Blog

To convey the significance of the Occupy Wall Street movement, NBC News anchor Brian Williams this week quoted the 1960s Buffalo Springfield song, For What It’s Worth:

“There is something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

Maybe it’s unclear what the Occupy Wall Street movement ultimately will accomplish. But what’s happening – for the past three weeks in New York and now in hundreds of towns across North America – is a roiling, inspirational, grassroots expression of anger, disgust and revolution.

And, frankly, given what’s been going on in the United States since the bank bailout, it’s amazing that this uprising didn’t precede the Arab Spring. The powers-that-be, from the rich and influential to their coin-operated politicians and corporate-owned media, have mocked and belittled and ignored the protesters, the 99 percenters as they call themselves – everyone but the richest one percent. No matter what the critics say, these young people, with righteous outrage and new age communication, have launched the American Autumn.

This revolt could have started in the spring of 2009, immediately after the Bush administration pushed through Congress the Troubled Asset Relieve Program (TARP), the $700 billion in taxpayer money spent to prop up banks that had gambled and lost untold trillions. A Bloomberg News investigation later would show that the United States lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to save the banks. Despite that help, the Wall Street recklessness ruined the American economy, throwing tens of millions out of jobs and homes. (more…)

Better late than never, the movement to take America back from Wall Street has arrived. On Wednesday, the ranks of the Occupy Wall Street encampment will swell as Move­On.org members, union activists and ordinary disgruntled citizens join the demonstration against our financial sector’s misrule of the American economy. What’s more, long-planned anti-bank demonstrations in major cities this week are growing beyond their organizers’ fondest hopes as the Wall Street protest movement catches fire.

The anti-bank campaign has in fact been incubating for years — a “seed beneath the snow,” as the Italian novelist Ignazio Silone once termed the slow-to-arrive left. The sit-ins, teach-ins and street demonstrations popping up in Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles are formally the handiwork of a coalition of community groups that recently gathered together as the New Bottom Line. Many of these groups have focused on immediate goals — such as stopping particular banks from foreclosing on more homes. They, along with unions, have demonstrated on Wall Street many times since the 2008 financial crisis. But only now, as Occupy Wall Street — an organization that they didn’t create — has grabbed the public imagination the past few weeks, are the myriad mobilizations commanding the media’s attention.

“It’s a confluence of planned and unplanned demonstrations,” says Stephen Lerner, a longtime organizer for the Service Employees International Union who once spearheaded the union’s successful campaign to organize big-city janitors and today helps guide the groups in New Bottom Line. “We build on each other. We go ping-ponging back and forth.”

(more…)

Elizabeth Warren’s surprise lead in Massachusetts polls only days after she got into the Senate race to oust Republican Scott Brown has thrown GOP operatives off balance.

Their first storyline was that Warren was either a creature of the Beltway or a pointy-headed Harvard professor. Neither seems to be sticking.

On Tuesday, when the Democratic-affiliated polling firm, Public Policy Polling, reported Warren narrowly leading Brown, 46 to 44 among likely voters, Brown spokesman Colin Reed put out a statement contending that “we have always known that Scott would be the underdog against whichever candidate wins the Democratic primary next September.”

But this past summer, before Warren enjoyed decent name recognition, Republicans were touting early polls showing Brown leading Warren 53-28, and declaring him a winner. (more…)

By Michael Winship
Senior writer at Bill Moyers Journal on PBS

I attended a screening this week of Alex Gibney’s new documentary, Client 9. It’s the story of the rise and fall of New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer, brought down by imperial hubris and a reckless penchant for ladies of the evening.

Gibney, an Oscar-winning filmmaker, creates a fascinating narrative. Both he and Spitzer readily concede that it was the former governor who did himself in; he haplessly provided the guns and ammo that polished him off. But there is a compelling case made suggesting that there were plenty of enemies, both in politics and business, with a motive to see him destroyed, plus the wherewithal and contacts to help grease the skids.

After all, it was Spitzer who, as state attorney general and self-appointed “Sheriff of Wall Street,” went after corruption and greed in the finance industry, exposing investment bank stock inflation, securities fraud, predatory lending practices, exorbitant executive compensation and illegal late trading and market timing perpetrated by hedge funds and mutual fund companies. Some of these practices were, of course, major factors in the calamitous financial follies of 2008.

