UK rolls out new quantitative easing program

What's the point? Besides helping the bankers, there's nothing that suggests this is helping the broader population. Printing money, again, only highlights the deep links between the central bank and the bankers. Between the QE policies and the budget cuts through austerity, it's as though anyone below the super rich doesn't matter.

The Bank of England voted to inject another 50 billion pounds ($79.3 billion) into the financial system as part of its efforts to shore up a fragile recovery in the economy, which remains at risk of slipping back into recession. The central bank left its key interest rate at a record low of 0.5 percent, and as expected said it would buy another 50 billion pounds of assets—mostly government bonds—with freshly printed money. The cash boost will be welcome news for the government, which has come under pressure again to loosen its austerity drive after the economy shrank at the end of 2011 and unemployment hit its highest level in more than 17 years.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: Goodbye to cooling towers (cute)

Read the rest of this post...

AG Schneiderman: Mortgage settlement deal "small" but "significant"

Greg Sargent interviews AG Schneiderman about the mortgage settlement. It's long, here's a snippet:

Interestingly, Schneiderman vowed that if the task force to probe mortgage practices set up by the president — which he co-chairs — stalls or drags its feet, he would speak out publicly against it. Some critics, such as David Dayen, have expressed skepticism that it would have the resources and leeway it needs to secure real accountability.

“I will speak up if I don’t feel that the rights of American homeowners are being protected and we’re not pursuing the investigation as aggressively as we should,” he said. “If things break down and things don’t work I’m prepared to speak up and take action. But the initial signs are really positive.”

Pressed on conflicting reports about whether the resources would really be there, Schneiderman said that a whole range of government agencies would be part of the probe. Importantly, he insisted this range would ensure a “full juristiction we need over all the different types of misconduct that contributed to the implosion of the economy.”

Read the rest of this post...

Jobless claims drop. We’re hardly out of the woods, but good news is still good news.

Positive surprises like this are always good. Nobody should make the assumption that the economy is going to be bouncing back quickly or in a big way, but this is still a step in the right direction.

The number of Americans filing first- time claims for unemployment insurance payments unexpectedly declined last week, indicating the labor market recovery is gaining traction. Applications for jobless benefits decreased 15,000 in the week ended Feb. 4 to 358,000, Labor Department figures showed today. Economists forecast 370,000 claims, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. The four-week moving average, a less-volatile measure of claims, declined to 366,250, the lowest since April 26, 2008. The easing of dismissals is moving in tandem with a drop in the unemployment rate, which fell in January to a three-year low of 8.3 percent. Job creation also accelerated last month, showing the world’s largest economy is making headway in restoring the 8.3 million jobs lost during the 2007-2009 recession.

Read the rest of this post...

BP negotiating settlement over Deepwater Horizon disaster

It's obvious why BP wants a settlement but why would those impacted settle? BP wants nothing more than to have a cap on the payouts so their books and their shareholders can have closure, but for everyone else, there's no reason to think the problems will end just because a settlement is reached. Environmental problems - which impacts the fishing industry along with tourism - is likely continue for decades. If there's a settlement and the money runs out, what happens? Unless there are clauses in the final settlement to take this into account, there should be no reason to settle. Bloomberg:

BP Plc (BP/) is negotiating with U.S. officials to settle pollution claims over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill that may leave the company liable for as much as $17.6 billion in fines, a person familiar with the talks said. The government cited the energy company with violations of the federal Clean Water Act for the offshore spill, the biggest in U.S. history. Officials are seeking fines of as much as $4,300 for each of the 4.1 million barrels spilled after the explosion of the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

Read the rest of this post...

Former NY Cardinal retracts apology for enabling child rapists: "I don’t think we did anything wrong"

Of course he doesn't.  And that's why President Obama should go down to the health care negotiations with the Catholic bishops and kick their pedophile-enabling butts out the door.  How he can stomach having them lecture him about morality.  While President Obama was killing bin Laden, the Catholic church was continuing to make excuses for pedophiles.  And still are.  As Joe wrote this morning, the former Catholic archbishop of New York, Cardinal Egan, one of the most powerful Catholic officials in America, has retracted his ten year old apology for the pedophilia scandal.  He now says it was a mistake to apologize, the church did nothing wrong.

Yeah, if you consider nearly 1/4 of the alleged rapes being children under the age of 10 "nothing."

Where do they find these people?

They don't need to find them at all, they make them.  It's a culture of corruption and privilege.  It's about absolute power.  The effects of millennia of sexual repression.  And a long history of getting it wrong, from the Inquisition to Galileo to today's child rape scandal.  Our own modern-day Borgias in red-technicolor and Prada, coming into your homes, and your bedrooms, both figuratively and literally.  If you're a woman they want you pregnant, if you're gay they want you celibate, but if you're a ten year old boy there's room for negotiation.

