Campaign News

Seven women were arraigned Tuesday in Washington, D.C., on federal charges of “unlawful entry” stemming from last month’s homeowner sit-ins at the Department of Justice and a lawfirm called Covington and Burling. Protesters targeted Covington for its revolving-door relationship with a government that’s failed to prosecute Wall Street. When Lanny Breuer stepped down as head of DOJ’s criminal division this winter after Frontline revealed him as the primary culprit in the government’s apparent ‘too big to jail’ approach to foreclosure fraud, Covington provided him a new professional home. It’s also provided a moniker for the group formally charged on Tuesday: the “Covington Seven.”

The women face one of three different legal paths, their attorney Mark Goldstone told ThinkProgress. The charges bear a maximum penalty of six months jail time and/or a $1,250 fine. While a small fine is more likely to be the outcome, Goldstone said, that would come with a conviction on their permanent records. The women might be able to escape conviction provided they are not re-arrested and they do not return to Covington and Burling premises.

After their arraignment, members of the Covington Seven told ThinkProgress why they’d gotten involved.

Sherry Hernandez of Los Angeles told me her Countrywide mortgage ballooned after just four months, with her monthly payments jumping by $800. Her family decided to get a different loan and get out of the suddenly-unaffordable Countrywide mortgage, since they knew they had notarized paperwork showing their loan did not carry penalties for paying it back early. “But they held us to this prepayment penalty we didn’t agree to,” Hernandez said, which “raised our payment trying to get out of the predatory loan by $75,000 more.” Countrywide was the largest subprime lender, and implicated in much of the ugliest financial conduct of the housing bubble and bust. Yet a few years after it was bought by Bank of America, a firm called PennyMac sprang up, run almost entirely by Countrywide alumni. The Hernandezes sued Countrywide successfully, but meanwhile the second loan they’d taken out to replace the predatory one had been sold off…to PennyMac. “PennyMac has foreclosed,” Hernandez said. (PennyMac declined to comment on an individual case, citing privacy laws.)

Asked what she wanted to her message to be on the day she attended the sit-in, Hernandez chuckled. “Oh I have the perfect line. It’s the line they used on us when our hands were cuffed behind our backs, the seven little grandmas: ‘If you don’t arrest them, they’ll just do it again.’”

Deborah Castillo of St. Louis came home from voting on Election Day of 2012 to find an eviction notice on her front door. Castillo, 60, had seemed well positioned for her financial future just a few years earlier, with a good handle on her own mortgage and an investment property nearly paid off. “I had a two-family flat that was $3,000 from being paid for,” Castillo said, “but I had to refinance that in 2005 to help pay for the medical bills for my son, who’s schizophrenic.”

“That was my so-called nest egg, that was our security. And so I had to refinance that, unfortunately with Countrywide.” The same year, Castillo’s daughter contracted bacterial meningitis, and Castillo took 9 months away from her phone company job to care for her daughter. When the balloon payment hit, Castillo couldn’t keep up. Her husband lost his job amid the economic downturn, compounding their struggles. Just a few years on from nearly owning their “nest egg” rental property, Castillo found herself drawing down retirement savings to make ends meet.

And then, in the middle of the loan modification process, US Bank foreclosed on the Castillo family home. “[They] sat on the paperwork,” Castillo told ThinkProgress. The bank refused to accept payments while the modification was pending, yet charged Castillo penalties for missed payments. “Their lack of processing my document on time allowed them to put me in foreclosure,” she said. With eviction pending, Fannie Mae sought and won a $17,000 judgment against Castillo “for being in my home illegally.” (A representative of US Bank officially declined to comment, citing policy against discussing ongoing litigation.)

