Blog

Subscribe to RSS

Get our blog feed via e-mail

Posts Tagged ‘Barney Frank’

House Democrats Push for New Foreclosure Regulations

Zach Carter

By Zach Carter
Economics Editor, AlterNet; Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

Several key House Democrats are circulating a letter urging support for new regulations that would crack down on what critics say are rampant foreclosure abuses in the nation’s banking system.

The letter, authored by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) encourages federal banking regulators to rein in practices at bank divisions called “mortgage servicers.” Servicers are responsible for collecting and processing payments, charging late fees, negotiating with troubled borrowers and implementing the foreclosure process. Servicers have been criticized for committing widespread fraud in recent months, charging improper fees and incorrectly evicting borrowers.

The three House Democrats have already signed the letter, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.).

The letter from lawmakers comes one day after more than fifty economists, consumer advocates and banking experts urged regulators to take action on mortgage servicers. Federal Regulators are currently divided over whether or not to use new powers to regulate mortgage securities granted by this year’s Wall Street reform bill to crack down on servicing abuses. The FDIC wants to take the opportunity to rein in servicers, but the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency are resisting the new rules, although spokespeople for both agency say they support stronger standards for mortgage servicing. (more…)

Help ensure House & Senate Managers “Aren’t in a Good Mood” About Shady Auto Deals

Richard Eskow

 By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

“What do I have to do to get you into this car?”

“How much can you afford to pay every month?”

“My manager’s in a good mood.”

These are the car salesman cliches everybody knows. Now they’re trying to add a couple more to the repertoire:

“When you take out a car loan – probably the second-biggest financial decision of your life – you don’t need a watchdog looking out for you.”

“Watch out … this will cost you a lot more if somebody’s representing your interests.”

And if you believe those last two statements, allow me to show you this brand new baby – it’s got whitewalls and mag wheels, tinted windows, I’ll throw in the deluxe sports package along with that … oh, and we strongly recommend undercoating.

Fortunately, there’s something you can do: You can go to this site, prepared by CREDO and Campaign for America’s Future, where a simple one- or two-click process will send a fax to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd urging them protect American consumers from shady auto loans. It’s easy to do, it’s important – and, if you act now, it’s absolutely free! (Racing stripe and rustproofing not included with fax.)

It’s easy to sound flippant, since everybody knows why we all hate car dealers, but the topic is deadly serious: As we’ve discussed at length, auto dealer lending practices are a disgrace. A massive, multi-year study showed that African Americans are charged more than whites for the same loans. Auto dealers routinely mark up the loans they offer, without disclosing that information to customers – a practice that costs consumers $20 billion per year and adds an estimated $647 to the cost of each vehicle sold. Auto dealers also play games with “gap insurance” that covers the replacement cost of your vehicle for loan purposes if it’s totaled.

Another common car dealer trick is to “sell” a car to a customer by claiming they qualify for a no-interest or low-interest loan, letting them drive away in it, then calling them a week or two later to say the loan fell through. Dealers do this because most customers will have gotten used to the car by then, which means that many of them will accept loan terms that wouldn’t been unacceptable at the point of sale.

Car lenders have made a particular point of preying on young soldiers, who are living far from home in great distress. That’s why Holly Petraeus, wife of Gen. David Petraeus, is strongly in favor of regulating auto loans. The Petraeus family are hardly known for their left-wing views. Mrs. Petraeus speaks movingly of the harm unscrupulous salespeople have inflicted on our troops.

What are the counterarguments? Car dealers and their allies love to say they should be exempted from financial reform because they weren’t part of the financial crisis. But think about it: Why should auto loans be regulated when they’re provided by banks and credit unions, but not when they’re provided by auto dealers? That’s anticompetitive. What’s more, we’ve already seen that auto dealers sometimes encourage applicants to lie when applying for a loan. If bank auto loans are regulated but car dealer loans aren’t, unscrupulous bankers will simply use car dealers as willing minions to make an end run around consumer protection. With auto lending a nearly $1 trillion market, the last thing we need is a replay of the “no doc” mortgage scandal with car salesmen playing the part of mortgage brokers.

The defend-car-salesmen crowd has a couple more arguments, and a credulous Associated Press commentary by Rachel Beck summarizes them: First Ms. Beck repeats the assertion that lending legislation would affect dentists who allow patients to pay over time (the Senate bill does not and this will undoubtedly be clarified and corrected in conference.) Then, she conflates “family dentists” with auto dealers, as if they were both trusted service providers. (It’s true that buying a car is as painful as a root canal, but that’s as far as the comparison goes.)

