreclosures are significantly outpacing the administration’s efforts to help troubled borrowers. The Treasury Department released a report last week indicating that only about 9% of the borrowers eligible for relief under the government’s anti-foreclosure plan have actually received any aid—and even here the numbers are juiced to make the program look better. The administration only includes borrowers who are already at least two months behind on their mortgage payments in the group of eligible borrowers, when in fact any borrower in danger of “imminent default” is supposed to be eligible. Much of the problem, as I argue in a piece for Salon, is that the plan relies on private-sector debt collectors to identify distressed homeowners and get them help, something these companies have never been very interested in doing. All in all, just 235,247 borrowers have received assistance under the Obama plan, while foreclosures increased to 1.5 million in the first six months of 2009, with 2.4 million expected for the entire year and 9 million by 2012.
Writing for Mother Jones, Andy Kroll emphasizes that a much better policy option is available than the current tack. Rather than ask the banking industry to voluntarily adopt the administration’s plan without any consequences, we should put “homeowners’ fate in the hands of a neutral arbiter, like a bankruptcy court judge . . . [It] would go a long way toward stemming the tide of foreclosures,” Kroll writes.
Thanks to a bizarre legal loophole, mortgages cannot be modified in a bankruptcy proceeding if the owner actually lives in the house (investment properties, on the other hand, can be written off). In other words, if a predatory loan is driving you bankrupt, a judge can’t do anything about it in bankruptcy court. Congress has tried to change this rule a few times over the past year, but the bank lobby has stymied those efforts. The most recent legislative push failed overcome a Senate filibuster in April, but the political momentum may be changing as foreclosures get increasingly out of hand.
As Mike Lillis notes for The Colorado Independent, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., plans to bring back the legislation if the banking industry doesn’t get serious about helping borrowers fast. Many of the companies letting borrowers fall into foreclosure received billions of dollars in bailout money over the past year, and some even agreed to help borrowers as a condition for taxpayer support. But reform doesn’t just depend on the banks. Peter Dreier argues in The Nation that citizens need to publicly protest for stronger economic reforms.
Foreclosures are terrible for the economy. They wreak havoc on families’ lives, wipe out personal savings, lower the value of neighboring properties and put more homes on the market, further lowering home prices nationwide. If we cannot stop foreclosures, the economy cannot recover. If job losses are finally moderating, that’s great news. But it would be much better to see job losses stabilize and see the banks we bailed out actually do something to avert foreclosures.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy and is free to reprint. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Unions and Wage Growth Can Fuel Recovery
by Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire blogger
The U.S. economy is in big trouble right now, and the reform process may be missing a key point. When banks ran into severe trouble late last year, the government responded quickly with a massive bailout, but very little has been done to address a major structural flaw that has left our economy so vulnerable: rampant income inequality. In a system based on consumer spending, we have stretched consumers beyond their limit.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues that we are in for a long period of economic woe over at Talking Points Memo. Consumer spending accounts for about 70% of the U.S. economy, so when consumers go broke, everything shuts down. Ordinary Americans’ wages have been declining for decades, and the collapse of the housing bubble wiped out roughly $14 trillion in household wealth. Simply rebooting in the hopes that our simultaneous assault and dependence on consumer pocketbooks will work again will not be effective.
“This economy can’t get back on track because the track we were on for years—featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere—simply cannot be sustained,” Reich writes.
Strengthening our labor unions is probably the biggest single step the U.S. can take toward economic stability. And the best way to do that would be passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it much easier for unions to organize by circumventing executive intimidation. Empowered workers can demand fair wages, decent benefits and help build a society that values all labor as an important part of collective existence.
In a profile of AFL-CIO leader David Trumka for The Nation, David Moberg presents a vision of an economy in which policymakers and voters are concerned with how much wealth exists and how that wealth is distributed. Widespread prosperity does not inevitably flow from technological or financial innovation if the resulting gains are diverted to a select few.
“In Trumka’s view, the unionism of the 1930s forged a social compact that made possible the middle class prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s,” Moberg writes. “But since the early 1970s, Wall Street and financial interests have dominated American politics, dismantling the compact and increasing inequality, debt and insecurity as workers struggled to keep up.”
