Campaign News

Lawmakers should strip banks’ influence from the Federal Reserve’s leadership, make its regional banks publicly owned corporations and increase transparency in selecting its top leaders, according to a report released Monday by the Fed Up Coalition, a campaign led by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy.

The 17-page report — co-authored by Fed Up Coalition Campaign Manager Jordan Haedtler, economist Valerie Wilson of the Economic Policy Institute and Dartmouth College economist Andrew Levin — is a more detailed version of a Fed overhaul framework proposed in April by Levin, a former Fed staffer, and urges members of Congress to make the central bank a “fully public institution” and scrub the influence of banks from its top echelons.

The report also proposes establishing annual audits of the Fed by the Government Accountability Office, reworking the selection process of Fed regional presidents and directors, returning capital shares to commercial banks invested in the regional Fed branches and opening the 12 regional banks to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We have really strived to make a proposal that we see as sensible and pragmatic and nonpartisan,” Levin said Monday in a conference call with reporters. “Over the years, both progressives and conservatives have felt strongly that big banks should not have an undue influence in the governance and the decision-making process of the Federal Reserve, and making the Fed fully public is an important way to do that.”

The proposal differs from previous “audit the Fed” measures, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)’s legislation that failed to garner the 60 votes needed to advance during a procedural vote in January, because it would prevent “political interference” in the central bank by establishing an annual schedule for GAO audits and giving the reviews a comprehensive focus rather than allowing members of Congress or congressional committees to single out monetary policy decisions, Levin said.

The report calls for greater diversity at the Fed’s top levels — both in terms of increasing racial and ethnic diversity and limiting the influence of financial sector power-brokers. It also said policymakers should be limited to a single seven-year term. Currently, the Fed chair is appointed to a four-yeart term that can be renewed. Members of the central bank’s Board of Governors are appointed to staggered 14-year terms, but their tenures average about four years. Regional Fed presidents have renewable five-year terms, and they typically hold office for at least two decades, according to today’s report.

The authors said that refunding shares to commercial banks with stakes in the regional Fed branches would save taxpayers about $3 billion over the next 10 years.

Members of the Fed Up Coalition are scheduled to meet later this week with Fed officials, including Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Esther George, at the central bank’s annual policy symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo. The meeting with George won’t center on today’s report, but instead will focus on “presenting stories of communities that still have not recovered from the Great Recession,” Haedtler said.

By TARA JEFFRIES  

Source

Across the country, the economy is supposed to be slowly picking up, but the unemployment rate for Blacks is still about twice the rate of whites. A report by Progress Illinois said the state’s Black unemployment rate is one of the worst in the nation.

According to analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI,) only two other states, New Jersey and South Carolina have higher Black unemployment rates than Illinois. D.C. had the highest Black unemployment rate at 14.2 percent, while Tennessee had the lowest at 6.9 percent. Illinois’ Black unemployment rate declined to 11.5 percent in the second quarter of 2015, according to Progress Illinois.

The nationwide unemployment rate has fallen to about 9 percent. However, the Black jobless rate is twice the white unemployment rate of 4 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“African Americans are still unemployed at a higher rate than their white counterparts in almost every state,” said EPI economist Valerie Wilson, who conducted the unemployment analysis. “We need policies that look beyond simply reducing unemployment to pre-recession levels as an end goal.”

In a press release, Connie Razza, director of strategic research for the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), said, contrary to the improving economy, “Black America is still in the middle of a Great Recession.”

According to Progress Illinois, EPI and the Center for Popular Democracy both called on the Federal Reserve to support policies that would help Black America.

“When [Fed] Chair [Janet] Yellen and other Fed officials talk about raising interest rates in 2015, they are talking about intentionally slowing down the economy and job growth, which would make it harder for most Americans, and particularly Black workers, to find good-paying jobs,” Razza said. “The direct consequences of the Fed’s projected interest rate hikes would harm millions of workers.”

A tight labor market, which we have now, benefits employers since there are more people looking for fewer jobs. This allows employers to keep labor costs low and easily fire workers, because there are hundreds of people lined up to replace them. Razza said the Fed needs to support policies that would move towards a full employment economy.

“A full-employment economy, as we saw in the late 1990s, shrinks racial inequity and will bring particular benefits to Black workers, who are disproportionately unemployed, underemployed, underpaid, and endure more difficult scheduling circumstances in the workplace,” Razza said.

Black unemployment has been a long-standing problem. The Labor Department began tracking employment figures by race in 1972 and since then the Black jobless rate has stubbornly remained at twice the white rate. Employment experts say its not just a matter of training and education. Studies have shown Black men with college educations have higher unemployment rates than white men with just a high school education.

However, economists say the improving economy is making it easier for all Americans, including Black people, to find work.