That sleight of hand allows her to come up with this:

Just like the dentists, (auto dealer Tony) Federico says that more regulation will boost his costs. It could mean he does fewer loans, or is less generous in the deals he offers. Consumers then would have to seek out loans elsewhere, which could be less convenient and cost more.

“I am always looking out for my customers’ best interests, but I also want to do deals that are worthwhile,” Federico says.

So, who are you gonna believe – somebody named “Holly Petraeus,” who’s concerned about military families, or your trusted family friend Tony Federico? Tony says you’ll pay less getting a loan through him, even when he’s done taking his market – and when has a car salesman ever lied? Sure, studies show that he’s wrong, but who are you gonna trust here – the Center for Responsible Lending …. or your old pal Tony?

I’m sure Rachel Beck is a very nice person, but her piece is embarrassing to read. Why would newspapers run it? Let’s not forget that, like politicians, newspapers rely on car dealer revenue for their bread and butter. (Why, the Sun-Times was even willing to cut a deal with the New York Times this week to run luxury car ads in the Chicago market; luxury ads are especially lucrative.) Ad revenue buys a lot of credulity, especially on the editorial pages.

Hey, maybe everybody’s wrong but Tony Federico and Rachel Beck. They’re not – but let’s say for argument’s sake they are: : Why not support this provision anyway? It doesn’t prevent auto dealers from handling loans, it simply provides oversight when they do. If the Federicos of the world are really providing better loans at reasonable rates, there’s no reason why the Consumer Financial Protection organization won’t simply give them an “attaboy” or “attagirl” and tell them to keep up the good work. (Attaboy, Tony!)

Or look at it the other way: If they’re not doing anything wrong, why are they so concerned about a little oversight?

Auto dealers throw a lot of lucrative fundraisers back home for DC politicians. That’s why 62 House Democrats have joined their Republican colleagues in pushing for an auto dealer exemption. That’s the money talking. Talk back to it: Send a fax. Call your Senator and Representative. If you do, we can have you in a nice financial reform package, complete with consumer protections against auto dealer rip offs, probably by this time next week.

Now that’s what I call a deal.

***

Richard (RJ) Eskow is a consultant and writer. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard blogs at Campaign for America’s Future’s: No Middle Class Health Tax and A Night Light. His website is Eskow and Associates.

The Banking Showdown

Robert Kuttner

Robert Kuttner
Co-Founder and Co-Editor of The American Prospect

With public attention focused on everything from the oil disaster, the diplomatic isolation of Israel, to Al and Tipper’s separation, the final legislative push for financial reform begins this week as House and Senate conferees commence their work. This is the moment when lobbyists for the banking industry hope to kill provisions that they were unable to block in the House or Senate. This is no time for reformers to relent.

Much of the conference will be in public session — a break with recent practice — but backroom deals are likely to determine the final outcome. Efforts by progressives and friendly media are desperately needed to keep the pressure on to strengthen, rather than weaken, reform. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than 1,400 former legislators and Hill staff now work for the banking lobby. The industry has about 1,800 paid lobbyists in all, compared to about 60 mostly volunteer lobbyists from several dozen consumer and labor organizations working (on their own time) under the banner of Americans for Financial Reform (AFR).

Here is a brief user’s guide to the proceedings.

The House and Senate conferees will formally be appointed on Tuesday, and the conference’s real work will begin Thursday. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank has promised that debates will be open and televised, and that key votes will be recorded. That’s a good start, but invariably a lot of the deals will be struck in private after consultation with administration officials and industry lobbyists. Americans for Financial Reform has requested that key proposed amendments be posted for public review, and Frank agrees in principle.

However, excessive delay works to the benefit of industry lobbyists. There is concern that despite the transparency of the process, the industry will work with Republicans and conservative Democrats to stretch out the conference beyond the deadline target of July 4, and use the delay to weaken the bill.