It may be surprising for those of us who don’t work on Wall Street, but there is actually an enormously influential school of thought in Washington, D.C. that believes recessions are actually good for the economy. The reasoning goes something like this: When economies gorge themselves, something has to happen to correct the mistake—to “purge the rottenness from the system,” as Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon once said. The idea has some level of intuitive appeal, but as Christopher Hayes writes for The American Prospect, it’s also a complete distortion of how recessions actually work.
“Economic contraction feels quite different to a bond trader and an unskilled worker,” Hayes writes. “A spike in unemployment hits those on the margins of the labor market the hardest, while contractions also usher in deflation, which has a strong tendency to make the rich richer.”
In reality, the government almost never makes the perpetrators of an economic collapse pay serious consequences. When the economy gets into trouble, the government usually takes emergency measures to avert a crisis, and then refuses to adopt reforms that would protect those dealt the most harm. It’s been this way for decades.
Not only have workers been neglected, but billions of their tax dollars have bailed out banks that ran themselves into the ground via predatory loans. But even that bailout money is not being used to help strengthen the broader economy. Writing for The Washington Independent, Mary Kane highlights a host of reports that indicate banks are booting people out of their homes, and then refusing to care for the houses once they’re vacant. When homes are overgrown and infested with all kinds of critters, the value of nearby properties plummets. Banks are hurting completely innocent homeowners whose tax dollars helped bail them out.
We don’t even know the full extent of the favors the government has performed for financial firms. In a video for the American News Project, Lagan Sebert, Harry Hanbury and Mike Fritz detail some of the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented actions during the financial crisis. The Fed has lent out over $1 trillion to banks over the course of the financial crisis without disclosing who received the loans or what kind of collateral the Fed received in return.
Much of what we do know about the Fed’s rescue plans is disquieting, as William Greider, an economics journalist with The Nation, explains in the ANP video. When Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York negotiated a rescue plan in which JPMorgan would acquire the failed Wall Street icon in exchange for $30 billion in loss protection from the Fed. But JPMorgan would have been one of the hardest hit by a Bear Stearns collapse, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon sits on the board of directors at the New York Fed.
“Tim Geithner, who was then President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and is now Treasury Secretary, was negotiating with his own board member,” Greider says.
Going back to labor: Hourly workers will get some much-needed relief later this month, when the federal minimum wage increases from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour, as Doug Ramsey explains for Public News Service of Arizona. While executives like to argue that raising the minimum wage is a job-killer, the fact is that no serious study has ever linked the two phenomena. Interestingly, the wage increase was not a response to the economic crisis. It was one of the first legislative victories for the Democratic Party when it won back majorities in the House and Senate in 2006.
Anybody who lives on less than $7.00 an hour can attest that the added income is a welcome improvement over the status quo. But $7.25 an hour is just $15,000 a year—not nearly enough to save for the future or pay for a serious medical procedure. Our economy is suffering because many, many ordinary people are living paycheck to paycheck. We have to create an economy where work and workers are given their fair value.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Radical Inequality Fueled the Wall Street Meltdown
Now that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner isn’t going to impose pay restrictions on bailed out Wall Street executives, it’s critical to remember that severe economic inequality was a major factor in the financial meltdown. Our tax code funnels money into the hands of our wealthiest citizens, which means that our financial system protects the interests of the affluent—not the the average citizen. The broad divergence between our core democratic values and the existing U.S. economic structure must become part of the public debate over financial reform.
As Les Leopold notes in a roundtable discussion with GritTV’s Laura Flanders, much of the Wall Street meltdown can be traced to a steady redistribution of wealth to the wealthy dating back to the Reagan years. Poor people, after all, do not have money to invest in the Wall Street speculation machine. By 2007, the financial world accounted for over 40% of U.S. corporate profits, an astounding percentage for a business intended to facilitate the operation of other industries. According to Leopold, we need to find constructive ways to shrink the financial sector, like taxing Wall Street transactions to move money into the real economy or imposing meaningful pay caps on financial jobs.
