Wall Street blames foreclosure problems on everyone besides themselves

For starters, let's remember who created "liar loans" and the housing bubble. Hold that thought and then let's look at one or two quick examples of houses that were repossessed illegally even though defaulting on payments had NOTHING to do with the process. Then let's think about the Wall Street people who created these documents yet now can't live by the law, as if they are above it. Why is it so hard for Wall Street to live by the law that their lobbyists helped write in the first place? Keep talking Wall Street because you haven't ticked off the country enough to get real change.

Those on Wall Street, however, are largely unsympathetic, insisting that possible errors in the foreclosure process are beside the point, that the process begins only when a borrower starts missing mortgage payments.

"If you didn't pay your mortgage, you shouldn't be in your house. Period. People are getting upset about something that's just procedural." said Walter Todd, portfolio manager at Greenwood Capital Associates.

Some said the issue is one of personal responsibility for one's own debts.

"Everyone's responsible for following the law. If we all don't have to pay our mortgage, should we just stop paying taxes, too?" said Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital Advisers. "Your mortgage didn't get to a robo-signer by accident, it's because you're not paying."

Now that is seriously funny. Wall Street spongers talking about responsibility and the law. You can't even make this up. Please Anton, tell us more about the law and those robo-signers. Then, tell me a bedtime story about personal responsibility and the financial industry. Read the rest of this post...

Steve Hendricks on the CIA's 'Kidnapping in Milan'

Steve Hendricks is the author of A Kidnapping in Milan, a new investigative book that looks into the CIA's rendition program from a historical perspective, with a special look at the 2003 kidnapping and rendition for torture of Abu Omar from the streets of Milan. This act was investigated by the Italian judicial system, and 23 U.S. operatives were convicted in 2009 of kidnapping and other crimes related to the event.

Scott Horton has a six-question interview with Mr. Hendricks. It's a fascinating exchange if you're interested in these matters. I reproduce just a part of it here.

About the rendition program in general, Hendricks says:

Before September 11, 2001, the CIA carried out at least seventy extraordinary renditions—the vast majority, it seems, under Clinton. We know very little about most of these renditions, but the fact of our knowing little suggests they were carried out with a degree of discretion and competence. Under George W. Bush, the quantity of renditions went up and the discretion and competence went down. At the very least Bush rendered several score victims, and more probably a couple hundred. His demands for renditions were so great that, for example, the CIA’s in-house air fleet didn’t have enough planes, so the agency had to lease torture taxis from outside the agency. The CIA also rented many of the renderers—the on-the-ground planners, the heavies who actually grabbed the victims, the in-flight medics, you name it. A lot of them were poorly trained. Then there was Bush’s brazen approach to covert action, which filtered down to the lowest level of the CIA. Even in the best of times, the CIA thinks it can get away with murder (sometimes literally), but under Bush the hubris reached heights not seen since the anything-goes Cold War days.

The Clinton point is worth noting. That fact of its invisibility is a mark of its "success" — in James Bond terms at least.

About Abu Omar as a worthwhile target, Hendricks says:

Abu Omar was almost certainly a terrorist but, as you say, of middling or even lowish rank and without imminent plans to attack. ... The most convincing theory to explain why the CIA snatched Abu Omar is that the agency’s chief of station in Italy, Jeff Castelli, wanted a promotion. After September 11, renditions were all the rage in the CIA. Station chiefs around the world were collecting scalps. Several Italians and Americans who worked with Castelli believe he convinced Langley to approve the rendition by exaggerating the threat Abu Omar posed and denigrating the Italians’ monitoring of him. Castelli had boosters at Langley who were grooming him for a higher post, and at least one or two of them were among those who weigh the merits of proposed renditions and approved or denied them.

He goes on to note that whatever else the CIA is, it's also a bureaucracy, with all that this implies. Imagine being tortured for years by third-world thugs because someone wanted a promotion. The banality of evil.

