Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal

by Matt Taibbi / Rolling Stone


barack obama
A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general.

This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.

The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.


This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline. 

This deal will also submarine efforts by both defrauded investors in MBS and unfairly foreclosed-upon homeowners and borrowers to obtain any kind of relief in the civil court system. The AGs initially talked about $20 billion as a settlement number, money that would “toward loan modifications and possibly counseling for homeowners,” as Gretchen Morgenson reported the other day.

The banks, however, apparently “balked” at paying that sum, and no doubt it will end up being a lesser amount when the deal is finally done.

To give you an indication of how absurdly small a number even $20 billion is relative to the sums of money the banks made unloading worthless crap subprime assets on foreigners, pension funds and other unsuspecting suckers around the world, consider this: in 2008 alone, the state pension fund of Florida, all by itself, lost more than three times that amount ($62 billion) thanks in significant part to investments in these deadly MBS. 

So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.

But Schneiderman, who earlier this year launched an investigation into the securitization practices of Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and other companies, is screwing up this whole arrangement. Until he lies down, the banks don’t have a deal. They need the certainty of having all 50 states and the federal government on board, or else it’s not worth paying anybody off. To quote the immortal Tony Montana, “How do I know you’re the last cop I’m gonna have to grease?” They need all the dirty cops on board, or else the whole enterprise is FUBAR. 

In addition to the global settlement, Schneiderman is also blocking an individual $8.5 billion settlement for Countrywide investors. He has sued to stop that deal, claiming it could “compromise investors’ claims in exchange for a payment representing a fraction of the losses.”

If Schneiderman thinks $8.5 billion is an insufficient, fractional payoff just for defrauded Countrywide investors, then you can imagine how bad a $20 billion settlement for the entire industry would be for the victims.

In that particular Countrywide settlement deal, it looks like Bank of New York Mellon, the New York Fed, Pimco and other players negotiated on behalf of defrauded investors. They told the Times they were happy with the deal, but investors outside the talks told Gretchen they weren’t happy with the settlement. 

Schneiderman apparently listened to those voices instead of the Mellon-Fed-BofA crowd, which infuriated the insiders who struck the actual deal. In a remarkable quote given to the Times, Kathryn Wylde, the Fed board member who ostensibly represents the public, said the following about Schneiderman:
It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.
This, again, is coming not from a Bank of America attorney, but from the person on the Fed board who is supposedly representing the public!

This quote leads one to wonder just what Wylde would consider “indefensible,” given that stealing is pretty much the worst thing that a bank can do — and these banks just finished the longest and most orgiastic campaign of stealing in the history of money. Is Wylde waiting for Goldman and Citi to blow up a skyscraper? Dump dioxin into an orphanage? It’s really an incredible quote.

The banks are going to claim that all they’re guilty of is bad paperwork. But while the banks are indeed being investigated for "paperwork" offenses like mass tax evasion (by failing to pay fees associated with mortgage registrations and deed transfers) and mass perjury (a la the “robo-signing” practices), their real crime, the one Schneiderman is interested in, is even more serious.

The issue goes beyond fraudulent paperwork to an intentional, far-reaching theft scheme designed to take junk subprime loans and disguise them as AAA-rated investments. The banks lent money to corrupt companies like Countrywide, who made masses of bad loans and immediately sold them back to the banks.

The banks in turn hid the crappiness of these loans via certain poorly-understood nuances in the securitization process – this is almost certainly where Scheniderman’s investigators are doing their digging – before hawking the resultant securities as AAA-rated gold to fools in places like the Florida state pension fund.

They did this for years, systematically, working hand in hand in a wink-nudge arrangement with clearly criminal enterprises like Countrywide and New Century. The victims were millions of investors worldwide (like the pensioners who saw their funds drop in value) and hundreds of thousands of individual homeowners, who were often sold trick loans and hustled into foreclosure when unexpected rate hikes kicked in.

In a larger sense, even the (often irresponsible) people who simply bought more house than they could afford were victims of this scam. That's because in many of these cases, credit simply would not have been available to those people had the banks not first discovered a way to raise vast sums of money dumping crap loans on an unsuspecting market.

In other words: if Bank of America hadn’t found a way to sell worthless subprime loans as AAA paper to the Chinese and the Scandavians in May, you can be sure that it wouldn’t be going back to Countrywide in June to lend out more money for more subprime loans.

