For foreclosure relief, occupy the Legislature

Two years ago, California legislators bowed to bankers when they failed to pass legislation that would require mediation between a bank and borrower before banks could foreclose on the borrower’s home.

But a recent report by the U.S. Justice Department should cause the Legislature to take another crack at making a critical choice: Do they want to provide tools to reduce foreclosures, or do they want to keep kowtowing to bankers?

California remains among the hardest hit by foreclosures: third worst in the country.

While foreclosure rates are going down nationally, that’s more a reflection of the continuing mess in the foreclosure process itself rather than any fundamental restoration of health in the housing market.

So the problem hasn’t gone away by itself.

Federal efforts to help homeowners have been ineffective because they’re voluntary for the banks, with inadequate government oversight. For the feds, foreclosure reduction efforts have consisted mainly of offering banks modest incentives for loan modifications, incentives that are less than the profit the bank, in its role as loan servicer, makes from foreclosing on homes.

As demonstrated by the California legislators’ previous refusal to embrace mediation, government officials at all levels have so far lacked the political will to force banks to take the action needed to stem foreclosures. Two years ago, Assemblyman Pedro Nava spearheaded the foreclosure mediation effort,  AB 1639,  which passed the Assembly but died in the Senate under fierce banking opposition. Consultant on the bill was Los Angeles mediator Laurel Kaufer, chair of the State Bar's ADR committee.

Around the country, there  have been a host of mediation programs around the country, with mixed results. ¶

Programs in Connecticut and Philadelphia successfully settled about three of every four cases, avoiding foreclosures. In Nevada, officials reported that about 42 percent of the cases in mediation settled without foreclosure. Nevada also reported another significant finding – the banks dropped many of the foreclosure attempts during the mediation process because there paperwork wasn’t in order.

But in late December, the Florida Supreme Court closed down its foreclosure mediation program after state officials determined it wasn’t working because so few cases eligible for mediation ended in settlement.

Then, just a couple of weeks later, the U.S. Justice Department issued a promising report calling for wider federal use of mediation in foreclosure and more research into how well it works.

The details of foreclosure mediation programs vary widely. The most successful programs, the Justice Department explained, are those that begin early in the foreclosure process, require mandatory participation, include some form of financial counseling for homeowners, are well publicized and require a high degree of transparency by the banks  – meaning that banks have to disclose how their foreclosure process works, including the secretive, often confusing criteria by which they grant loan modifications.

Will the feds blow this opportunity to attack the foreclosure crisis, as they bungled their earlier efforts? Or will finally get a clue and start taking effective action?

In California, we shouldn’t wait to find out.

This Justice Department report should give a boost to a renewed effort to require mediation in California foreclosures, and offers some guidance to California in how to create a successful mediation program.

But it will only happen if people mobilize against the banking lobby, which is sure to oppose any attempt to weaken bankers’ complete control over the foreclosure process.

We keep hearing how the Occupy movement has changed the debate, how issues that couldn’t gain traction six months ago can now get a fuller hearing. We should seize the opportunity to give legislators the opportunity to get the bankers off our backs.