The interview covers other aspects of the case as well, including what motivated the charismatic chief prosecutor, Armando Spataro, and how much Berlusconi knew of the CIA mission before it was conducted. (If he knew ahead of time, he's arguably part of the conspiracy.)

The final question deals with Obama and the rendition program. One comment is worth quoting (my emphasis):

A lot of Americans think Obama ended it, but the program is alive and well. Obama did ban U.S. personnel from torturing captives, but, after some initial obfuscation, he said through subordinates that he intended to continue extraordinary renditions, which is to say to continue torture-by-proxy, which is to say to violate, as Bush did, the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory. In court Obama has argued, again just as Bush did, that lawsuits against the United States by victims of renditions must be dismissed because they jeopardize national security.

Never look back, right sir? Except when looking for models, of course.

GP Read the rest of this post...

New edition out of Greg Mitchell's book

Greg Mitchell, former of E&P, has a new edition of his book out. I wanted to help him get the word out as it sounds interesting.

After several years out of print, my award-winning 1992 book from Random House, The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics, has just appeared in a "classic" new edition from PoliPoint Press. You can order the print version now from the publisher, or at Amazon, with various e-editions arriving next week. Campaign won the Goldsmith Book Prize, was one of five finalists for a Los Angeles Times Book Award, and served as the basis for an episode in the PBS The Great Depression series. It's even being made into a musical.

The modern political campaign--dominated by advertising tricks, "spin doctors," and attack ads on the screen--was invented in this 1934 campaign. It was one of the dirtiest campaigns ever and also marked Hollywood's first all-out plunge into politics, inspired by socialist author Sinclair sweeping the Democratic primary. Sinclair's End Poverty in California (EPIC) crusade was one of the greatest mass movements in U.S. history, and the links to today's economic crisis, media trickery and political climate, are profound. The cast of characters in this wild and often wacky tale reads like a "Who's Who," from FDR and Hearst to Will Rogers and Katharine Hepburn. Chairman of the GOP campaign? Earl Warren. And so on.

Read the rest of this post...

Did the President just lie to MTV about DADT?

It's difficult to conclude otherwise. Read the rest of this post...

Robin Carnahan to Roy Blunt: 'Man up' on health care by repealing his own benefits first

No wonder Roy Blunt didn't want to debate Robin Carnahan. She kicked his butt:

Carnahan, who trails in the polls, was clearly the aggressor in the only televised exchange of the campaign, to be broadcast on KCPT tonight.

The sharpest exchange came during a discussion of health care reform. Carnahan accused Blunt of opposing the health care law because of ties to lobbyists.

“I think people should have access,” she said. “They should have the same access you have as a member of Congress. So I think if you want to repeal health care reform and let insurance companies go back to their worst abuses, Congressman, then you ought to repeal your own first. And man up. And do what you’re asking other people to do.”

Great line. Roy Blunt would never give up his taxpayer financed health care benefits. He's a fraud.

During the debate, Blunt denied not supporting Medicare:

"I never said I was not for Medicare," said Blunt, later telling Carnahan

Wrong. Blunt actually said "government should have never gotten into the health care business." He then specifically noted that government got into the business of health care "in a big way" back in 1965 with Medicare. Sure sounds like he wasn't for Medicare. But, you can listen to what he said here. Seriously. He totally dissed the creation of Medicare. He's a fraud and a liar.

Come on, Missouri. Don't send this corrupt liar to the Senate. Read the rest of this post...