Despite the David-Goliath nature of this fight, a lot of good provisions are in either the House or Senate bills, and the challenge will be to make sure that the final law includes the stronger rather than the weaker version. Among the key fights:

Derivatives:
Senator Blanche Lincoln’s language requiring that all derivatives trades be cleared on public exchanges, that no banking company with deposit insurance may also trade derivatives, and that sundry other loopholes be closed, survived fierce industry opposition and only lukewarm support from the administration. Whether or not Lincoln wins her own primary Tuesday, this measure has increasing support of House and Senate progressives. A companion measure by Sen. Maria Cantwell, which did not make it into the senate bill, would close more loopholes and require adequate capital for all such trades. This approach now appears to have the support of both Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd and House Chair Barney Frank, as well as Gary Gensler on behalf of the administration. Banks want to continue their gambling games, and this is the number one target of the big banks to kill.

Consumer Protection: The House bill includes a free standing consumer financial protection agency, but it would be hobbled by the requirement that it report to a committee as well as limits on its jurisdiction. The Senate version nests the proposed agency as an independent body inside the Federal Reserve, but without many of the restrictions. This is one of the few provisions that enjoys the hands-on personal support of President Obama. The challenge of the conference is to retain the best features of both bills.

Credit Rating Agencies: It was the corruption of credit rating agencies that made possible the sub-prime meltdown. Reform of these private agencies, such as Moody’s and Standard and Poors, was not even part of the original legislation. But a surprise amendment by Sen. Al Franken requiring random assignment of agency ratings rather than payment of the agencies by clients narrowly passed the Senate and was included in the bill. There is no House counterpart, and industry is gunning for this one. But the House does provide that credit rating agencies are legally liable for deceptive practices.

Cover Auto Dealers: New and used car dealers are among the most notorious purveyors of deceptive bait-and-switch financing. But the auto industry, which operates in every congressional district, worked with Senate Republicans on a parliamentary maneuver to win an exemption for car dealers; a similar provision is in the House bill. There is an outside chance that this could be reversed. Both Dodd and Frank are sympathetic to reversing this outrageous carve-out.

Bring Back Glass-Steagall:
Among the crucially important provisions that did not make it into either final bill is the Merkley-Levin amendment which would draw a bright line separating taxpayer-insured commercial banks from financial firms that gamble and trade derivatives and other risky other securities for their own accounts (the “Volcker Rule.”) There is still a decent chance that this could make it into the final bill.

Break up the Biggest Banks: Another key provision that developed significant support but that was defeated in a floor fight was the Brown-Kaufman amendment to limit the percent of deposits held by any one bank, and thereby break up the biggest banks. But this measure will be back another day.

Duty to Clients: Among the most instructive revelations of the hearings, investigations and debates was the disclosure that big Wall Street houses routinely bet against their own customers. An amendment providing that investment banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients was not included in the final senate bill, but has increasing support.

Fix the Mortgage Mess: The House and Senate bills both have modest reforms to tighten mortgage standards but no major breakthrough to end the logjam on refinancing distressed mortgages so that besieged homeowners can keep their homes. This is also a fight for another day.

Despite its limitations, the financial bill is a start that progressives need to defend. Given where we began, this process has come a long way. At the outset, the administration was backing a far weaker bill. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank was hobbled by the presence of fifteen pro-industry “New Democrats” on his committee who weakened the bill at every opportunity. As recently as March, Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd was on the verge of making a bipartisan deal with Committee Republicans for a measure that would have been reform in name only.

But as the public has begun paying more attention, as AFR has grown into the most effective financial reform coalition ever; and as heroic progressive legislators have moved their colleagues, the bill has gotten better over time. Other progressive leaders such as Elizabeth Warren and AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka have pushed public opinion, key legislators, and the Obama Administration. All of this is no small achievement, given how esoteric most of these issues are to most voters.

The big fight to secure these gains begins this week. As I’ve observed before, even Roosevelt took seven years and several pieces of legislation before the New Deal structure of financial reform was completed. One thing is certain: Wall Street will continue pulling out all the stops to preserve its corrupted and discredited business model. Reformers need to redouble their own efforts.

***

Robert Kuttner’s new book is A Presidency in Peril. He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. In addition, he is the author Obama’s Challenge.

Common Theme of Gulf Oil Spill, Wall Street Collapse: Unrestrained Corporate Recklessness

Robert Creamer

By Robert Creamer
Political organizer, strategist and author

The BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the 2008 collapse of Wall Street may not be identical twins, but they are siblings. Both are the children of unrestrained corporate recklessness — recklessness that was made possible by a fifty-year corporate conservative campaign to prevent government from holding corporations accountable to the public interest.