Foreclosures / Martin Column - 01/18/2012

Channel surfing at the White House

I went to the White House Friday week for a full day listening and talking back to top White House officials with about 100 Democratic activists and organizers from California, organized by the Courage Campaign.
The White House folks seemed to listen hard. Gathered in an auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, we heard from top staff including chief of staff Bill Daley, senior advisors David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett, EPA chief Lisa Jackson, and Labor secretary Hilda Solis, along with other staff on specific issues. They asked us not to offer specific quotes from people, but they didn't offer up any juicy secrets or stray from the administration talking points we've all heard before.
They got an earful of what they have certainly heard before as well: like many others across the country, we wanted the president to fight harder for bolder programs to reduce unemployment and address the foreclosure crisis.
There were a series of breakout sessions on a variety of issues: immigration, lesbian and gay rights, labor and environment. But the concerns were the same. Would the president fight harder? When would he compromise and how much would he give away? I was disappointed that the White House didn't offer a breakout session on a especially critical issue for Californians: the foreclosure crisis.
According to the White House, President Obama doesn't get credit for how he hard he has fought against tough foes and and an economic crisis he didn't create. They cited his recent, trip to the bridge between Rep. John Boehner's and Sen. Mitch McConnell's districts where he channeled former president Ronald Reagan, exhorting the Republican leaders, "Help us repair this bridge."
I keep wishing President Obama would channel FDR, who thought that government could actually work with people to solve problems, instead of Reagan, who preached that government was itself the problem, and that it should be starved, shrunk and gotten out of the way.
Channeling one of Reagan's pithy phrases might be OK, but we'll never reduce unemployment right now using the Gipper's approach.
For that, we'll need the fearless, positive, can-do approach of FDR, who knew that government could help when the private sector wouldn't. He never achieved his goal, according to William Leuchtenberg, in Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. That was to put ALL unemployed Americans in the Depression to work. His programs only created jobs about a third of them, but not for lack of trying.
Not all of his program was so simple, but some of it was. For example, he gave unemployed white-collar workers jobs teaching people to read.
While he didn't face the monolithic, intransigent opposition President Obama faces in Congress, he offered a bold and pragmatic vision that included vilifying the bankers whose wild speculation threw the country into Depression, and acknowledging that the country was a in a deep crisis that would require dramatic, sustained government action.
Measuring Obama's Jobs Act by the standard of what FDR was able to accomplish, you can see how his proposal falls short. If Republicans passed it whole, which is unlikely, it would create at most 1.9 million jobs, providing work for nowhere near one-third of the nation's unemployed.
Obama's plan appears to be motivated by fear - fear of failure, fear of Republican rejection, fear of alienating independent voters, when what we need is audacity.
It does not seem to be motivate by an audacious vision of government action that would actually get the country back to work.

The jobs plan still might not pass, but what people are hungry for, more than bipartisanship, is that audacious vision that Obama promised and FDR delivered.
Has President Obama been so busy channeling Reagan that he forgot what FDR said about fear?
Mr. President, tune in to the right channel!

Martin Column / Outrage / Uncategorized - 09/26/2011

What the President SHOULD Say

Republicans may have driven the car into the ditch. But voters know the difference between a sales job and reality.

That’s why they didn’t trust President Obama and the Democrats’ pitch that they had gotten the car out of the ditch and gotten it running again.

It didn’t ring true because far too many Americans are still stuck in the ditch.

And all of the presidents’ talk about how much worse off we’d be without his team’s hard work fell on deaf ears.

From the time he took office through the election, the president and his team failed to adequately acknowledge how deep the ditch was. By all accounts, the president is a brilliant man, and he’s hardly the first president to suffer a midterm “shellacking.” And his opponents haven’t exactly been overflowing with creative ideas for how to get the economy going again for those of us who aren’t bankers.

I also realize it’s not just up to the president – we all have a responsibility. So here’s my humble contribution to help the president make a mid-course correction: some suggestions for what the president might say.

My fellow Americans:

You sent me a strong message on November 2. I have to admit it stung. It’s taken a while to sink in, but I get it now.

I haven’t taken the economic pain that many of you are feeling seriously enough. The range of solutions I’ve chosen have been far too narrow and not nearly ambitious or imaginative enough. I’ve paid too much attention to not riling the markets and not enough attention to getting you back to work and keeping you in your houses. For that I owe you an apology. I have also belittled your concerns that our government has fostered a system that favors the wealthy and connected over other Americans. I’m sorry for that too.

I know that words without action ring hollow. So I’m replacing my entire economic team with men and women who are more attuned to the economic crisis that many of you find yourselves in. We’re fortunate that we have such a distinguished group to choose from – Paul Volcker, Robert Reich, Bill Black and Brooksley Born among them.

I have previously attributed the lack of popularity of some of my administration’s policies to my inability to sell them properly. But in retrospect, I see that the problem wasn’t the message. It was my previous unwillingness to fight, and fight hard, for stronger policies, stronger solutions to the country’s economic problems. I should have done so earlier.

But I will do so now.

Make no mistake. These solutions will cost money. Putting people back to work will cost money. But that money is an investment in a future that we can all live with, not just the well-to-do, and that will pay dividends later. I know that my opponents have raised concerns about the federal deficit, and I share some of those concerns. But my top priority for the next two years will be putting Americans back to work and making sure that we have a recovery that works for everybody. If my opponents want to have a debate on the deficit, I welcome that. If they want to have a debate on whether the government can truly help people or whether the government itself is the problem, then I welcome that too. Let’s have it on television.

But mostly I welcome my opponents’ ideas about how to put Americans back to work. Because the American people don’t just want an endless debate. You want action.