“Now, you’re starting to see a broad recovery which is reaching groups with high unemployment rates like African-Americans and teens,” said Michael Madowitz, an economist at the American Center for Progress in a CNN article.

This issue was also brought up during the last Republican debate.

“Once you have economic growth, it’s important we reach out to people who live in the shadows… which includes people in our minority community and people who feel they don’t have the chance to move up,” said Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate.

Source: Atlanta Black Star

The message was often strident, but the mood of Friday afternoon’s “Still We Rise” march was spirited. More than 1,500 demonstrators, some in strollers, marched down Grant Street under the wing of a gold-crested phoenix, a mythical bird whose rebirth from its own ashes captured the march theme.

“It was beautiful, it was powerful, and it was peaceful,” said Erin Kramer, the head of local activist group One Pittsburgh.

The march drew support from People’s Convention, a two-day gathering of left-leaning community activist groups from 30 states. Demonstrators wielded caricatures of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and UPMC head Jeffrey Romoff, in complementary shades of red-orange. And they made frequent stops along Grant Street, where speakers denounced what they saw as cases of racial and economic injustice.

Check back for more updated video with interviews and more scenes from the "Still We Rise" march to protest growing inequality and hate. (Video by Pam Panchak; edited by Melissa Tkach)

A key concern was rising distrust between police and minority groups nationwide. This week, two African-American men, Louisiana resident Alton Sterling and Minnesota resident Philando Castile, died at the hands of police. Five officers were killed by a sniper during a Thursday protest in Dallas.

Outside the Allegheny County Courthouse, demonstrators chanted “Indict, convict, send those killer cops to jail. The whole damn system is guilty as hell.” Still, while a stepped-up police presence was noticeable during the march, there was little tension.

“I’m not feeling any concern” about the marchers, said Police Chief Cameron McLay, who was on hand for the event. Police, he said, were watching for “what else is out there,” including possible attacks on the marchers themselves. The chief called the event “a positive demonstration of First Amendment rights.”

Michelle Tremillo, executive director of the Texas Organizing Project, said members of her organization had participated in the Dallas protest. "It took us until 1 a.m. to make sure that all of our people were home safely," she said. "I was struggling to be here."

"My heart aches for Alton’s family, my heart aches for Philando’s family, and my heart aches for those police officers and their families," Ms. Tremillo said.

But she and others said they hoped shock over the Dallas shooting wouldn’t obscure the racial- and economic-justice issues raised by the march. "I'd hate for that to get lost."

Outside the federal courthouse, demonstrators called for the release of Martin Esquivel-Hernandez, a Mexico-born Pittsburgh resident facing deportation. In May, the Department of Justice said Mr. Esquivel-Hernandez had previously been removed from the United States four times. But Friday his wife, Alma, held aloft his shoes and through an interpreter called him a “father of a U.S. citizen [and] a hard worker. The system has failed him and all of us.”

The march ended outside Republican Sen. Pat Toomey’s office in Station Square, where demonstrators decried fracking for natural gas.

“We wanted to display unity and make the connection between racial justice and economic justice,” said Ana Maria Archila, a co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, which is hosting the convention. “And the march really achieved that.”

By Chris Potter

Source

New York Times - January 11, 2014, by Shaila Dewan - You can’t fight city hall, the saying goes. But Gayle McLaughlin, the mayor of Richmond, Calif., a city of 100,000 souls, would tell you that fighting Wall Street is harder. Even for city hall.

Ms. McLaughlin has a plan to help the many Richmond residents who owe more money on their houses than their houses are worth, but it’s one that banks like Wells Fargo, large asset managers like Pimco and BlackRock, real estate interests and even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, have tried to quash. Her idea involves a novel use of the power of eminent domain to bail out homeowners by buying up and then forgiving mortgage debt.

But the financial institutions have warned that mortgage lending would halt in any city that tried eminent domain — and they have lobbied Congress to ensure that the threat is not an empty one. Opponents have filed federal lawsuits, while real estate interests have made robocalls to residents and sent mass mailers warning that the plan would allow “slick, politically connected” investors to “take houses on the cheap.” (The idea is actually to buy mortgages, not houses.)

Under similar pressures, at least four other cities that considered the eminent domain strategy have backed away, deeming the risks too great. But advocates in Richmond say their city is different. They hope a unique alignment of anti-corporate political leadership, a concerted grass-roots campaign and union support will lead to a different outcome in this working-class, largely black and Hispanic community in the Bay Area. For a dozen or so other cities that have similar demographics and are also plagued by foreclosures, Richmond has become a national test case.

Those cities, scattered in states from New Jersey to Washington, have watched as the controversial proposal has threatened Richmond’s access to capital: When the city tried to market a highly rated set of bonds in mid-August last year, there were no takers.