"I don’t think we did anything wrong."

Yeah, I guess all the little boys and all the little girls were simply asking for it. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Papier mâché rhino rampages Tokyo

It's like Occupy Wall Street vs the Oakland Police. But in paper. And funny.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney selling himself off in DC today for $10k a shot

We already know what kind of man he is.  We're simply haggling over the price.

Click image to read larger version

Then again, in Romneyland, $10,000 is just a rounding error. Read the rest of this post...

Mortgage settlement? Try bank Bailout II

At this writing, the federal government and forty-nine state attorneys general (all minus Oklahoma) have agreed to a settlement with the nation's five largest banks for their fraudulent robosigning practices. The banks will pay $5 billion penalty as part of this deal and also provide a vary range of credits which could account for another $20 billion. David Dayen at FireDogLake has the best rundown of what is in the deal, based on his own reporting and mainstream outlets. Dayen gives the breakdown:

$3 billion will go toward refinancing for current borrowers who are underwater on their loans, as well as short sales. $5 billion will go as a hard cash penalty to the states, which can use them for legal aid services, foreclosure mitigation programs, and ongoing fraud investigations in other areas (one official close to the talks feared that much of that hard cash payout will go in some Republican states toward filling their budget holes). The federal government will get a cash penalty as well. Out of that $5 billion, up to 750,000 borrowers wrongfully foreclosed upon will get a $1,800-$2,000 check if they sign up for it, the equivalent of saying to them “sorry we stole your home, here’s two months rent.”

The bulk of the money, around $17 billion, will go to principal reduction credits for troubled borrowers. The banks will not get dollar-for-dollar credit for every write-down; reductions on loans bundled in private-label mortgage-backed securities, for example, will be under 50 cents on the dollar, and write-downs for second liens (mostly home equity lines of credit) will be more like 10 cents. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan believes that they will be able to get between $35-$40 billion in principal reduction in real dollars out of the settlement. Donovan became the point person on the federal level, along with DoJ, as the Administration pretty much took over the investigation and settlement process from the states, who were led by Iowa AG Tom Miller.

But even this $35-$40 billion number, which is at best a guess since the direction of the principal reduction is mostly at the discretion of the banks, pales in comparison to the negative equity in the country, which sits at $700 billion. And the banks have three years to implement the principal reductions, drawing out the loss on their books. [Emphasis added]

Look at the section in bold. What this settlement says is that if the bank stole your home - and according to the deal, banks did this to 750,000 American families (though in reality the number is much higher) - the banks will get off scot-free for $2,000. Can you imagine the Department of Justice arresting a bank robber who stole $180,000 and letting him go as long as he returned $2,000? Wouldn't we all be bank robbers if such was the state of justice? This is quite possible the most insulting, if not the most problematic, aspect of the deal.

Dayen goes on to note that at its best, this deal will provide an almost certainly insufficient amount of principle reduction to a small fraction of underwater homeowners: "you’re talking about $20,000 (when homes are on average underwater $50,000) for 1 million borrowers (when there are 11 million underwater)." Given that being underwater is the single largest predictor of foreclosure, making someone 40% less underwater is no panacea.

If you want a much deeper analysis of the reasons why this is a bad deal, Yves Smith is a good starting place. She identifies twelve reasons to hate the settlement and frankly it's just the tip of the iceberg as we have yet to see the text of the deal. One that is surely worth noting, though, is:

That $20 billion actually makes bank second liens sounder, so this deal is a stealth bailout that strengthens bank balance sheets at the expense of the broader public.

Gee, and here I was just thinking the other day, "Wouldn't it be great for America if we had another bank bailout?"

The actual settlement has not been released and likely will not be released until it is filed in federal court. This lack of transparency is actually a fundamental problem, in part because the majority of the money that is in this deal will not be coming from the banks who agreed to it, but from their investors (including 401ks, public and private pension funds). The less time this agreement is fully in public before being filed in court, the less time investors will have to object to its terms.

Smith concludes her post with an important observation:

As we’ve said before, this settlement is yet another raw demonstration of who wields power in America, and it isn’t you and me. It’s bad enough to see these negotiations come to their predictable, sorry outcome. It adds insult to injury to see some try to depict it as a win for long suffering, still abused homeowners.

The fix has been in for a long time, though it was delayed because a number of Attorneys General wouldn't agree to the direction things were heading. We are told that they are now on board because the settlement is sufficiently narrow in scope (though, again, both Dayen and Smith highlight some ways in which that is not believable). Until we see the actual settlement, it's impossible to know whether this is truly narrow in scope. But even if it is, the idea that there be any immunity as part of any settlement of any area of criminal behavior which has not been fully investigated is a heartbreaking testament of the failures of system of justice.

