CPD IN THE NEWS

The controversial federal program that clouded the HUD secretary's VP prospects gets a timely overhaul.

Julian Castro’s Housing and Urban Development Department announced significant changes Thursday to a federal program that sold delinquent mortgages to private investors — a move that mollified progressive critics who threatened to undermine his vice presidential prospects.

With three weeks remaining until the Democratic convention and Hillary Clinton’s campaign narrowing down its list of potential ticket mates, the U.S. housing agency said it is changing a controversial program to give delinquent homeowners a new chance to reduce the principal they owe on their mortgage. The changes also prohibit financial firms from giving up on trying to sell or recuperate decrepit properties the businesses would rather walk away from.

As HUD secretary since 2014, Castro had been under attack from by at least 11 Latino and populist groups for his oversight of the department’s “distressed asset stabilization program,” which sold struggling homeowners’ mortgages to hedge funds. Castro, they alleged, failed to deliver on a HUD promise to sell more mortgages to non-profit community groups instead of financial firms.

Started in 2012, the program’s two stated objectives are to help struggling residents while also clearing billions of dollars of bad debt off the agency’s books. But liberals have argued the program undermines homeowner protections, especially for people in low-income neighborhoods, as HUD sold mortgages to the same financial firms that exploited borrowers in the lead-up to the 2008-2009 recession.

The changes came not long after Castro surfaced on Clinton's short list of vice presidential candidates — along with Sens. Tim Kaine and Elizabeth Warren — leading to immediate speculation about the HUD secretary’s political motivations.

Warren was among those calling for major reforms to the program.

 “Given that Secretary Castro has only spent a brief time on the national stage, the black mark caused by the distressed asset issue stands out prominently on his record,” said Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research for Compass Point Research & Trading in Washington. He covers housing policy.

“There is no question that the left’s attack of this program generally — and Secretary Castro specifically — lowered the odds of him being tapped,” he said.

As severely-delinquent mortgages accumulated after the recession, the Federal Housing Administration, a division of HUD, needed to reduce debt liabilities to the government.

Under the program, delinquent loans held by banks but insured by the FHA are sold to new buyers, including hedge funds, private-equity firms and non-profit community groups. Through May 2016, HUD sold more than 105,000 FHA-insured loans valued at $17 billion, according to a report by the National Consumer Law Center.

Castro has not said much publicly about the program, which in recent weeks erupted into a politically-charged issue for the Obama administration, said sources with familiar with the situation.

The program was supposed to give struggling homeowners another chance to avoid foreclosure. But researchers following the program said that financial companies have used it to circumvent homeowner safeguards.

“If you have an option of selling your loan through [the] DASP, then you don’t have to go through state foreclosure procedures that have the consumer protections in them and actually help enforce FHA rules,” said Geoff Walsh, author of NCLC’s report. He previously worked as an attorney with Vermont Legal Aid, Inc. and specialized in housing, consumer and bankruptcy areas. “A lot of damage has been done,” he said.

The liberal groups held Castro responsible for the program’s flaws, even though it started before his tenure at HUD. But the groups immediately applauded HUD’s new changes to the program that they had advocated for.

Their website attacking Castro was still live on Friday, though it will be updated to reflect HUD’s changes, said Matt Nelson, managing director of Presente.org, which claims to be the largest U.S. online Latino organizing group.

Housing experts acknowledged that pressure from advocacy groups — which used the issue to question Castro’s progressive credentials — played a role in the revisions.

“But for his potential to be vice president, these changes probably don’t get made,” said Edward Gorman, head of community development for the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, whose members include nonprofits that buy DASP loans.

“It was the specific targeting of the secretary on this issue and the gathering of liberal senators in support that caused the [Obama] administration and the secretary particularly to take another look at this issue,” he said. “This will be fodder for Republicans. This will become a political issue.”

For Castro, it had already metastasized into an issue that clouded his vice presidential prospects. Widely regarded as one of the Democratic Party’s rising Latino stars, the former San Antonio mayor was targeted by a coalition of activist groups that recognized the leverage afforded to them by a presidential primary fight colored by questions about Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and Bernie Sanders’ populist, anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

“HUD has continually enhanced the DASP program by making improvements before every sale since 2014,” an agency spokeswoman said in a statement. “As a result, tens of thousands of families have been able to remain in their home or avoid foreclosure through the program.”

Maurice Weeks, a housing staffer at the Center for Popular Democracy, one of the groups supporting the attack on Castro’s handling of the DASP, said he is grateful to see the changes HUD announced. But his group will want to make sure the changes actually result in better conditions for communities.

“It became a political problem for Castro since he’s the head of that department,” Weeks said. “We didn’t set out to determine if Castro was a good VP candidate or not. Our focus was on homeowners across the country.”

By PATRICK TEMPLE-WEST

Source

Before 81 senators, including 33 Democrats, voted on Monday to reopen the federal government, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer blamed President Donald Trump in a speech on the Senate floor for his refusal to compromise on an immigration deal.

For many liberals in his home state, however, Schumer is to blame for being too willing to compromise, since he agreed to reopen the government without a permanent solution for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Read the full article here.

The fund was set up following negotiations between the private equity firms and various public interest groups that organized the employees, including Organization United for Respect, Private Equity Stakeholder Project and Center for Popular Democracy. "This Fund begins to ensure the hard-working people who spent their lives building Toys 'R' Us and making children happy are not left out in the cold," said Marilyn Muniz, a New York-based Toys "R" employee for nearly 20 years.

Read the full article here.