In September, the Richmond City Council was preparing to take one of a series of votes on the eminent domain proposal. Before the meeting, opponents amassed at a hot-dog stand near city hall. A local real estate association, backed by money from the National Association of Realtors, offered free dinners to those who showed up to don red “A Bad Deal for Richmond” T-shirts; the group included a huddle of fraternity brothers brought in from Berkeley. If eminent domain were used, a young man who declined to identify himself was telling them, a for-profit company would make big money, and teacher and firefighter pensions would be hurt.

The eminent-domain strategy is not a fabulous idea. Like virtually every other proposal to help homeowners hurt by the housing crash, it tries for simplicity but falters in the face of the enormity of the post-financial-crisis mess, and, as markets improve, it may come too late to make much difference. The plan’s legality and wisdom have been debated in editorials and blog posts, with questions ranging from the true value of the mortgages to whether the chosen homeowners deserve the help.

But to advocates, eminent domain offers perhaps the only chance to remedy the failure of the federal government and mortgage servicers to offer widespread, meaningful relief to the hardest-hit communities.

Housing markets around the country may be improving, but about 28 percent of all mortgages in Richmond are deeply underwater (meaning that the homeowners owe significantly more than their homes are worth), compared with 19 percent nationally, according to RealtyTrac.

The local foreclosure rate is declining, but it’s still much higher than the national one. In light of this, the mayor shows no sign of backing down. “The risk that is really confronting us,” she said, “is waiting on the sidelines for the next wave of foreclosures.”

When the council first voted on eminent domain, in April, members were unanimously in favor. But then the opposition campaign began. Ms. McLaughlin predicted that her motion that September night would pass with five of seven council votes, but it squeaked by with just four. Jeffrey Wright, a real estate broker who is leading the local opposition, was satisfied.

“This underwater mortgage bailout program,” he said later, “is on life support.”

The day after the vote, Ms. McLaughlin was in her office, working on an entirely different project: getting ready for a trip to Ecuador, at the invitation of that country’s president, to tour the damage that courts there have ruled was caused by oil drilling by Texaco, now owned by Chevron.

It is Chevron, not mortgage debt relief, that has defined much of Ms. McLaughlin’s tenure. The company, which has a large refinery in Richmond, is the city’s largest taxpayer and employer, and Ms. McLaughlin has led the fight — first as an activist, and then as mayor — to force Chevron to pay higher taxes and to pay more damages after a refinery explosion last year sent thousands of area residents to emergency rooms.

A longtime advocate of left-wing causes, Ms. McLaughlin, a Green Party member, is part of a Richmond political alliance that has vowed not to accept corporate campaign donations. In 2010, she was re-elected over a Chevron-backed challenger. She helped ease policies that criminalized homelessness and harried illegal immigrants, and brought a solar panel factory and a branch of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to town.

But Richmond was staggered by the recession. Homes in the city lost 66 percent of their value, on average, and are still worth less than half what they were at their peak, in January 2006. Some 16 percent of homeowners lost their homes in foreclosure, leaving so many scars on neighborhoods that the city began fining banks $1,000 a day if they failed to maintain their property; the city has collected $1.5 million so far.

Richmond held sessions where homeowners could meet with bank representatives and legal aid groups, but too often, the mayor says, the efforts came to naught. Last summer, underwater homeowners owed, on average, 45 percent more than the value of their homes, according to the city manager.

So the mayor was all ears when she heard about the eminent domain plan, from both Mortgage Resolution Partners, a company that hopes to make money by administering and financing the plan for many cities, and from her longtime ally, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, an offshoot of Acorn.

The A.C.C.E. thought an earlier attempt to use eminent domain, in San Bernardino County, had failed because of a lack of grass-roots support. So in Richmond it held a door-knocking campaign. Its success was seen when more than 100 people, most in favor, signed up to speak at the September meeting. It lasted seven hours.

Using eminent domain to heal the wounds of the mortgage crisis has been called crazy, unconstitutional and even “one of the worst ideas ever.” But it is not so far removed from mainstream thinking. In 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona, then the Republican presidential candidate, suggested using $300 billion in federal bailout money to buy troubled mortgages and write them down.

The problem was that the mortgages had been bundled into pools and resold to thousands of investors all over the world. The rules governing many of the pools forbade the investors’ representative, known as the trustee, from selling off mortgages or modifying them unless they were already in default, even though it might be in the investors’ interest to do so.

Scholars suggested that eminent domain could give trustees the legal cover they needed to get rid of the bad loans. So far, though, the investors have not seen it that way. In Richmond, investors (including BlackRock and Pimco) asked their trustees, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank, to sue the city to stop the program.

Eminent domain allows governments to condemn property for a public purpose, like building a road or eliminating urban decay, and applies to intangible property like mortgages as well as to real estate. Richmond argues that its public purpose is to prevent foreclosures and the blight of vacant properties. The idea is to buy those mortgages out of the bundles and restructure them, restoring equity to the homeowners and keep them from defaulting.