It's official: DOJ wants stay of Log Cabin DADT injunction and will appeal the decision

The Department of Justice has asked Judge Phillips to issue a stay of her DADT injunction and indicated that it will appeal the decision. This was not unexpected, but it is certainly disappointing. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

Defendants request that the Court issue an order to stay pending appeal of its Order, dated October 12, 2010 (Doc. 252), permanently enjoining enforcement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) statute, 10 U.S.C. § 654, and implementing regulations.1 Defendants also request that the Court issue an immediate administrative stay of its October 12, 2010 Order to allow time for the orderly litigation of that request for a stay pending appeal both before this Court and, if this Court were to deny the stay request, before the Court of Appeals. At a minimum, if this Court declines to enter a stay pending appeal or any administrative stay to allow its own consideration of the request, defendants request that the Court enter an immediate administrative stay to afford time for filing a request for a stay pending appeal in the Court of Appeals and an opportunity for that Court to consider that request in a meaningful and orderly manner. Given the urgency and gravity of the issues, defendants respectfully request that the Court rule on this ex parte application no later than noon PDT on Monday, October 18, 2010. If an administrative stay is not entered by that time, defendants intend to seek a stay pending appeal from the Court of Appeals and will request an immediate administrative stay from that Court to allow the orderly litigation of the stay request before that Court.

And, DOJ invoked the Pentagon Working Group as a reason for needing the delay:

In support of the President’s decision to seek a congressional repeal of the law, and as directed by the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Defense has established a high-level Working Group that is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the statute and how best to implement a change in policy in a prudent manner. The Working Group is nearing completion of its report to the Secretary, which is due on December 1. The immediate implementation of the injunction would disrupt this review and frustrate the Secretary’s ability to recommend and implement policies that would ensure that any repeal of DADT does not irreparably harm the government’s critical interests in military readiness, combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, good order, discipline, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

In the first sentence above, you'll notice a footnote. This is what it states:

1 As the President has stated previously, the Administration does not support the DADT statute as a matter of policy and strongly supports its repeal. However, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

Got that? Remember, DOJ does not have to appeal this decision. But it is going to do just that.

The Courage Campaign posted the DOJ application for the Emergency Stay here.

From here, Judge Phillips will probably issue her decision in the next couple days. She could order a stay pending the appeal -- or not. She could do any number of things, including denying DOJ's application. Whatever she does will lead to DOJ's next step. This could mean that DOJ may have to ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay, too. What is clear is that the DOJ has every intention of appealing this ruling and dragging out this process. DOJ has 60 days to file its notice of appeal.

We'll have more on this, as you can imagine. Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly causes mayhem on set of 'The View'

Read the rest of this post...

Applications for unemployment up again

The trends are not moving in the right direction but they can certainly get worse. Much worse. If the GOP has their way, brace yourself for even uglier numbers.

Initial claims for unemployment aid rose by 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 462,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was only the second rise in two months.

Jobless claims have been stuck near 450,000 all year. Few employers see much reason to create many jobs, and some are still laying off workers. Rail operator CSX Corp., for example, said Wednesday that it can lengthen its trains to handle rising shipments, reducing its need to hire more employees.

"The labor market is kind of frozen right now," said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities. "There's not a lot of hiring going on, not a lot of quitting, not a lot of layoffs."

Read the rest of this post...

MTV wants 'light' questions for Obama at today's youth townhall. Why?

From Nick Seaver:

At 4pm ET today, President Obama is participating in a "youth town hall" with MTV, CMT and BET. Last week I submitted my name to be a participant and was called back for the second round of "casting" (their word, not mine) with a representative from one of the networks.

After asking what topics I was personally interested in, they asked what question I'd want to ask President Obama if I were in a room with him. I gave a sample question to give them a sense of where I'd go, but not anything specific (something about the role that federal policy plays in preventing bullying in light of the recent attention to suicide). The next question was: What lighter question would I ask the President -- something related to pop culture perhaps. I hadn't given any thought to this because, really, what moron blows this opportunity by asking the President "Mac or PC?"

Read the rest of this post...

Jack Black on 'Obamacare'

Read the rest of this post...

Congressional report criticizes Bush/Paulson bank bailout

This article fails enormously to address who specifically was in power during this troubled process. In the comments below the article you have the usual bashing of Democrats for being socialist which is amusing since the last time I checked, Bush and Paulson were in charge of this process in 2008. If the Teabaggers want to label Bush and Paulson socialists, that's fine (and indeed warranted) but don't blame Obama, Geithner and the Democrats for a disaster that they inherited from the Republicans. As critical as I may be about Geithner's term, this report is about Paulson. Other than for political purposes, it's not clear why the AP failed to mention that key point.