We’ll have a debate and then we’ll get to it. I know that you’re impatient. You also don’t want excuses. You won’t get any from me. What you will get is a plan to reduce unemployment, stabilize housing and reduce the widespread economic misery. I promise you that will be my number one priority.

Thank you for the great trust you have placed in me.

Can I guarantee success if my opponents decide to stand in the way rather than cooperate? Probably not. But I promise you that for the next two years all of my energy, intellect and passion will be harnessed to this effort, whatever the obstacles or political costs.

Martin Column / Outrage / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 11/05/2010

AIG Founder Asks “Terrorists” for Help

One of the particularly infuriating aspects of the financial crisis is the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Wall Street titans.

These devotees of free markets didn’t hesitate to grab the taxpayer life preservers blithely tossed to them by the U.S. Treasury when they were about to go under. Taxpayers never got a “thank you,” much less “I’m sorry,” from these geniuses who nearly destroyed our economy.

But one among them has set himself apart. I refer to Maurice Greenberg, the founder of American International Group, or AIG. In its prime, AIG was possibly the largest insurance company on the planet, selling everything from life insurance to environmental liability coverage for big corporations.

Greenberg was used to the royal treatment accorded the billionaires at the top of the Money Industry. He pulled in $20 million in 2004 from AIG and an off-the-books executive slush fund the company setup for its top execs.

Like many of his peers at that level, Greenberg was a major player in American politics. AIG and Greenberg’s charities donated tens of millions of dollars to grease the wheels in Washington and keep his company free of regulation.

But unlike many of his insurance brethren, who had figured out that they were usually better off keeping their thoughts to themselves, Greenberg never hesitated to pronounce his views, especially when he thought it was good for business. So Greenberg put himself and his behemoth insurance company at the forefront of “tort reform” – an insurance industry inspired propaganda effort to blame trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits (“torts”) for higher insurance premiums.

“Tort reform” conveniently diverted public attention from the fact that insurance companies were raising rates in order to offset investment losses in the stock market  - often while friendly state insurance regulators looked the other way. There was another benefit, too. The “solution” advocated by the insurance companies was to restrict the rights of Americans to have their day in court. This usually involved capping damages or attorneys fees, both of which enabled insurance companies to pay out less in claims, and keep more money for themselves. Too many willing state legislatures fell for this trick, though California voters ultimately got it right and capped the insurance industry’s premiums.

Back in 2004, when George Bush and the Corporate Republican Establishment were firmly in control of Washington, “tort reform” was high on their list of priorities. In fact, they expanded their attack, targeting the class action lawsuits that consumers often bring against corporations. Greenberg was a particularly vociferous cheerleader for the push to limit the ability of injured or ripped-off consumers to undertake a class action.

Referring to legislation that would restrict consumers’ ability to bring a class action lawsuit, Reuters reported in 2004 that "Greenberg likened the battle over reforming class action litigation to the White House's 'war on terror.’” Reuters quoted Greenberg as saying, “It's almost like fighting the war on terrorists….I call the plaintiff's bar terrorists."

That was 2004. A year later, Greenberg himself was in a world of legal trouble (PDF). He was ousted in 2005 after an investigation by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer found that AIG had engineered a series of sham transactions intended to make AIG’s financial picture look better. In 2006, AIG paid $1.6 billion to settle a variety of charges.

Then came the financial collapse. AIG was at the forefront of the form of Wall Street gambling known as “credit default swaps,” under which AIG would sell insurance on packages of subprime mortgages known as “derivatives.” Though long gone, Greenberg remained AIG’s biggest shareholder, so he lost billions when AIG’s credit default swaps went into default and the Bush Administration took over the company in exchange for a taxpayer bailout that now totals $182 billion.

Ever since then, Greenberg’s been insisting on justice… for himself.

Demanding an investigation of the government’s decision to seize AIG, Greenberg suggested “class-action lawsuits that put people under oath in depositions and discovery.”

A fervent deregulator, Greenberg now blames the federal government for failing to regulate his industry. “I don’t recall any regulator coming to look at the [insurance] holding companies, and if they did, it was a very superficial job,” according to a report on a speech Greenberg gave last year.

In a speech in February, Greenberg had this to say about improving America’s judicial system: “We go around the world preaching about the importance of the rule of law…. We better take a look at America and make sure we have the rule of law here first.”

AIG / Harvey Column - 03/15/2010