One of Spitzer’s targets was Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, former chair and chief executive officer of the gigantic insurance company AIG. He was forced to resign by the AIG board in March 2005 after Spitzer charged Greenberg and the company with manipulative behaviors in violation of insurance and securities laws. Ultimately, criminal charges were dropped but when AIG collapsed during the ’08 meltdown, ultimately receiving the largest of the Federal bailouts — 182 billion taxpayer dollars – Greenberg said he was “bewildered” that things could have gone so wrong.

In Client 9, I was struck by a statement attributed to Greenberg, who in his AIG heyday supposedly was fond of joking, “All I ask for is an unfair advantage.”

Just three days before the screening, The New York Times had reported that one of the largest donors to a foundation run by the US Chamber of Commerce is a charity run by Greenberg.

According to the Times, “The charity has made loans and grants [to the chamber's foundation] totaling $18 million since 2003. U.S. Chamber Watch, a union-backed group, filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service last month asserting that the chamber foundation violated tax laws by funneling the money into a chamber ‘tort reform’ campaign favored by AIG and Mr. Greenberg. The chamber denied any wrongdoing.

“The complaint, which the chamber calls entirely unfounded, raises the question of how the chamber picks its campaigns, and whether it accepts donations that are intended to be spent on specific issues or political races.” (more…)

Zach Carter
Economics Editor, AlterNet

I’ll have plenty to say about the escalating foreclosure fraud scandal later this week. For now: This is a big, big deal. It isn’t a clerical error, it’s an aggressive attempt to slap borrowers with thousands of dollars in illegal fees for the luxury of being foreclosed on. And what’s more, this absurd, shady business was priced into the entire mortgage securitization scheme from the get-go. Banks have been fudging their documentation for years in order to cut costs and score higher profits from securitization—the business model has relied on this corner-cutting since day one of the housing boom.

The good news is that borrowers can use this epic fraud to defend themselves. If a bank can’t prove that it has the right to foreclose on a borrower by showing the proper documentation to a judge, then it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. This is a tremendous opportunity for neighborhood advocates. Make them pony up the docs, it might just save your home. The problem isn’t restricted to GMAC—foreclosure counselors and attorneys talk about the issue of forged or destroyed documentation all the time, and we already know that JPMorgan Chase and Countrywide (now Bank of America) have major documentation problems. Including GMAC, that’s three of the biggest players in every aspect of the mortgage market.

If courts actually follow the law here, we get the best of both worlds—big losses for Wall Street on their predatory loans, and borrowers who get to stay in their homes (mortgage-free, at that). The only question is whether these mortgage losses prove so severe that Wall Street banks come back begging to the government for another bailout. If so, it’s an opportunity to do what should have been done in 2008—break up these financial monsters into smaller creatures that don’t require bailouts when they fail. (more…)

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

I agree with everything Paul Krugman has to say about Max Abelson’s excellent run-down of the Wall Street whinery, but his critique stops a little too short. Abelson’s piece emphasizes that Wall Street isn’t really upset about any policies the Obama administration has adopted, since, as I and many others have noted, the Obama administration has been very friendly on that front. What they’re upset about– at least what they say they’re upset about– is the jargon. Obama called bailed-out bankers “fat cats” after they paid themselves obscene bonuses with taxpayer money. To the bankers Abelson quotes, this amounts to some kind of unfair discrimination. That’s absurd– the bailout barons Obama criticized had wrecked the economy and then paid themselves like princes for profits secured by taxpayer largesse. Those who did not benefit from such largesse have no reason to feel slighted by the critique, and those who did benefit have no reason to be complaining from their second homes in the Hamptons.

