Former Timesman Peter S. Goodman is out of the gates fast over at The Huffington Post.
He points out the hypocrisy of Republicans calling for investigations of Elizabeth Warren and her setting up of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Supposedly she’s not being “transparent” enough. The gall! Compare that to, say, Dick Cheney’s doings, Goodman says:
Recently enough that you may still recall it, a secretive, paranoid man who had previously headed a major multinational energy company found himself vice president of the United States. This man deliberated privately with the heads of major oil companies as his administration set up a new energy policy that, perhaps coincidentally, wound up being strikingly generous to oil companies. The same man played a crucial role in leading the nation into a disastrous and costly war in a country that — again, perhaps coincidentally — held the world’s second-largest oil reserves.
And he lands a blow on the Obama administration while getting to the GOP:
Far be it from anyone to defend the Obama Treasury against charges that it lacks transparency. From its handling of its feckless homeowner-aid program, sold as a fix to the foreclosure crisis, to its administering of the Wall Street bailouts begun by its predecessors, this Treasury has been a maddening and combative model of misinformation, evasion and outright dishonesty. Again and again, it has sided with Wall Street over the public’s right to know, protecting Goldman Sachs and Bank of America in much the same way Dick Cheney lavished his nurturing ways on Halliburton and Exxon.
But this idea that Republicans in Congress are now pursuing the public interest in challenging Warren’s authority, trying to derail her devious plot to make the world safe for people with credit cards and bank accounts, is nothing short of hilarious. It is a brazen exercise in what regular people call balls, one that must be admired for its sheer, breathtaking nature.
Indeed.
— Thomas A. Cox, the Maine attorney who helped blow the foreclosure scandal wide open, writes an excellent post for New Deal 2.0 about how utterly stupid the banks can be in taking people’s houses away.
A woman couldn’t pay the $28,000 second note on her $48,000 house. She was still current on the first mortgage, on which she owed a bit more than the house was worth.
She was having trouble accepting the fact that it would really evict her, since she owed $50,000 on her first mortgage to a local bank, a loan on which she was current in her payments, which meant that KeyBank could recover nothing by foreclosing on its second mortgage. She told me again how, even though she had lost her job in the local paper mill, she had found other, but much lower, employment income and that she was able and willing to make reduced payments on the second mortgage. But KeyBank refused to accept reduced payments.
- 1
- 2
Obviously, taking the median net worth of 500 people you are going to get a lot more noise and fluctuation than you do with 300 million people. Still, it's interesting, though the presentation is unhelpful and inflammatory without a thorough analysis to go along with the graphics. You can clearly see the housing bubble there in the net worth of the population -- overinflated housing values constitute most of that rise and the busting of the bubble, the fall. The unemployment rate shows there where the net worth in 2009 drops just below that in 2005.
Given that many of our elected officials are wealthy, and have been wealthy, it would have been helpful to compare the median net worth of the top 1% along with these two graphs. I think we know that it would look much like the one for the Congress, since they are among the wealthy few. To do otherwise kind of leaves the implication hanging out there that members of Congress are making themselves rich by doing something illegal, and that isn't the case in most instances. So I'm not a fan of the graph; it's misleading and inflammatory producing heat through innuendo without much light.
It's kind of egregious that the caption on this graph was "Congress' Median Household Net Worth: One Picture Is Worth 1000 Words" when it needed about 1000 words to explain the graphs. But he didn't bother to do that. The OpenSecrets blog did a better job there.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 24 Nov 2010 at 03:36 AM
@ James
>> To do otherwise kind of leaves the implication hanging out there that members of Congress are making themselves rich by doing something illegal, and that isn't the case in most instances.
I don't see illegality in the graph. Instead I see the average net worth of members of congress approaching nearly a million bucks. Politicians aren't exactly known for their empathy. And I think it's generally true that the richer the politician - the lower the level of empathy.
#2 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Wed 24 Nov 2010 at 04:46 AM
Why do you think this turns into an "empty and devalued property"?
If I bought that house for 44k, my family and I would live in it, fix it up if that was needed, and we'd pay our property taxes, insurance, and the like. If my sister bought it, she'd probably rent it out to some young military family. KeyBank's loss is someone's opportunity for gain.
And the original owner? She'll probably tire of living in her daughter's basement soon and will now be able to search nationwide for a job that pays a living wage because her house slavery has ended. By getting out of town like her previous employer did, her odds of finding something increases a lot (think like Iowa or the Dakotas). Free at last!
#3 Posted by puttheloadrightonme, CJR on Wed 24 Nov 2010 at 10:31 AM
FMR: The chart, Jesse, and Ryun make no suggestion of illegality, so the only reason I can imagine for you bringing it up is projection (or suspicion...). Which is an interesting data point.
That said, no, Congress doesn't need to do anything illegal. It's not illegal to collect rent from lawbreakers, after all.
#4 Posted by lambert strether, CJR on Wed 24 Nov 2010 at 10:38 AM
Jesse's chart is just showing that the stock market bounced in early 2009 but house prices are still sinking. Were the hedge funds held by our Congress-folks long GS and short LEH?
#5 Posted by puttheloadrightonme, CJR on Wed 24 Nov 2010 at 10:48 AM
Congress trully believes the United States is Too Big To Fail, that is why Business As Usual Will Continue until Total Economic Collapse Hits and not a second before.
#6 Posted by Opinionated Bloviator, CJR on Wed 24 Nov 2010 at 09:04 PM