Castillo is clear-eyed about the culprits in her case. “Something can happen to you in life, no matter what, that can cause you to get into a bind,” Castillo said. “But US Bank, they’re not losing.” Thanks to bailouts, “there was no reason for the banks to settle or work with people, because the government guaranteed that they would win, that they would not be left holding the bag.” And now, with the initial crisis that sparked the government aid to the financial sector, no one in Washington was doubling back to address the paperwork rigmarole that the bailed-out companies used to boot the Castillos from their home. That’s how Castillo ended up getting handcuffed in the Covington and Burling lobby. “We wanted to get someone’s attention. And unfortunately, doing it the legal way through the court is not getting their attention,” she said.

“I worked my ass off to help [President Obama] get elected,” said Castillo, whose volunteer work for the 2008 campaign earned her the photo-op at right. “And now I want him to work his ass off to keep not only me in my home, but everybody else. Because he didn’t get there on his own. I don’t think he’s forgotten, but he needs to put his foot up somebody’s ass and make them remember, we helped put them there.”

Castillo, Hernandez, and the other five, whose stories reflect the same themes of deception and bullying, have to choose how to respond to the unlawful entry charges prior to a July court date. But whichever path each decides to walk, they’ll face more punishment than any of the companies involved in these wrongful foreclosures have faced. “The charges are much harsher for those that sit in front of a doorway than those who steal billions of dollars, force people out of their homes, wreck the economy, and wreck people’s lives,” Goldstone, their lawyer, said. “It demonstrates there’s two systems of justice.”

Source:

Today, as the Federal Reserve meets to set monetary policy, it will also be bracing for another round of attacks from Donald Trump. In one of the many twists of this strange election season, Trump has gone straight after Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen, saying she should be “ashamed” of keeping interest rates low, and accusing the Fed of creating a “false economy” and doing “political things.” If the Fed declines to raise rates today, as is expected, he will likely attack the central bank yet again.

The implication of Trump’s attacks is that the Fed is just another institution rigged against Trump: that Yellen is keeping rates artificially low to help the economy, which helps the Democrats look better and thus helps his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Economists, and a lot of political observers, have been horrified by Trump’s direct attacks: What seems normal for the pugnacious outsider candidate is a major violation of American political norms. Politicians aren’t supposed to push the Fed one way or the other; it's a point of pride for the Fed, and for the nation overall, that the central bank sets policy independent of political pressure. Economists credit central bank independence as one of the great economic success stories of the 20th century, paving the way for lower inflation and stronger growth.

But how far off is he, really? It's true that the Republican nominee is violating tradition: critiquing individual policy decisions shows that he doesn't respect the line between politics and monetary policy. And there’s an implicit threat that could genuinely damage the Fed’s autonomy: He’s signaling that Fed leaders would be on notice in a Trump administration, and could pay a price for making decisions he didn't like.

But the line between politics and the Fed is far blurrier than the conventional wisdom would have it—and politicians before Trump have crossed it in much more serious ways. Moreover, buried within Trump’s comments is a kernel of truth: The Federal Reserve is, by definition, not independent. Unlike the Supreme Court, the central bank is a creation of Congress and is accountable to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. It can be changed—or abolished—by Congress as well. And to pretend it's not—to treat the Fed as an entity totally removed from American politics—also leaves us powerless to talk about the ways it might be improved.

It's important to point out that Trump's immediate accusations are almost certainly wrong: Economists across the political spectrum reject Trump’s claims that Yellen is declining to raise interest rates to improve Clinton’s election odds. Yellen, who has also firmly rejected Trump’s claims, does not set monetary policy alone; it’s set by the 12 members of the Federal Open Markets Committee. (Currently, it has just ten members.) That means no individual member, or even small group of members, can tip the scales to benefit a certain candidate. And any collusion would also be difficult to hide: Transcripts of FOMC meetings are released publicly (though on a five-year delay), and Yellen testifies before Congress four times a year.

“The fact that I don’t happen to agree with the conduct of policy doesn’t mean that they are being political,” said Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia Business School and former top economist to President George W. Bush, who believes rates should rise faster. “I think that’s very unfortunate.”