Opponents of the plan argue in legal briefs that the risk of default now, so long after the crash, is vastly overstated. More than half of the 624 homeowners initially identified for the program are current on their payments. Not only that, 91 of the loans have already received a modification that included debt forgiveness — though many early modifications were unsustainable. Then there is the question of whether homeowners who got cash by refinancing their homes during the bubble — taking out new, riskier mortgages, as many of these did — deserve help now. (Ms. McLaughlin says the homeowners fell prey to unscrupulous lenders.) Lastly, opponents calculate that with rising home values, almost a third of the homeowners aren’t even underwater, a figure that Mortgage Resolution Partners disputes.

Opponents argue that the plan may help certain homeowners but hurt other working-class people whose pension funds invested in the loans. But pensioners and those stuck in underwater mortgages are often the same people, said Stephen Abrecht, an official of the Service Employees International Union, which supports the use of eminent domain. “We have members who are locked into these kinds of situations and can’t get out of it,” he said. “We think it’s a drag on the economy and we’re interested in seeing the economy take off again.”

Mr. Wright, the real estate agent, said that what bothers him most about the plan is that it will help so few; no one with loans backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which guarantee a majority of mortgages, is included. “They’re bearing these placards saying, ‘Save our homes’ and they don’t even realize that this program won’t benefit them,” he says. “There’s a lot of false hope and that irritates me, that really irritates me.”

Wall Street also objects to the plan on principle, portraying it not as a targeted response to an extraordinary event — the housing crash — but as a dangerous precedent that disrupts contracts and would all but end mortgage lending.

“Why would anybody think that private investors would provide additional capital to the mortgage finance market when somebody thinks it’s O.K. to take it from them?” asked Tim Cameron, the head of the asset management group for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Wall Street trade association that has been spearheading the campaign against eminent domain.

Sifma and its allies have lobbied Congress to obstruct lending in any area where mortgages are vulnerable to government condemnation and have urged support for a bill from Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, that would bar any federal guarantee for such loans.

After Richmond voted to pursue eminent domain, Sifma officials flew out to meet with city officials, providing them with a thick binder of analysis and research reports warning of potential negative consequences. Then these officials went a step further, said Bill Lindsay, the city manager, by placing a phone call to the city’s bond underwriter and complaining that the disclosure language in a coming offering — to refinance some old economic development bonds — did not adequately disclose the legal risks of the mortgage plan.

Cheryl Crispen, a spokeswoman for Sifma, said the call was routine. “Sifma staff regularly inquire with underwriters to understand market trends, and did so to better understand the impact the threat of taking mortgages was having on the offering and consequently the municipal bond market more broadly,” she said. The underwriter, RBC Capital Markets, concurred that Sifma did not try to interfere in the offering, which was halted when there was no interest from investors.

But Mr. Lindsay said all the attention was unusual. “I’ve handled 40 different bond issuances,” he said. “I never even heard of Sifma before this.”

In 2002, the Georgia Legislature passed the toughest predatory-lending law in the country. Hailed as a victory for consumers, it was intended to prevent abusive practices like steering customers to high-interest loans. Lenders immediately started trying to dismantle the law, warning that the “good guys” would no longer make loans to people with poor credit.

Some lenders did pull out of the state, and two of the three ratings agencies said they could no longer rate Georgia loans for resale to investors because they could be sued under the law. The state banking commissioner estimated that the mortgage market shrank by 15 percent. The following year, after a nasty fight, lawmakers gutted the statute.

Sifma officials point to this affair as proof that messing with housing finance can have ruinous effects. But it is an example that offers other lessons, too.

The loans that disappeared from the market after the law was passed were the same kinds of subprime loans that set off the foreclosure wave; conventional 30-year mortgages were not affected. The lenders whose departure was met with such alarm included Countrywide Financial, whose practices during the housing boom have cost billions in legal settlements.

In an article in   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, experts concluded that had the law stayed intact, the housing crisis would have been less dire in the state, which became one of the hardest-hit. The article even implied that the whole country might have fared better, because “the Georgia drama also stemmed a tide of similar laws that were being considered in other states.”

Richmond has not yet tried to use eminent domain. The City Council must vote again before that happens. But the beating the city is taking from financial institutions makes the idea less likely to catch on in places like Irvington, N.J., and El Monte, Calif., which have expressed interest.

Richmond’s mayor says she has always known it would be a slog. “I’m not trying to minimize what we’re dealing with; it’s just like, if you’re willing to buck up against an unjust set of circumstances, you’re going to have those attacks coming at you,” Ms. McLaughlin said. “And in some sense that says you’re doing your job.”

Source