Pay for citizens who live outside the executive class has been steadily falling for decades. As Chuck Collins and Sam Pizzigati note for AlterNet, weekly wages for average Americans are now below 1970s levels after adjusting for inflation, while CEO payouts have exploded. So far, President Barack Obama has been hesitant to fight economic inequality at either end of the spectrum. Remember the promises he made to curb extravagant CEO pay on Wall Street back when the AIG bonuses were generating outrage back in February? Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has already made them irrelevant, eliminating a $500,000/year salary cap.
While we’ve heard quite a bit about how Wall Street excess wreaked havoc for homeowners, relatively little attention has been paid to the plight of renters, who often face personal catastrophe when their landlord is foreclosed on. Under a new law passed by Congress, when a bank or new owner takes control over a foreclosed property, they have to give renters living in the home at least 90 days notice before evicting them. But the law does nothing to address other injustices renters face. If your landlord is foreclosed on, for instance, you can forget about getting your security deposit back, even if the house is in top condition.
Banks also are not required to hire property managers to maintain homes they take over, which means they often let houses deteriorate despite objections from tenants. Writing for The Colorado Independent, Martha White explains that these problems are easy to correct, if Congress actually wanted to: Require landlords to put security deposits in a special account that cannot be raided by creditors in bankruptcy and force banks to hire managers to maintain the properties they foreclose on. The latter policy would also discourage banks from foreclosing in the first place by making ownership of the property more expensive for the bank.
Obama recognizes the need for change, which is why he’s proposed a major overhaul of the government’s Wall Street oversight. But in many ways, his plan identifies the wrong problems and offers the wrong solutions. The Real News features a great video spot with commentary by University of Massachusetts at Amherst Economist Robert Pollin. One of the key reforms involves granting the Federal Reserve broad powers to oversee systemic risk in the economy, but the Fed already has similar authority.
“The problem is, the Fed has already had an enormous amount of regulatory power, they just don’t exercise that power,” Pollin says.
Instead of granting the Fed more power, we should be finding ways to hold its leaders accountable. By subjecting top officials at the Fed to democratic elections, we could help ensure that the top regulatory body in the U.S. answers to the people it is supposed to be protecting.
Other creative new approaches to combating the economic crisis are featured in the most recent issue of Yes!, which is devoted entirely to economic reforms. From tips on investing locally to overhauling our broken monetary system to empowering workers, the issue emphasizes solutions that rely on democratic structures, rather than the corporate status quo (full disclosure: I’ve got an article in there on community banks).
It’s time to put some political firepower behind those ideas. Ordinary people simply have no serious voice in the policy debate surrounding Wall Street. In The Nation, Christopher Hayes describes the banking lobby’s total domination over financial reform proposals.
“On the other major legislative battles—healthcare, climate change, the Employee Free Choice Act—there is an organized, mobilized permanent infrastructure to push lawmakers in a progressive direction,” Hayes writes. “They may be underdogs, but at least it’s a fight.”
Changing the too-big-to-fail financial sector must become a priority. If we defer to the banking lobby or advisers like Larry Summers, who helped create the crisis by backing wildly deregulatory laws during the Clinton years, we can guess what the end result will look like. If we want our economy to answer to us, we have to do something about it. Income inequality and unaccountable regulators were a major part of the financial collapse. Addressing those problems has to be part of the economic solution.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Why the Current Stimulus Plan Isn’t Enough
by Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire Blogger
The U.S. economy just keeps getting worse. Given the absolute pummeling the job market has taken over the past five months, we’re going to need some much stronger medicine than policymakers are currently proposing. It’s increasingly clear that President Obama’s stimulus plan was devised for a far milder downturn, and this week we received further evidence of the recession’s high human cost.
The U.S. lost another 663,000 jobs in March, according to a report released by the the Labor Department last Friday. Most of us are getting used to seeing big numbers associated with this recession, but those massive layoffs are perhaps the most distressing statistics of all. Jobs matter most to ordinary people right now, as John Nichols notes for The Nation, and the primary measure of success for any economic policy is whether it will get people back to work. Nichol’s argument stands in sharp contrast to what much of the news media is using as its metric of success: the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Speculators on Wall Street have pointed to the Dow’s recent upward trend as evidence that things are getting better. We’ll see if that uptick continues after the next round of quarterly banking losses comes in, but even if they do, Nichols emphasizes, happy speculators are not the same thing as a happy economy.