A real example of political interference with monetary policy occurred in the early 1970s. Taped recordings of Richard Nixon provide clear evidence that Nixon pressured then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns to adopt expansionary monetary policies to improve his reelection chances. For instance, before Burns was confirmed by Congress, Nixon told him: “I know there’s the myth of the autonomous Fed ... and when you go up for confirmation some senator may ask you about your friendship with the president. Appearances are going to be important, so you can call [Nixon economic advisor John] Ehrlichman to get messages to me, and he’ll call you.” Nixon met with Burns frequently and tacitly pressured the chairman to keep policy loose. The FOMC transcripts indicate that many Fed members had doubts about the policy decisions but voted for them anyways.

Trump’s criticism of the Fed on the campaign trail doesn’t approach Nixon’s actual interference in monetary policy from the White house. But it does raise the broader question of what constitutes "political interference" in the Fed, and what constitutes legitimate criticism. One key distinction: Nixon used his presidential powers to influence Burns, while Trump currently has no such power over Yellen. But Trump, if elected, will also nominate the next Fed chair. That inherently means his criticisms of the central bank veer closer to political interference than critiques from academics like Hubbard.

“The line is blurry,” said Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who has worked at the Fed intermittently for the past 30 years.

On substance, what constitutes a "political" attack versus a policy criticism isn't immediately clear: Trump’s comments on the Fed often are substantive, such as when he said the Fed’s policy has created “a big, fat, ugly bubble.” But given his penchant for changing positions on the institution—he first said he’d retain Yellen before saying he’d replace her, for instance—many economists have concluded that Trump’s motives are concerned more with his own advantage than any serious policy beliefs.

To some experts, the threat posed by "political" attacks on the Fed has always been overblown. “I don’t get as worked up as some people to do about what politicians say,” Gagnon said. “They are allowed to have their opinions. If they think the Fed should do something differently, they can say it.”

The long tradition of deference to the Fed’s policy independence can even pose a risk: It creates an environment in which any critique of the Fed is seen as out of line, including the idea of reforming how it works. "The Federal Reserve is a crucial public agency, so there are lots of important questions—including the selection of its leaders, the determination of their priorities, and the specific strategy that they're following—that should all be open to public discourse," said Andrew Levin, an economist at Dartmouth who spent two decades working at the Fed, including as a top advisor to Yellen and her predecessor, Ben Bernanke.

Levin has been part of a movement that has put a few cracks in the protective shield around the Fed this year. Earlier this year, he published a set of recommendations for reforming the Fed in conjunction with the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign; the goal is to make the Fed's board members—currently 83 percent white, nearly three-quarters male and nearly 40 percent from financial institutions —more representative of the American public. Although it hasn’t received as much attention as Trump’s attacks on the Fed, Hillary Clinton also quietly criticized the central bank when her campaign said she supported such reforms.

To Ady Barkan, the head of the Fed Up campaign, these efforts do not constitute an unacceptable interference with the Fed’s independence, and neither do Trump’s comments. The Fed’s independence, he said, comes from its structure; its leaders are appointed, not elected, for long terms, which inherently insulates the central bank from political pressure. The Fed must still be accountable to the public though, and one way policymakers fulfill that responsibility is through public comments. For that reason, Barkan added, monetary policy decisions “are appropriate topics for political debate.”

“The main thing about Trump’s comments is that they show real ignorance about how the Fed works,” he said. “I don’t object to the idea that Trump or Hillary would object to what the Fed is doing.”

By Danny Vinik

Source

Backyard barbecues. Fireworks. A day off work. Among these traditions we look forward to on the Fourth of July, there is an even more patriotic rite of passage: the oath immigrants take to become American citizens.

Read the full article here.

Unions and groups advocating for retirees, teachers, housing, and workers' benefits are among those visiting the ornate conference rooms of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lobby for a less conventional candidate to serve as its next president.

New York Fed directors leading the search for a successor to chief William Dudley, seen as the second most influential policymaker at the U.S. central bank, invited the guests to last week's meeting to seek their advice. According to attendees and others familiar with the search, the directors are close to a "long list" of candidates and appear set to begin formal interviews within weeks.

Read the full article here.