The recklessness of Wall Street banks cost eight million Americans their jobs, and millions more their pensions. All of those unemployed Americans and under-utilized plants, stores and warehouses cost us trillions of dollars in lost economic output that we will never recover. It cost governments tax dollars that could have been used to educate children, build new roads, find cures for disease. It cost us hundreds of millions in interest to borrow the money we needed to jump-start the economy and provide basic services.

The Goldman Sachs emails published by Senator Levin’s Committee on Investigations brought Wall Street recklessness into clear focus. There was nothing there about the consequences of their actions for the society or economy at large — only how the trader who referred to himself as “Fabulous Fab” could make millions for himself at the expense of anyone who happened to be gullible enough to buy his worthless investments.

The oil company BP — and the entire global oil industry — have been no less reckless in their unquenchable thirst for profits. It doesn’t take a genius to predict that when you start drilling thousands of wells in mile-deep water in the middle of the economically and ecologically critical Gulf Coast, something might go terribly wrong.

Of course we’ve seen what might go wrong up close and personal before. The Exxon Valdez disaster resulted in incalculable loss to the environment, billions in loss to fishermen and the Alaska economy, and billions more for a cleanup that lasted over three years.

The Santa Barbara oil spill despoiled miles of beaches, and for a time put the brakes on some forms of reckless oil exploration.

We don’t yet know the full consequences of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil disaster for the economy or environment — nor do we know the full range of preparations that BP made in the event of a catastrophe. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Whatever preparations they made were obviously far from adequate to stop what may become a cataclysmic event.

One thing we do know for sure: left to themselves, giant international corporations will always be reckless in their pursuit of more and more profit.

These international corporations have no loyalty whatsoever to our country or its welfare. They are huge, free-floating international organizations dedicated to only one goal: making as much money as possible for themselves. Remember that BP is British Petroleum. When it comes to Wall Street, its own advertisements remind us that “Citi Corp never sleeps” — it does business in every corner of the globe. The trading group that sank AIG was based in London. And Goldman Sachs makes its billions from deals and trades in every corner of the world. These companies have no loyalty to the people or interests of the United States.

The cultures of these organizations reward short-term profit. They do nothing to punish employees or leaders for global economic or environmental catastrophe.

There is only one brake on this recklessness. That would be us — in the form of our government.

For the last four decades the Conservative Movement and its corporate backers have promoted the notion that the private sector can and should be left alone to do whatever it wants, since only the private sector (meaning international banks and corporations) can create innovation and economic growth. To facilitate this, conservative leader Grover Norquist says that government should be shrunk so much that it could be “drowned in a bathtub.”

After the Great Depression, we created the Security and Exchange Commission to oversee the stock market, the FDIC to guarantee ordinary depositors against bank failures, and passed the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented banks from engaging in reckless speculative activities that would endanger the economy. As a result there was no “credit crisis” in America for over half a century – and also the greatest period of long-term economic growth on record – the period that led to the birth of the American Middle Class. The first major American credit crisis following the Great Depression happened when the Reagan Administration deregulated the Savings and Loan industry.

And then the Big Wall Street Banks, and their conservative and Republican enablers — convinced Congress to “deregulate” Wall Street and repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in the 1990′s and the results are there for everyone to see. Now they are fighting tooth and nail to kill or weaken legislation that would begin, once again to hold Wall Street Banks accountable.

The big oil companies and Republicans have done exactly the same thing when it comes to weakening regulations, allowing oil companies to drill in riskier and riskier environments. Just as importantly, so far they have blocked passage of legislation to develop clean energy that would threaten the profits of Big Oil but would make it unnecessary for our society to risk the Gulf Coast to get our energy from dirty fuels like oil in the first place.

To prevent future economic and environmental disasters, Progressives have to stand up straight and demand strong, forceful action by government to hold big international corporations accountable. Government is not the problem — in this case it is the solution.

And we have to assert once again that government is not some far off entity that orders us around and intrudes into our lives. As President Obama said last weekend in Ann Arbor — in a democratic society, the government is us. Or as Congressman Barney Frank puts it: “Government is the name of the things we choose to do together.”

We know how to use government to rein in the natural recklessness of huge corporations. Take commercial aviation. In spite of some periodic lapses in government oversight, the generally tough regulation of aviation by the FAA has turned commercial aviation into the safest mode of transportation in human history. It is safer to fly somewhere on an airplane than to take a train, drive, horseback ride, bike or even walk there.