There’s no question that race and gender matter in determining people’s economic fortunes. African Americans’ unemployment rate is typically twice as high as that of whites. The racial wealth gap has widened since the financial crisis, when African Americans and Hispanics—who had a disproportionate share of their wealth tied up in their homes—disproportionately suffered from subprime loans and foreclosures. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances finds that the median wealth of a white family in 2013, the last year studied, was $134,008. For Hispanics, it was just $13,900. For African-Americans, $11,184. And as everyone knows, or should, women still make 79 cents for every dollar men make.

These deficiencies are more likely to be ignored when our most important economic policymakers don’t reflect the faces of all Americans. Yesterday, 127 Democratic members of Congress wrote to Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen about the lack of diversity at the central bank. “The leadership across the Federal Reserve System remains overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male,” the letter notes. Led by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, this high-level challenge also castigates the Fed for being dominated by former and current executives of financial institutions and large corporations, rather than people with backgrounds in academia, labor, or consumer organizations.

The voices of those left behind most egregiously in the economic recovery are simply not present in Fed deliberations.

Momentum to fix the Fed’s diversity problem grew on Thursday when Hillary Clinton endorsed the viewpoints expressed in the letter. Her spokesperson Jesse Ferguson told The Washington Post, “Secretary Clinton believes that the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole and that commonsense reforms—like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks—are long overdue.”

The Fed’s lack of diversity might actually violate the law. Under the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, regional Federal Reserve bank directors are required to “represent the public, without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, and with due but not exclusive consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor, and consumers.” The original Federal Reserve Act only mandated representation from agriculture, commerce, and industry.

It’s unclear what enforcement of that 1977 requirement would look like. But clearly the Fed isn’t living up to it. The members of Congress rely on a February report from the Center for Popular Democracy, organizers of the “Fed Up” coalition, which has pressured the central bank to adopt pro-worker policies. According to their figures, 83 percent of Federal Reserve board members are white, and 72 percent are male. Among the twelve regional Fed bank presidents, only Neel Kashkari of the Minneapolis Fed is non-white, and only Esther George (Kansas City) and Loretta Mester (Cleveland) are female. And among voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which makes monetary policy decisions, it’s even worse: All ten currently serving members are white.

The lack of occupational diversity is also pretty stark. The Center for Popular Democracy studied the regional feds’ boards of directors, finding that 39 percent represent financial institutions. The Fed’s role as a key supervisor of major banks makes this highly suspect—especially considering there is no mandate for financial interests to be represented on the Fed board.

Another 29 percent of the Fed regional directors represent commerce and industry. Only 11 percent come from community, labor, consumer, or academic organizations. Even representation from the service sector, which has an overly non-white workforce and has expanded in recent years, has shrunk as a percentage of Fed bank-board members relative to 2010, the last time the boards’ makeup was studied.

It’s unusual for members of Congress to take such a public stand on the Federal Reserve, given their mindfulness of central bank independence. But they are recognizing that the lack of diversity has an important effect on economic policy. A more diverse Fed might pay more attention to how far communities of color are from full employment when deciding whether or not to raise interest rates, which they are now deliberating. A more diverse Fed might not be as consumed with the concerns of finance and industry, and their desire to keep inflation and wages low. It might consider how banks have traditionally preyed on communities of color, and target its supervision activities to reflect that.

The voices of those left behind most egregiously in the recovery are simply not present in Fed deliberations. The members of Congress cited a recent blog post by former Minneapolis Fed president Narayana Kocherlakota, who said that “there is one key source of economic difference in American life that is likely underemphasized in FOMC deliberations: race.” Kocherlakota searched transcripts of FOMC meetings from 2010 (the most recent ones released). That entire year, African American unemployment stood at 15.5 percent or above. But, writes Kocherlakota, “Based on that search, my conclusion is that there was no reference in the meetings to labor market conditions among African Americans.”

Traditionally, public pressure on the central bank has come from the right, from the likes of Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” movement. Progressives were largely absent from the conversation, despite the Fed’s central economic role. No more: Thursday’s letter to Yellen is the biggest success yet for the Fed Up campaign, launched two years ago to amplify the voices of communities that didn’t benefit from the recovery. The campaign has brought together labor and community groups to demand that the Fed take its mandate to maximize employment seriously—taking into account all communities, not just affluent ones. And now Fed Up’s views have become dominant in the Democratic Party.

In addition to the hefty names of Sanders and Warren, co-signers include 116 House Democrats, more than half of the caucus, as well as the ranking members of the Financial Services Committee (Maxine Waters) and the Monetary Policy Subcommittee (Gwen Moore), the committees with oversight of the Fed. And Clinton’s endorsement of Fed Up’s sentiment puts most of the ideological spectrum of the party on the side of reform.

But what does reform look like? The Center for Popular Democracy’s February report recommends that each regional board contain at least one member from a labor group, a community organization, academia, and a community bank or credit union. A separate reform proposal from former Yellen advisor Andrew Levin includes a number of ideas, including banning anyone affiliated with a financial institution from serving as a Fed director.

These ideas can be congressionally mandated. That will take time, of course, but the movement has begun to get Democrats off the sidelines to pressure the Fed. When Yellen testified before the House and Senate in February, giving her semi-annual Monetary Policy Report, she received questions about the lack of diversity from 15 different members of Congress. Yellen expressed concern that, among other things, no African American has ever led a regional Federal Reserve bank in U.S. history.

The fact that political pressure can make a difference was again signified by the quick response of a Fed spokesman to Thursday’s letter. The Fed statement said the central bank has “focused considerable attention in recent years on recruiting directors with diverse backgrounds and experience.” Those aspirations have not yet translated into results, however, even after the Fed established an internal diversity office in 2011.

It’s hard for the traditionally cloistered Fed to ignore concerns when they come from high-level Democrats. And just having ordinary workers in the public debate already diversifies the Fed, in a sense. No longer can they simply be responsive to Wall Street without further discussion.

BY DAVID DAYEN

Source