Unless O'Donnell waved her wand and cast a spell to put Obama in office at this time, this is a Bush/Paulson failure.

The bailed-out mortgage companies hired by the Treasury Department to manage its main program designed to prevent foreclosures probably weren't up to the job, and tapping them may have increased taxpayer losses, a new watchdog report says.

Failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relied heavily on subcontractors to manage a program aimed at lowering borrowers' monthly payments, according to a report Thursday from the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the $700 billion financial bailout. The job probably detracted from their efforts to right themselves financially and minimize the size of their bailouts, which total $148 billion and are likely to grow, the report says.

Treasury hired them despite their history of mismanagement, the report adds. It says they have misreported key data and missed important deadlines.

Read the rest of this post...

Greenwald's read on Elena Kagan's first rulings

Elena Kagan came to the Supreme Court with twin concerns, one real and one manufactured. The manufactured concern was from the Right (natch), that she's "too far left," based on no evidence at all (no link, but the quote is everywhere).

The real concern was that she was too much of a "blank slate" and her barely expressed leanings were far more rightward than Justice Stevens, whom she replaced. Of particular concern was her suspected deference to executive power.

Elena Kagan has now joined two rulings, and Glenn Greenwald attempts to suss out what they reveal:

[T]here are two cases in which Kagan's actions shed some minimal light on how she is approaching her role -- minimal, though still worth noting, particularly in light of how much time and attention was devoted here to her being named as Justice Stevens' replacement.

One case was a request to stay the execution of Teresa Lewis in Virginia. The other was a request to review a lower court dismissal of a lawsuit by two Denver residents against the government — these are the two ejected from a Bush campaign event in 2005 because they had a "No More Blood For Oil" sticker on their car.

In both cases, Kagan sided with the conservative majority and against Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Regarding the first:

Lewis' lawyers argued that execution was unjust because "she is borderline mentally retarded, with the intellectual ability of about a 13-year-old," because she "had been used by a much smarter conspirator," because she had no prior history of violence and had been a model prisoner, and because "the two men who fired the shots received life terms."

That ruling was 7–2. About the second, Greenwald cautions against reading too much into the case — refusing to review a case doesn't imply agreement with the outcome. Nevertheless:

[I]n a fairly unusual written opinion dissenting from that refusal [pdf], Ginsburg -- joined by Sotomayor -- argued that these ejections constituted a clear violation of these citizens' First Amendment rights which the Court should adjudicate. She wrote: "ejecting them for holding discordant views could only have been a reprisal for the expression conveyed by the bumper sticker." Kagan, again, refused to join those two Justices, siding instead with the conservative bloc and Breyer in voting to refuse the case.

As I said, a first read; but it seems the "real" concern was real enough, and the manufactured one just smoke and a place to blow it.

More of the same — now there's a change I didn't see coming. Thank you, sir.

GP Read the rest of this post...

President Obama's moral authority on DADT went out the window when he broke the law yesterday by ignoring a judge's order

From AMERICAblog Gay:

This is hugely significant.

It's been almost 48 hours since a federal judge threw out DADT. It is no longer the law of the land. The judge specifically ordered the Obama administration to stop investigating, discharging and turning away gay service members.

In response, what did the Obama administration do when a gay vet went to a recruiting station to re-enlist? They turned him away because he's gay.

That is a direct violation of a judge's order. It's breaking the law.

Why does this matter? Because up until now the President has been telling us that he can't stop the discharges without congressional action because then he wouldn't be upholding the law, and he must uphold the law, regardless how onerous, lest he be as bad as George Bush who broke lots of laws.