In 2009, there were only three commercial aviation accidents classified as serious by the National Transportation Safety Board over the course of 18 million hours flow. The probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight is approximately eight million-to-one. In other words, if a passenger boarded a flight at random once a day, everyday, statistically it would take over 21,000 years before he or she would be killed.

That record of safety is not because people who go into the airline business are any less interested in making money than people who go into the oil business or Wall Street trading. It is because the public demanded strong government regulation of the safety of commercial aviation. That in turn has created a culture inside aviation companies that makes safety a primary value and actually ostracizes reckless behavior.

Left to its own devices the “invisible hand of the market” will not create that kind of culture. It never has, it never will. That is particularly true where the activities of companies are hidden from view of average citizens and consumers. Even the most sophisticated customers on Wall Street didn’t have a clue how to evaluate the risks associated with the collateralized debt obligations being sold by Goldman Sachs. The electricity consumers whose power is made with coal haven’t got an inkling about the working conditions of the miners that dig out that coal. And the everyday consumers of gasoline sure don’t know what kind of risks BP is taking 5000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico as it drills for oil.

We can’t just sit by and allow these huge private actors to threaten the well-being and future of our society just because they want to be free to make as much money as they can.

On last Sunday’s “This Week” former Bush adviser Matthew Dowd kept repeating the new Republican mantra: “Washington doesn’t work.” Now there is the ultimate in Republican chutzpa. The modern Republican Party has done everything it can to prevent “Washington” from working. It diverted hundreds of billions of government revenue into tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. It gutted regulations that held Wall Street and the oil companies accountable. It is blocking clean energy legislation that would free us from the stranglehold of Big Oil. It tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent passage of desperately-needed health care reform that would for the first time hold the private insurance companies accountable – companies that have driven American health care costs to the point where they are 50% higher than any other nation.

Ignoring the fact that Republicans have fought on behalf of big mine owners for years to weaken mine safety oversight, Dowd actually had the gall to say that the mine disaster in West Virginia was an example of how “Washington doesn’t work.”

He correctly pointed out that the draconian Arizona anti-immigrant “papers please” law was a response to the failure of Washington to take action to fix the broken immigration system. But he conveniently forgot that it is the Republicans who refuse to allow action to go forward to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

And, of course, he actually argued that the Gulf oil spill was yet another indication that “Washington doesn’t work.” This, from the party of the now-silent cries of “drill, baby, drill.”

The Republicans and their corporate patrons will do everything in their power to get America to forget the iconic symbols of their failures. They will try to convince us that Barack Obama and the Democrats are somehow responsible for the collapse of Wall Street and the Great Recession – even though it all happened on the Republican watch and because of the failure of their policies and the bankruptcy of their economic philosophy.

But Dowd’s audacity needs to remind progressive Democrats that people across America want action. They want Washington to work. And to make Washington work, we need to demand that Congress reassert the power of government to hold mine owners, Wall Street banks, Big Oil — and all of the most powerful international corporations – accountable to the interests of everyday Americans. 

***

Mr. Creamer is the author of the book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.  His firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, works with many of the country’s most significant issue campaigns. He was one of the major architects and organizers of the successful campaign to defeat privatization of Social Security. He is a consultant to campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform. He has also worked on hundreds of electoral campaigns at the local, state and national level. Mr. Creamer is married to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois.

Obama Rejects Bipartisan Bank Deal

Robert Kuttner

By Robert Kuttner
Co-Founder and Co-Editor of
The American Prospect

Although Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd and his sometime Republican ally Richard Shelby continued to make noises on the Sunday talk shows about a possible bipartisan deal, both President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans. I asked Frank point blank why Dodd would want such a deal, and he said–on the record–”I have no idea, but both President Obama and I have urged him not to.”

This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion. Kudos to Chairman Frank and to the President.

Assuming that Dodd doesn’t cave, the Democrats still need 60 votes if Republicans decide to filibuster the motion to take up the bill. But with tide turning strongly against coddling Wall Street, it is hard to imagine that a few Republicans won’t break ranks. If so, there may be no filibuster at all.