And Countrywide, in turn, wouldn’t then have been sending masses of reps out into the ghettoes to offer juicy home loans to undocumented immigrants and refis to confused old ladies on social security.

This is as bad as white-collar crime gets. But to Wylde, it doesn’t rise to the level of being “indefensible.” Until they do something worse than this, we apparently should support the banks, and make sure they don’t have to pay more than a fraction of what they made off of this kind of crime.

What is most amazing about Wylde’s quote is the clear implication that even a law enforcement official like Schneiderman should view it as his job to “do everything we can to support” Wall Street. That would be astonishing interpretation of what a prosecutor's duties are, were it not for the fact that 49 other Attorneys General apparently agree with her.

In Schneiderman we have at least one honest investigator who doesn’t agree, which is to his great credit. But everyone else is on Wylde’s side now. The Times story claims that HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and various Justice Department officials have been leaning on the New York AG to cave, which tells you that reining in this last rogue cop is now an urgent priority for Barack Obama.

Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.

Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Palin, Others Slam 'Corrupt' Pelosi Healthcare Waivers

Preview

Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and other leading conservatives blasted former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration Wednesday over the huge number of waivers from the national healthcare law being granted to posh eateries and other businesses in Pelosi’s San Francisco district.

Pelosi and administration officials, meanwhile, fired back saying the lawmaker had nothing to do with the waivers and that conservatives were orchestrating a smear campaign.

“Seriously, this is corrupt,” Palin told The Daily Caller, referring to the waivers the San Francisco businesses received. “And anyone who still supports the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda of centralized government takeovers of the free market and the corresponding crony capitalism is, in my book, complicit.”


But the two-day dustup may have obscured a more pressing question for Democrats: Why are businesses in liberal San Francisco and elsewhere clamoring to opt out of the massive healthcare law that was supposed to help them?

The answer boils down to simple dollars and sense, experts say. Because so-called Obamacare prohibits lifetime dollar limits on health insurance plans, businesses from Pelosi’s -- as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s -- districts are demanding waivers because they already are paying for employees to be covered in plans with limits in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Obamacare forbids insurers from placing annual and lifetime limits on health plans,” explained The Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn Nix on the think tanks’ blog. “These ‘consumer protections’ have endangered the limited coverage plans that some employers currently offer.

“Unable to provide more comprehensive coverage, those employers would be forced to drop coverage altogether if they abide by the new law. To avoid this consequence of the new law, employers are flocking to secure the waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep their employees covered.”

Heritage’s Foundry blog likened the situation to a sickened patient clamoring to be spared the vaccine that’s supposed to save them. The patient knows better than the “doctor” it may end up killing them.
In fact, the law very well could destabilize the entire national health insurance market, according to Sen. Dean Heller, R-NV.

“It is becoming increasingly clear how flawed this law really is,” Heller said. “Not only did it cut a half trillion dollars from Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, now the law would have driven health insurers out of our state if a reprieve had not been granted . . . This is why ‘Obamacare’ will not work for Nevada.”

On Monday, The Daily Caller ignited the debate with a story reporting that among HHS’s most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers granted across the nation, “38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved just 1,372 Obamacare waivers [1], covering 3.1 million [1] Americans.

Conservatives, reacting to the fact that 19 percent of the waivers had gone to the district of one of the law’s unabashed champions, didn’t hold back.

“It looks like Obamacare’s backroom sweetheart deals didn’t end when it became law,” House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, told the Daily Caller.

Palin accused the Obama administration of corruption for granting the waivers to constituents of a key Democratic ally.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) plans to use the waiver controversy to attack Democratic supporters of healthcare reform on the 2012 campaign trail.

Republicans played up the news of businesses in Pelosi’s district asking for exemptions to parts of the new healthcare law, The Hill reported.
“Remember when former Speaker Pelosi said we needed to pass the Obamacare bill to find out what was in it?” Steel told The Hill in an email. “I guess once they found out, the high-end eateries and spas in her Congressional District weren’t big fans.”

On Fox News on Tuesday night, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty called the waivers as clear evidence of "crony politics or crony capitalism."