The national unemployment rate currently stands at 8.5% and, without a dramatic increase in government support, will likely be mired in double digits for years to come. Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz puts it succinctly in an interview at Salon: “This model no longer works. The Americans are completely over-indebted. They can’t increase their consumption, instead they have to save.”
The recession’s growing severity underscores a host of long-brewing economic problems, not the least of which is access to a college education. The cost of tuition has been steadily soaring for decades, but with the life savings of many families decimated by the housing bust, even relatively inexpensive state schools are out of financial reach, as Andy Kroll illustrates for Mother Jones.
“Simply to ensure that a child attends a four-year public university, a family in the country’s lowest-income bracket now has to pay, on average, 55% of [their] total income,” Kroll writes. That’s not 55% of disposable income, that’s 55% of what the family is taking in, period. President Obama has proposed some solid remedies for this issue—increasing federal grants for low-income students and replacing overpriced private-sector student loans with cheaper government loans, to name a few. But Kroll notes that it’s also important to divert more federal stimulus funds to states to increase the flow of need-based financial aid at public universities.
For many younger students, attending college takes a backseat to making sure they have a roof over their heads. One out of every 50 children in the United States is homeless. This problem will not go away on its own, Randy Jurado Ertll writes for The Progressive. Ending homelessness for children would cost just a fraction of what we’re paying to bailout the nation’s largest banks—there is no excuse for ignoring the issue in the next round of recovery funding.
The housing collapse continues to deepen, but some policies designed to help families keep their homes are quietly expiring. In a story for The Colorado Independent, Mary Kane points out that the moratorium on foreclosures imposed by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expired at the end of March. Foreclosure-related evictions are set to resume. Just as depressing: none of the mainstream media seems to have noticed.
As foreclosures escalate, one policy option that would keep families with a roof over their heads is being generally ignored by both the government and the banking world: renting. If, Kane notes, banks rented foreclosed properties to the borrowers who can no longer afford them, the most devastating impact of the foreclosure crisis could be averted.
But instead of dealing with actual problems, some Senators remain more focused on throwing money at rich people. The estate tax has actually surfaced in the recent haggling over the federal budget, Steven Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, a tax that only applies to the richest 0.2% of American families.
We’ve seen enough giveaways to wealthy people in the recent bank bailouts, and we know that they have extremely limited economic benefits. Steering the economy toward recovery will require a much more aggressive investment in the livelihood of ordinary Americans.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: The Worst is Yet to Come
Last week’s passage of the economic stimulus bill marked the first major win for progressives on economic policy under President Barack Obama, but the hardest economic battles have yet to come. The fight against entrenched corporate interests and a global order that ignores the needy will likely be as long and arduous as the recession itself.
The stimulus package may be an absolutely essential step for fending off economic catastrophe, but it does nothing to overhaul the deeply flawed structure of our economic system. “In unleashing a flood of deficit spending and avoiding tax increases, the legislation didn’t threaten moneyed interests, didn’t alter the existing economic topography, and therefore didn’t attract the withering hostility from business groups that typically prevents ‘hope’ from becoming ‘change,’” David Sirota writes for Salon.
The Obama team seems to be considering nationalizing big, troubled banks temporarily, a prospect which was politically unthinkable just a few weeks back. Progressives have been pushing nationalization hard and it seems to be working. Several Republican Senators are supporting the idea, as temporary nationalization is already government policy for smaller banks that don’t employ massive lobbying teams.
But getting Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on board is only half the battle. In a piece for The Nation, Thomas Ferguson and Robert Johnson detail how hedge funds and private equity firms hope to capitalize on a big bank nationalization policy by using political clout to score unfairly cheap prices from the government.
“Much of the wind in the sails of this new push comes from private equity firms like KKR, Blackstone, or their political allies, mostly, though not entirely within the Republican Party,” Ferguson and Johnson write.