On one of the most contentious issues, derivatives reform, Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday urging him to back Senator Blanche Lincoln’s tough derivatives provision, which not only narrows exclusions in the draft legislation, but keeps big banks from trading derivatives for their own accounts. It’s hard to imagine Snowe backing this measure and then joining in a filibuster to block consideration of the reform altogether. Here is part of her letter:

“I believe that strong derivatives regulation goes to the heart of an effective financial reform bill and that Chairman Lincoln’s legislation is a strong step towards realizing this fundamental component to financial reform……I believe that we should err on the side of caution and finally bring full transparency to these markets once and for all and allow regulators to preemptively identify these damaged firms.

“Accordingly, I believe the Senate should start with a comprehensive, strong derivatives reform proposal and defend attempts to weaken it, not the other way around and the legislation produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes the strongest safeguards and most robust transparency provisions on our expansive derivatives market.

I urge the Majority Leader to incorporate these provisions into the regulatory reform bill.”
Then we have the case of the accidental senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, who is facing re-election in just two years. His special election last January was a fluke–a perfect storm of voter backlash against recession and a weak Democratic campaign. Brown ran as a kind of regular-guy economic populist. I can’t believe that Brown will stand up for Wall Street against Main Street and vote to filibuster against even taking up the bill (Elizabeth Warren should run for the Democratic nomination to take him on in 2012. Now that would be one helluva race.)

In short, Republican leaders McConnell and Shelby are bluffing. They know they can’t hold their troops, and that’s why they so desperately want a deal with Dodd for a weaker bipartisan bill that Republicans can support.

If Dodd avoids such a deal, my hunch is that several Republicans will not support the filibuster and that debate will proceed. And once it does, there will be several votes on key strengthening amendments. These will also put Republicans in a bind.

Senator Chuck Grassley supported the Lincoln bill in the Agriculture Committee. Will he now join Snowe and vote to add it to the reform bill? How could Grassley vote to strengthen the derivatives position, but vote to block taking up the whole bill?

My sources tell me that one key Democrat, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is actually somewhat more pro-banker than moderate and heartland senate Republicans when it comes to derivatives reform. He is sympathetic to Wall Street complaints that the Lincoln bill would eat into derivatives profits, and has weighted in on the side of watering down her bill. Happily, he doesn’t vote, but President Obama should decide the administration position and not leave it to Geithner.

Two other key amendments: One will be offered by Senators Sherrod Brown, Ted Kaufman, Bob Casey and Sheldon Whitehouse, limiting the size of large banks; another by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin would write into law the Volcker Rule separating commercial banking from financial gambling. These will also put Republicans in a deliciously awkward spot–though they may also be opposed by pro-Wall Street Democrats such as Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mark Warner of Virginia. And watch closely to see how Chuck Schumer votes on these strengthening amendments. Schumer, once known as the senator from Wall Street, is remaking himself as a financial reformer in preparation for a possible run for majority leader against Dick Durbin should Harry Reid go down this November.

Bottom line: If the Senate Democratic Leadership can resist the snake oil of a bipartisan deal and if Obama personally works the phones and takes control of his own administration, the bill will probably get stronger as it works its way through Congress. This is the right kind of bipartisanship–a progressive bill so clearly demanded by public opinion that many Republicans don’t dare to oppose it.

Even so, this bill is far from the final chapter of reform. While banks will not be able to do quite as much damage to the rest of the economy, entire areas of abuse such as credit rating agencies, hedge funds, and private equity are largely untouched and the basic business model of the financial conglomerates will be only partly constrained. Real mortgage relief is also put off for another day.

A little history is reassuring. For all of his personal resolve, it took Franklin Roosevelt seven years and several pieces of landmark legislation to complete the New Deal structure of financial regulation that kept Wall Street well harnessed until the late 1970s – including the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935, ending with the Investment Company Act of 1940. Even in that golden age of reform, Wall Street wasn’t tamed in a day.

If the Democrats don’t extinguish the momentum with a premature bipartisan deal, public understanding and indignation are still building. Regulatory agencies are beginning to do their jobs, and Democrats are starting to sound like a progressive party. It’s about time.

***

Robert Kuttner’s new book is “A Presidency in Peril.” He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos.

U.S. moving toward czarism, away from democracy

David Sirota

David Sirota

By David Sirota
Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt”

History’s great American parables teach that if anything unified our founders, it was a deep antipathy to dictatorship. As bourgeois revolutionaries from Boston to Philadelphia courageously split with the British crown in 1776, they created three equal branches of government to prevent, in the words of James Madison, “a tyrannical concentration of all the powers” in a president’s hands.