"If you've got the right connections, the right lobbyists, the right interest group, you get your special deal, and the rest of us get our wallet out, and that's in the tax code, it's in earmarking, and now you see it in ObamaCare," Pawlenty told Sean Hannity.

Newt Gingrich, who is still recovering from his seeming endorsement of the Obamacare insurance mandate, piled on as well. "This discretionary power wielded by unelected bureaucrats presents an enormous danger for corruption. Indeed, we have already seen how they can be abused," he wrote in a Wednesday morning newsletter for the conservative website Human Events.

But the San Francisco Business News and Pelosi’s defenders said that the waivers are so heavily concentrated in San Francisco not because of any political maneuvering but because of Healthy San Francisco.

Under Healthy San Francisco, all San Francisco businesses with over 20 employees must provide health care coverage or access to health care for its employees. Many employers opt to open a Health Reimbursement Account or HRA for its employees; those accounts are then used to reimburse employers for some health care costs.

The waivers that are granted for one-year periods are intended to protect employees from suffering any reduction in coverage because of suddenly increased premiums, and to limit how much employers need to pay in a given year for coverage.

“We have mandatory health care expenditures. We are the only place I know of in the country that has that,” said Rob Black, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. “Because we have a 100 percent expenditure rate, we are going to have a much higher take-up rate (of waivers) than the country as a whole. That is what is driving that.”

But the very fact that companies and unions covering 3.1 million Americans need to request waivers of the requirements for a $750,000 level of coverage and comprehensive services including vision, dental, and other services when they currently provide lower levels of health insurance for their employees illuminates the central problem with the law, writes Stanley Goldfarb on the conservative FrumForum blog.

“Most small companies can’t afford to provide comprehensive fee for service, unmanaged health insurance to their employees,” Goldfarb pointed out. “If business can’t provide it now, the unaffordability of comprehensive insurance will be transferred to the taxpayers. Subsidies will be provided to the new insurance exchanges and we’ll have to borrow trillions of dollars more in the coming years to pay for it.

“If Obamacare succeeds in its essential goal of providing comprehensive health insurance to another 30 million people, companies will be foolish not to put their employees into the newly created plans. Certainly all the companies and organizations that have requested waivers will be doing exactly that. They can’t afford comprehensive insurance now and won’t be able to afford it in 2014.”

Once again, the burden will fall to American taxpayers.



Read more on Newsmax.com: Palin, Others Slam 'Corrupt' Pelosi Healthcare Waivers

Sunday, February 13, 2011

What Does Egypt Mean for US Democracy?

People have been partaking in well deserved celebrating in Egypt. The relief and joy have brought tears to many... tears and smiles.

Yet I must confess a bit of foreboding, as in a great novel, which is what we are living. Some have begun putting it into words. I paraphrase, "Egypt could move forward and simply become a liberal democracy, like the United States, dominated by corporate institutions and beholden to moneyed masters with debt and other ropes tying the hands of the people. Paying for the financial sins of past dictators."

Part of this money can be clawed back from accounts in Switzerland and via the sale of ill gotten properties. But it's not just the accumulated wealth of Mubarak's family, but of many National Democratic Party operatives AND many former military officers.

Beyond that, what occurs to me is that it doesn't stop at Egypt, or stop at the other blatant authoritarian regimes in the middle east. And in the United States we have our own privileged class that has increasingly abused wealth and the power of corporations to corrupt our electoral and legislative system. The decision making process in the United States is rigged toward those with money and positions of power.

For the revolution in Egypt to be fully successful, we must root out the undemocratic corruption in the United States. Egypt has exposed the hypocrisy and undemocratic behavior by the United States over the years regardless of political party in power. This behavior reflects the wishes of a privileged establishment that must be challenged if we are to aspire to honest democracy.


gdaeman_scroll_small

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 29

Can Left & Right Unite?

  • Today's Question: Would it be possible for principled people on the left and right join forces to government jobs?
  • Relfecting on the rising right wing populist movement that gravitated to McCain/Palin rallies in 2008, held tea bag rallies, and disrupted town hall meetings on healthcare.
  • Home grown Music: Voice of a nine-year-old and rough rendition of "Sliding Down"...
  • Prosecute Bush: "Arrest Blair dot Com"... as in British prime minister Tony Blair?



Play Episode 29 from this page:



Click to Download Episode 29.

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009


gdaeman_scroll_small