When the government nationalized troubled banks with the Resolution Trust Corp. under President George H.W. Bush, politically connected investors made out like bandits when the government resold the banks into the private sector. It is important that this corruption not be repeated. We don’t tolerate our politicians doing favors for wealthy constituents, and we shouldn’t allow our financial regulators to do so either.
The current recession has roots in excessive consumer debt—some of it predatory, some of it spawned by consumerism run amok. U.S. economic well-being has depended on destructive and environmentally unsustainable spending habits of its citizens for too long. Writing for In These Times, Terry Allen notes that “our own addiction to consumerism and failure to save tie us to debt and stress.” While consumer spending kept the economy from crashing until last year, it was very bad for individual households.
Over at The American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias discusses the global implications of lower levels of U.S. consumption. As the U.S. consumes less product, there will be major consequences for economies that rely on U.S. demand. Yglesias emphasizes that the current downturn is fully global, unlike every U.S. recession since the Great Depression. Potential solutions will have to involve coordinating policy responses with other countries to ensure that everyone is shouldering the stimulus load—and to help everyone adjust to an era in which U.S. consumers buy less stuff.
As Nomi Prins explains in Mother Jones, Wall Street bankers have always had a knack for bestowing lavish compensation upon themselves. Bonuses are routinely based on ill-conceived criteria that focus on short-term gains and create unnecessary risk. The key reforms, Prins says, do not merely involve capping executive compensation for bailed-out firms, but regulating bonus compensation and imposing heavy taxes on it in both good times and bad.
In recent years, Wall Street has dealt homeowners an absolutely devastating blow with various exotic mortgage schemes, but another major housing crisis is now looming for renters. Despite an overabundance of sprawling suburban developments, U.S. cities are facing a dramatic shortage of affordable rental housing. As hard as the economic crisis is for homeowners, those who rent in urban areas are being hit even harder. Many renters who cannot afford to buy a home under still face housing hardships today.
In the below video for American News Project, Garland McLaurin and Mike Fritz reveal the dire straits currently facing federal affordable housing programs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, known as HUD, received a significant funding boost under Obama’s economic stimulus package—its $40.4 billion 2009 budget was supplemented by $13.6 billion. But thanks to years of neglect and political cronyism under the Bush administration, HUD housing units have a backlog of at least $22 billion in needed repairs, which severely hinders HUD’s ability to expand operations.
And the number of affordable rental housing units falls well short of what is needed. McLaurin and Fritz highlight Baltimore in their video, a city that has roughly 30,000 subsidized housing spaces, but will require 60,000 more to built in order to meet the city’s needs.
The proliferation of subprime mortgages was one of the chief drivers of the foreclosure epidemic. They seem absurd in retrospect. Lenders charged people with relatively weak credit scores higher interest rates to counter the risk in making loans to people with bad credit. But since credit scores are fairly closely linked to income level, lenders were essentially charging people with less money more than they would have charged an ordinary borrower. Not surprisingly, that business model is now completely destroyed.
But, as Daniel Fireside reveals in Yes! Magazine, there is a more effective way to expand access to homeownership, one that relies on charging—shock!—less for homes. Several U.S. cities now make use of non-profit land trusts to lower the costs of homeownership.
Here’s how it works: The land trust purchases a swath of property and builds housing on it if none already exists. The trust then sells homes to new homeowners, but does not sell the underlying land. The trust negotiates mortgages with banks on behalf of low-income borrowers. By using the land equity as part of the mortgage calculation, the necessary down payment is dramatically reduced. As a result, the home never falls into the hands of real estate speculators and the cost of owning a home falls by around 25%. If borrowers ever run into trouble on their loan, the trust works with them and the bank to fend off foreclosure. Land trusts feature foreclosure rates 30 times—not 30 percent, 30 times—lower than the national average.
Each of these initiatives is absolutely essential and will, unfortunately, involve brutal policy battles. Many people make a lot of money from the status quo. Let’s hope Obama has the political clout to tell corporate opportunists that the times are a-changing.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.