Let’s wrap up on a rainy day here in LA, with thunderstorms to boot.
• The Administration has been talking about the Buffett rule because it polls well. That’s where this begins and ends.
• Didn’t have time to go into this paper on the “causes of the foreclosure crisis,” from economists at the Boston and Atlanta Fed, which seeks to take banks totally off the hook for fraud. See also Bernanke’s self-justifying speech at the same conference today, which incredibly subtitled “New perspectives on the crisis.” There isn’t one new perspective here. It’s all rationalization and buck-passing.
• Looking forward, frequent Fed critic Bill Greider is actually more optimistic. And he presents a plausible plan for how the Fed could bail out the housing market in a way that helped homeowners first.
“Banks were not doing as many foreclosures because they had been found to be doing them improperly,” said Dan Sullivan, a foreclosure-prevention specialist at Action-Housing Inc. “But once the settlement was behind them, banks opened up the floodgates and filed all these [default] notices.”
• Treasury spins hard on TARP. I laughed out loud at the slide on how TARP “helped stabilize the housing market.” Building off that, here’s me on RT yesterday talking about the failure of the Hardest Hit Fund:
• Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, in those earnings reports today, did announce that they moved billions of dollars in second liens into the “non-performing” category, even if they were current, because they were behind delinquent firsts. This is actually a very good sign, and a response to regulatory guidance. But they only reclassified a portion of those second liens.
• Our spotty and volatile renewable energy policies, sometimes encouraging and sometimes discouraging development, puts the nation at serious risk.
• Telecom companies don’t want to install phone lines at your house anymore. This is tied in with the cellular revolution, but really it’s more about cost-cutting and maximizing profits.
• An anonymous donor ponied up $10 million to Karl Rove’s independent expenditure group, Crossroads, and the donor will probably never have to reveal himself or herself.
• President Obama only paid a 20.5% tax rate in 2011. Half the Obama’s earnings came from book proceeds, and they donated 22% of their income to charity (which made up more than half of their whopping $278,000 in itemized deductions). They “only” made $789,000 in 2011, so the Buffett rule wouldn’t affect them.
• Egypt’s Parliament passed a law that seems to specifically ban Omar Suleiman from running for President.
• The Great Recession and suicides in Nevada.
• Fox News wants to sue Gawker over the Fox Mole. Gawker’s clearly not worried: they posted the threatening letter, complete with a photo of Bill O’Reilly with a topless woman (this should get fun).
• The selling of Greece begins, first with the national railways. Greece will have almost no public property left by the end of this.
• More on the Pakistani Parliament’s call for an end to the US drone program, from Jim White.
• A victory: Michigan’s Department of Corrections stopped their naked body cavity searches of female prisoners.
• I don’t totally understand how a failed rocket launch by North Korea puts US engagement policy “in tatters.”
• Speaking of engagement, talks with Iran on their nuclear program begin today.
• The grassroots movement against CISPA, a cybersecurity bill, turns its attention to Facebook.
• Corey Booker is some kind of superhero.
• You can teach a baboon to recognize written words. Can Cornelius be far behind?
• Nixon Rising. It’s awesome.




14 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Syrians in U.S. speak up about MSM crisis coverage…
Great to see and listen to you on RT, David. Hope there’re many more appearances to come.
New Information Answers John Doe Question; Reveals Scott Walker Was Solely Responsible for Hire of Figures Charged In Corruption Probe LINK.
Not the usual story we see about pension funds:
Fresno Construction Company Ordered to Restore $500,000 to 401K Profit-Sharing Plan LINK
Oh, there’s no Repuglican War on Women. Uh-uh. None at all.
Iowa Republican proposes drug testing for child support recipients LINK
Uribe formally accused of forming paramilitary group [by a Colombian congressman] LINK.
More on Treasury’s all-out effort to reassure us:
Taxpayers to make money on TARP, Treasury says LINK.
Reminded me of this.
David, that’s $10 million, not $10 billion!
Not my definition of ‘religious freedom’:
Catholic Bishops Urge ‘Campaign’ for Religious Freedom LINK
and Mitt seems to agree with them.
Ouch!
Everyone wants to talk to Brazil’s President Rousseff, except Obama
Washington seems stuck in another age – a Latin American country serving as a model is beyond its comprehension
“Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, leads an economy larger than Britain’s, commands an ocean’s worth of oil, and enjoys a 77% approval rating her American counterpart can only fantasise about. Everybody but Barack Obama wanted to see her this week. She arrived to the accompaniment of a half-dozen op-eds from professors and thinktank bosses, all of them extolling her economic stewardship and begging DC to take her seriously. The presidents of Harvard and MIT (both women, for what it’s worth) invited her up to Boston. Even the US chamber of commerce put out the bunting – surely the first time the big bad business group has been so excited to meet a former Marxist guerrilla. Only Obama shrugged.”
LINK.
Oh, noes.
US Secret Service agents recalled from Colombia LINK.
OTTAWA—The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law that gives police warrantless wiretap powers to prevent an emergency, saying it provides no accountability or oversight mechanism.
The unanimous judgment issued Friday gave Parliament 12 months to re-write the law
/www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1160896–canada-s-top-court-strikes-down-police-powers-to-wiretap-without-warrants
This whistleblower, who presumably will not be charged as others have been, asks a most pressing question which, of course, will not be answered except by the crickets.
Afghan war whistleblower Daniel Davis: ‘I had to speak out – lives are at stake’
“What Davis wants – and what several politicians are lobbying for – are congressional hearings on the issue. He wants the generals grilled on his report and on how their comments compare with the evidence. But that needs the support of party leaders such as Democratic senator Harry Reid or Republican House speaker John Boehner, and that seems unlikely because such hearings would be a political minefield.
“This only serves to infuriate Davis. “Wouldn’t you want to know the truth when you are making a war-and-peace decision?” ‘
LINK.
I’m gonna get a lot of criticism here, but I’ve got to say, I’m not against drug testing for people who receive support payments, the same way I’m not against it for welfare and unemployment benefit recipients.
How many times do we read or hear about cases where drug-addled parents of either gender do horrible things to their children, or simply neglect them to a criminal degree? If someone depends on child support to, you know, adequately support their kids, why shouldn’t the other parent and we, as a society, be concerned that the custodial parent is using some of that money for drugs instead of the kid’s welfare?
As for this being used as a weapon against the rival spouse:
a) How long do you think a non-custodial parent is going to continue to pay for the tests if they keep coming back negative?
b) How many clean drug tests do you think it would take before the custodial parent’s lawyer, or the presiding judge in the case, would intervene to get the tests stopped?
c) If a custodial parent is using illegal drugs, doesn’t that present an increased risk with respect to the welfare of the child?
And finally:
Could it be that more laws of this type will end up back-firing in one respect, that is, advancing the case for decriminalization of pot?