So to be clear, the President upholds the law of the land on DADT when it hurts gays, and he violates the law of the land on DADT when it helps gays. The only thing consistent in the President's actions is that he always seems to take the position that's anti-gay.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama administration asks mortgage companies to clean up their documents

Could someone please provide an example of where this industry has positively responded to gentle requests? I'm at a complete loss on this one. As friendly as Obama has treated the finance industry, they still scream "socialist" and throw their money at the GOP. Nobody is asking anyone to give a free ride to those who bought real estate that they couldn't afford but there's no reason to ignore the very real problem of proper documents.

Is this the best regulators can do? Asking nicely is no replacement for firm regulation that protects consumers.

Federal regulators sought Wednesday to prevent the growing furor over improper foreclosures from escalating, pressing mortgage lenders to replace flawed and fraudulent court documents while insisting that foreclosures continue apace.

The approach adopted by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is Washington's clearest response so far to a crisis that threatens to roil the national real estate market and overwhelm courts around the country.

Some consumer advocates and lawmakers said the policy was soft on banks and industry insiders and may have little effect, because many lenders are already taking such steps. In addition, the handling of individual court cases is the province not of federal officials but of judges at the state level.

Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Still waiting for the White House to decide its next step in the wake of the DADT injunction. We're expecting some kind of development today. The DOJ will probably seek a stay and could file its notice of appeal now, instead of waiting 60 days. In any event, it's a real political mess for the White House. And, it's a mess of their creation.

Today, the President is doing a Town Hall meeting tonight that will be broadcast on MTV, BET and CMT. It's aimed at reaching youth voters and he'll take questions via Twitter. Maybe one of the viewers can tweet Obama a question about LGBT equality. We haven't heard much from him on that subject for awhile.

Biden is the featured guest at a fundraiser for Indiana Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth today. Tonight, he's hosting an event for Hispanic Heritage Month.

Michelle Obama is waking up in Chicago today after a day of campaigning in Wisconsin and Illinois. She's heading for Colorado later today to campaign for Michael Bennet.

And, um, the press is paying way, way, way too much attention to the Delaware Senate debate. O'Donnell is down by 20 points. People in the traditional media know that, right? Does Wolf Blitzer know?

It was very cool to see Nate Silver on the TODAY Show as the political expert. He sure is. Read the rest of this post...

French anti-pension reform strike rolls into third day

The strikes continue to disrupt transportation as they push back against the unpopular reforms. In Paris the travelers are aware of the strike but it is nowhere near the complete shutdown of the system in the mid-90s. For commuters getting in and out of Paris, I understand that is a much bigger problem due to fewer trains running. The strike could continue for days or even weeks due to the extremely high public support for the strike. CNN:

A strike to protest government pension reforms is set to extend into a third day Thursday.

On Wednesday, more than 1 million people walked out to protest the reforms -- and at least some of them will stay off the job on Thursday.

French workers are fighting government plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

Ten out of 12 French oil refineries were hit by the strikes Wednesday, with eight of them fully or partially stopped, according to the French Union of Petroleum Industries.

About half of Paris Metro workers were on strike, and will stay off the job Thursday, a Metro-transport union spokesman said.

Read the rest of this post...

Retired communist party leaders from China call for free speech

This will go over like a lead balloon. The Guardian:

The letter accuses officials of ignoring China's constitution, which guarantees the rights of free speech and a free press. "This false democracy of formal avowal and concrete denial has become a scandalous mark on the history of world democracy," it says.

Several of the signatories have been prevented from publishing books themselves.

The document began appearing on websites yesterday, days after the government denounced the decision to give the Nobel peace prize to the dissident Liu Xiaobo, who was jailed after co-writing a document calling for democratic reforms, and before a major political meeting which begins on Friday. It also follows repeated, highly unusual remarks by the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, about political reform, most recently in a CNN interview.

"Even the premier of our country does not have freedom of speech or of the press," the authors complained, pointing out that Chinese media had omitted Wen's advocacy of political reform from reports of his comments.

Read the rest of this post...