For two centuries since, civics books, Hollywood biopics and party convention speeches have constructed a mythology insisting that this democratic commitment to checks and balances makes our country a beacon of freedom – the “shining city on a hill” overlooking a despotic world below. We are told that democracy’s tumult – its messy debates, legislative sausage-making and electoral friction – is the best way to guarantee that public policy represents public will, therefore making us a strong and durable nation.

If that is true, then every patriot should be concerned about the intensifying efforts to supplant democracy with something far more authoritarian. Call it American czarism.

That term should be as impossibly oxymoronic as crash landings and deafening silence, considering our Constitution’s desire to create a “government of laws and not of men,” as John Adams said. But politics is filled with paradoxes from Reagan Democrats to Obama Republicans, and czars – i.e., policymakers granted extralegal, cross-agency powers – have become increasingly prevalent in our government over the past century.

After the Great Flood of 1927, for instance, President Calvin Coolidge named Herbert Hoover the federal government czar overseeing relief efforts, and Hoover subsequently appointed “dictators” (he actually used that term) to help coordinate the response.

During the power consolidations of the New Deal in the 1930s, a Time magazine story headlined “Dictator or Democrat” reported on the “suspicions of those throughout the nation who have an uneasy feeling that Roosevelt, under cover of the emergency, is trying ‘to slip something over’ on democracy.” In the 1940s and 1950s, parks commissioner Robert Moses – famously known as “the power broker” – amassed so much personal authority that he was able to almost single-handedly redesign New York City. And lately, presidents have given us poverty, energy, drug, health and even Iraq war czars.

Until now, this slow lurch toward czarism has primarily reflected the ancient, almost innate human desire for power and paternalistic leadership. The current president reminded us that executives see all-powerful “deciders” when they look in the mirror. And Americans – sans kings to rally around – have been elevating commanders in chief to superhero status well before Barack Obama’s Marvel comic-book debut and George Bush’s flight-suited “Top Gun” impression in 2003.

In recent years, this culture of “presidentialism,” as Vanderbilt Professor Dana Nelson calls it, has justified the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps and a radical theory of the “unitary executive” that aims to provide a jurisprudential rationale for total White House supremacy over all government. But only in the past three months has American czarism metastasized from a troubling slow-growth tumor to a potentially deadly cancer.

In October, Congress relinquished its most basic oversight powers and gave Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sole authority to dole out billions of bailout dollars to Wall Street. At the same time, it did nothing when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used fiats to commit “$5 trillion worth of new money, loan guarantees and loosened lending requirements,” according to Politico – all while he refused to tell the public who is receiving the largesse.

And the Washington Post has reported that lawmakers may appoint a “car czar” who “would essentially control the purse strings” of an auto industry bailout and “could force Detroit’s Big Three automakers into bankruptcy” if he or she didn’t like their behavior.

Put bluntly, the unprecedented usurpation of spending power by the executive branch and the Federal Reserve is systematically undermining our democracy’s most sacrosanct principle – the one that is supposed to ensure “the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people,” as Madison said. And this new czarism is so strident because it reflects both executive power lust and the 21st century economy.

Today, keystrokes and mouse-clicks instantly whisk trillions of dollars across the planet, and many of those keystrokes and mouse-clicks are uninhibited by the grindingly slow processes of democracy.

Saudi princes don’t have to publish announcements in a federal register before moving cash from sovereign wealth funds into foreign investments. China’s rulers aren’t obligated to obtain legislative approval when buying or dumping U.S. Treasury bills; and transnational corporations will not wait for public hearings before shuttering offices, eliminating jobs and cutting off credit.

Our nation is integrally connected to this fast-moving globalized economy, and American czarism effectively posits that in order to compete, we must anoint strongmen as saviors, prioritize speed instead of sobriety and emulate dictatorship instead of democracy.

Indeed, the Economist magazine’s prediction that the “economic crisis may increase the attractiveness of the Chinese model of authoritarian capitalism” is coming true right here at home, as we seem ever more intent on replicating – rather than resisting – that model.

This, as much as personal hubris, explains why Paulson and Bernanke sought unprecedented latitude in spending trillions – they want to be able to move as fast as their autocratic counterparts in other countries, and believe congressional oversight will slow them down.