As the sign at Occupy Wall Street said, this sh*t is f'd up and bullshit.

Read the rest of this post...

Congress opens U.S. airspace to drone flights — plus how to buy a congressman

I'll give this story to RT.com, which has certainly earned credit for this kind of coverage (h/t @MettaFilms and @OccupyChicago via Twitter; my emphasis and reparagraphing):

Earlier this week the US Congress passed a bill that would send aviation in America to the next generation. Therefore making unmanned drone sightings more prevalent in the US.

The bill expedites the transition from radar technology to GPS technology and requires the Federal Aviation Administration to open the US skies to drone flights by September 20 of 2015.

The bill which has struggled to get passed for the last five years grants military, commercial and private unmanned aerial vehicles amplified access to US airspace. ... The FAA will be required to propose a plan on how to securely provide drones with extended access.

Catch the list?

        ▪ Military
        ▪ Commercial
        ▪ Private

So the National Spook State (sorry, our National Security minders; I mean, protectors) gets access. Corps get access (imagine the advertising opportunities, not to mention unmanned airborne "bigrigs" carrying cargo). And anyone rich enough to own a private drone gets access.

Will the private drones get air clearance? Of course, silly — anyone rich enough to own a couple of drones is rich enough to own a couple of congressmen. Instant clearance.

And here's a thought — how quickly will Blackwater and Wackenhut be buying them, just in case the next "guard the rich from Katrina" moment requires some overflight? (The over-under on that "how quickly" question is measured in weeks after the bill was passed, not years. Just sayin'.)

As the article notes, the ACLU has some "privacy concerns." No kidding.

And in related news (it's a theme park here at Maison chez nous; h/t Matt Stoller, my emphasis and paragraphing):

Rep. McKeon Praises Drone Manufacturers At Conference After They Lavish His Wife With Donations

Last week, Republic Report’s Lee Fang revealed that leading defense contractors, including the manufacturers of military drones, were lavishing Rep. Buck McKeon’s (R-CA) wife Patricia — who is running for a state legislature seat in California — with campaign donations. McKeon is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and received $339,000 from the defense industry himself in 2010, so it’s reasonable to suspect that arms manufacturers and others are donating to his wife’s state race in order to please him.

Now, it appears that these donations are paying off. This morning at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., Rep. McKeon delivered a “Special Address” for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), a drone industry lobbying organization.

Republic Report gained access to the event — which hosted hundreds of attendees from unmanned systems industry, including military drone manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

Just in time for the Spring drone buying season (see first story). Speaking of bought Congress, welcome to the Church of How It's Done.

Did you catch the transaction? I finance your wife's campaign for state legislature (click through; $20,000 is a ton for a race like that); "donate" a third of a million to your own House race (not Senate, House; a third of a million buys a lot of House race). And hey, I too own a congressman (two if we swing the wife to Washington in a cycle or two). Chump change for Grumman.

I hope all this makes Mr. Drone Warrior a very happy man. Color me ... airsick.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Catholic church admits complaint about hospitals was smokescreen. Real goal is to kill all contraceptives in all insurance plans.

They really are evil, our friends over there running the Catholic church.  Then again, we are talking about people who coddled pedophiles and actually enabled the serial rape of young children, and who are still lying about the facts and claiming they did nothing wrong (the former NY cardinal actually just retracted his apology for the scandal from ten years ago).  So the notion of being surprised by how nasty the Catholic leadership can be is somewhat naive, I suppose.

In USA Today, the Catholic bishops admit that it never was about whether Catholic hospitals would have to cover contraceptives in their health insurance plans. They don't want any Americans, anywhere, to have contraceptives covered in their health care plans.

It still boggles my mind that anyone even talks to these men.  These are our moral arbiters in the Catholic church, the same people who are leaving poor parentless children with nowhere to turn because they'd rather hurt children than deal with a gay person.  You have to wonder how the Obama administration can even stomach sitting in the same room with these people.  The Catholic church lost its moral authority when it chose to look the other way while men under its employ were having intercourse with children under the age of 10.  Nearly a quarter of the alleged victims were under 10 years of age.  And these Catholic "leaders" have the nerve to lecture President Obama about morality?  He shouldn't let them step foot in his house.  It still boggles my mind that Catholics refuse to rise up against their own church.  It's not enough to say you don't agree with these men. If you give them your money, you share the responsibility for their crimes.

From USA Today:

The rule goes into effect Aug. 1, but if objections are raised, another year's extension is possible.

That was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.

And the cat is out of the bag. So it never was about "Catholic hospitals." It's about the Catholic church's desire to control the sex lives of everyone on planet, from ten year old boys - who are urged to have sex - to grown women, who can't. Read the rest of this post...