But what I find most interesting is that the cry-babies in Ableson’s story actually threaten to wreck the economy over this rhetoric. The key passage is at the end of Ableson’s piece:

Wall Street’s emotions have consequences. “If, as a result of this anger, credit becomes unavailable, particularly for small and mid-size businesses,” Mr. Schwarzman wrote in The Washington Post this year, before his Poland blunder, “then at best the economy will slow and, at worst, we will find ourselves in a dire situation.” He said bankers felt under siege and were responding by “becoming conservative,” a lovely little pun about lending and politics. (more…)

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

Two years ago, the top honchos at the Fed, Treasury and the Wall Street banks were running around like Chicken Little warning that the world was about to end. This fear mongering, together with a big assist from the elite media (i.e. NPR, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc.), earned the banks their $700 billion TARP blank check bailout. This money, along with even more valuable loans and loan guarantees from the Fed and FDIC, enabled them to survive the crisis they had created. As a result, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever.

Now, the same crew that tapped our pockets two years ago is eagerly pitching the line that their bailout was good for us. It may be the case the history books are written by the winners, but that doesn’t prevent the rest of us from telling the truth.

Let’s step back to where we were two years ago. The huge investment bank Bear Stearns had collapsed. So had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants. Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest investment bank, had also gone down. AIG, the country’s largest insurer, had been put on life support by the government.

At this point, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs, the three remaining independent investment banks, all faced runs that would quickly sink them absent government intervention. Citigroup and Bank of America, two of the three largest commercial banks, were also almost certainly insolvent. Many other banks also faced insolvency, especially if they took big losses on their loans to other institutions that were about to go bankrupt. (more…)

By Bill Scher
Executive editor of LiberalOasis.com

The Recovery Act, often known as the stimulus, was the first major act of active government in at least decade. After the unmitigated failure of conservatism, the stimulus has likely be viewed by many voters as a test of whether active government can work and should be used more often.

The evidence is in. The stimulus is working. And we need more of it.

The Congressional Budget Office released this week its updated estimates of the Recovery Act’s impact on the economy:

…CBO estimates that [the Recovery Act's] policies had the following effects in the second quarter of calendar year 2010:

* They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent,

* Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,

* Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and

*Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (more…)

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

Last week, the Fed announced that it would use the proceeds from retired mortgage-backed securities to buy up more government bonds. This may have a very modest effect in keeping long-term interest rates low, thereby giving a small boost to the economy.

Such a measure would be reasonable if the economy was basically fine and just in need of a modest lift. But this is not the case.

The unemployment rate is 9.5% and virtually certain to rise in the second half of the year. Job growth has basically stopped and GDP is likely to be in the range of 1-2% in the next four quarters, as state and local governments cut back spending, the stimulus phases down and the housing market resumes its slide.

In this scenario, the Fed should be taking aggressive steps to bring the economy back to full employment. After all, this is part of its job description. Its responsibility is to promote price stability and full employment. There is no concern about price stability in the sense of the rate of inflation being too high right now. Therefore, the Fed’s responsibility should be to do everything within its power to reach full employment; obviously, we are nowhere close now.

Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, even knows exactly what needs to be done, as the Wall Street Journal recently reminded us. He wrote a paper back in 1999 about Japan’s stagnant economy and mild deflation. Following a recommendation by Paul Krugman, he urged Japan’s central bank to target an inflation rate in the range of 3-4%. (more…)

By Roger Bybee
Milwaukee Freelance Writer

Recent news provides a set of unusally illuminating numbers.

They drive home several critical messages about where America stands today: the value (and limits) of President Obam’s stimulus efforts and the preposterousness of GOP tax cut plans as an economic cure for a very fragile economy, among others. The numbers truly tell much of the story:

16%: A crucial new report How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End was just released. Written by Princeton economist Alan Blinder and Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, it estimates that without Obama’s stimulus, TARP, and other emergency initiatives, unemployment would have reached 16% and 8.5 million fewer people would have jobs.

2015: Reflecting the limits of Obama’s stimulus, the Economic Policy Insitute noted,

Considering that even if the country were to sustain the strongest pace of job growth seen in the boom of the late 1990s (2.6% in 1998), it would still take until 2015 to return to pre-recession levels of unemployment. The much slower rate of growth seen in recent months suggests that without additional policy action, unemployment will remain high for years to come.

83%: “In 2007, of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations, 83 ran subsidiaries in offshore tax havens,” as Too Much reported. (more…)