It explains why UC Berkeley economist Laura Tyson says we need an auto czar who will “take a number of approaches to this problem that are already known, that have been discussed endlessly, and force it through” – because to economists, a czar quickly “forcing it through” is more important than any consideration for democratic deliberation.

And it explains why when Obama aides this week demanded complete control over the second half of the Wall Street bailout funds, House Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D- Mass., shirked his oversight duties and said he’s “willing to accept their word” that they will spend the money responsibly. In a czarism, that’s what legislators do: “accept the word” of the czar.

In sum, it explains why the age-old struggle between capitalism and democracy is once again defining our politics – and why capitalism is now winning.

That triumph may be terrific for the czars and great for their industry suitors, but as the founders would likely agree, it is a Pyrrhic victory for America.

Right to rent: Helping homeowners without throwing money at banks

Dean Baker

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

We got into the current economic crisis because many very smart people with outstanding credentials were unable to use simple arithmetic. If they knew arithmetic, they would have been able to see an $8 trillion housing bubble that was right in front of their faces.

The basic story was incredibly simple and obvious, at least as far back as 2002. After just following the overall rate of inflation for the hundred years from 1895 to 1995, house prices began to hugely outpace the rate of inflation in the mid-90s. Not coincidentally, this run-up in house prices paralleled the run-up in stock prices.

As was the case with Japan, the United States had a stock bubble and real estate bubble growing side by side. Unlike Japan, where the two bubbles crashed simultaneously, the crash of the stock bubble fed the growth of the real estate bubble in the United States. By 2002, nationwide house prices had increased by almost 30 percent above their trend levels. By their peak in 2006, they had increased by almost 80 percent above their trend level, creating more than $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth.

The inability of economists and the financial industry to see this enormous bubble was the basis for the current crisis. Remarkably, most discussions of housing policy still ignore the bubble.

It is often argued that we need to stabilize house prices. In many markets this is a desirable goal. However, in many markets in California, Florida, and the Northeast, where the bubble has not yet fully deflated, it would be counter-productive to try to sustain house prices at bubble-inflated levels.

Prices in these markets will eventually fall to their trend levels; the only question is how fast. Unfortunately, many of the same policy wizards who wanted low and moderate-income families to buy homes at bubble-inflated prices in the years from 2002-2007, would still want them to buy houses at bubble-inflated prices today. They somehow think that the best way to accumulate wealth is to own a home that is falling in value.

Even worse, they want to use lots of taxpayer dollars to keep people in homes in which they have no equity. Representative Barney Frank is one of the key villains in this story. His top priority is to use the TARP money to pay banks for their bad mortgages, so that people can stay in homes with no equity.

This one is really baffling as economic or social policy. Should we pay a bank $20,000 in order to keep a homeowner in a home in which they have zero equity? How about $30,000? How about $50,000?

It costs a bit more than $3,000 a year to pay for a kid’s health care under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. We can all understand the benefit of health care for kids. Is it worth 17 kid-years of health care to keep someone in a home in which they have no equity?

There is a simple no cost, no bureaucracy alternative to Frank’s plan to hand tens of billions to banks. (Remember, the banks get the checks under Frank’s plan, not the homeowners.) We can simply temporarily change the rules on foreclosure to give people facing foreclosure the right to rent their homes at the market rent.

This is extremely simple and can go into effect the day after Congress passes the rule change. Judges or the court officers handling a foreclosure would be required to ask the homeowner whether they want to stay in their house as a renter. If they say yes, there would be an appraisal of the market rent of the home, and the homeowner would then have the option to stay in the house for a substantial period of time (e.g. 10 years), paying the market rent.

This would immediately give the homeowners facing foreclosure security in their housing. If they like the house, the neighborhood, the schools for their kids, they would have the right to stay there. It would also end the problem for neighborhoods of empty foreclosed houses. And, it would give banks real incentive to negotiate terms that allow people to stay in their homes as owners.

This proposal is very simple and costless. It is also possible to build onto this proposal with mechanisms that facilitate the transition to renters or allow buyback options as Bernard Wasow of the Century Foundation and Daniel Alpert from Westwood Capital have proposed.

But, the key point here is that it is simple to find a way to help homeowners that doesn’t help banks, if we are prepared to give the issue a bit of original thought. Fear of original thought among our top policy experts was the problem that got us into this enormous mess. We should not let the same group of failed experts perpetuate the damage that they caused by their fear of thinking.