Who's Making Money

This week, we find guests on the Sunday public affairs shows making false statements about disclosure of political funds, whether a Senate candidate pushed to have terrorists tried in his home state or favored letting states ban private health insurance, and whether middle-income families would pay more if the Bush tax cuts were extended for everybody.

Rove’s Lame Claim

Republican strategist Karl Rove misled viewers of CBS’ "Face the Nation" with a false claim that labor unions aren’t disclosing where they get the millions they are spending in the 2010 elections.

Rove: Four unions alone will — will have — according to their own announcements spent $222 million in — in money on elections this year.

Host Bob Shieffer: But we know who they are.

Rove: No, no, no you don’t, Bob. Here’s the disclosure report for the — for — for one who’s going to spend 87 and a half million dollars — the American Federation of State commun– local and Community Employees. There’s their disclosure where the money has come from. That line — that one line right there. They’re going to take in $190,477,829, and that’s the extent of where you know where it’s coming from. So there’s a lot of money floating around in politics that’s not disclosed.

Rove got it wrong on several counts, including the name of the union and the time period covered. The document he held up was an annual report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor on March 26 by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It does not say how much AFSCME is "going to take in," but rather reports the big labor union’s actual receipts for calendar year 2009. The union’s total receipts were more than Rove said — $202,503,691. The figure he pointed to is a subtotal, reported on line 37.

Most important, though, Rove was wrong to say that the source of the money is "not disclosed." In fact, it is. The very line to which he pointed — line 37 — states that the money is from the "per capita tax" that the national union places on its locals, which in turn comes from the monthly dues — amounting to 2 percent of pay — collected from more than 1.5 million AFSCME members.

The full report to which Rove referred can be found at the public disclosure site of the Labor Department. (Type in 000-289 under "file number," or search by union name.) Since the full report runs to several hundred pages, and the Labor website won’t permit us to provide a direct link, we have posted the first few summary pages and highlighted some of the pertinent entries for the convenience of readers.

Republicans and conservatives have complained for years about the use of union dues money for political purposes, saying it gives Democrats an unfair advantage. That’s a matter of opinion. But Rove is wrong to claim that there’s any mystery about the source.

Full Disclosure

Not to be outdone by Rove, two Democrats on two Sunday shows made false and misleading statements about the Disclose Act, a Democrat-backed piece of legislation calling for greater disclosure in political giving and independent expenditures. On ABC’s "This Week," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said:

Kaine: Every Democrat in Congress has supported the Disclose Act that would require anyone supporting any candidate to disclose.

That’s not true. Thirty-six Democrats in the House voted against the bill. It passed the House by a close 219-206 vote in June. Republicans have successfully blocked a vote in the Senate, where all Democrats did back the legislation.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Christopher Van Hollen of Maryland, also falsely said on "Face the Nation" that only one Republican supported the legislation. Two members of the GOP voted for it — Anh Cao of Louisiana and Michael Castle of Delaware.

Van Hollen: We had a bill in the House and the Senate, it was called the Disclose Act. It would require all these different interests whether they are left, center or right, to disclose, to tell the voters who they are, so the voters could exercise their own judgment. Every Republican, but one voted against it.

The legislation is more controversial than Kaine and Van Hollen let on. Both conservative and liberal groups opposed some of the provisions. The Disclose Act would require independent expenditures of more than $10,000 to be reported within 24 hours and the identities of those giving at least $600 to be disclosed. It also would ban political spending by government contractors (with at least a $10 million contract), recipients of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and those negotiating for oil and gas exploration in the outer continental shelf. Corporations and unions would have to disclose their top funders in political ads. The bill would exempt organizations that receive 15 percent or less of their money from corporations and unions, and that have at least 500,000 members. The House version, but not the Senate’s, exempted labor unions from reporting requirements of money transfers to affiliates.

Sestak ‘Advocated’ to Move Terror Trial to Pa.?

On "Fox News Sunday," Republican Pat Toomey cited several examples of why he considers Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, his opponent in the Pennsylvania Senate race, an "extreme" liberal. But Toomey went too far when he discussed the controversy over whether the U.S. should try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian or military court. Speaking of Sestak, Toomey said:

Toomey: He’s even advocated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of 9/11, be given a civilian trial in Pennsylvania, which is a terrible idea.

As we have reported, Sestak is a supporter of trying Mohammed in civilian court, saying it would "show the strength of the American judicial system." But it is a stretch to say that he "advocated" holding Mohammed’s trial in Pennsylvania. Sestak has said he would accept a civilian trial for the alleged 9/11 terrorists anywhere in America, including Pennsylvania.

Fun with Committee Votes

In another instance, Toomey portrays Sestak as "extreme" because of a committee vote he cast during the health care debate.

Toomey, Oct. 24: The health care bill he voted for — and in committee he voted for a version of the bill that would have allowed states to ban all private health insurance altogether.

That’s true, but misleading. In fact, Sestak voted against an amendment that would have allowed, in Toomey’s words, "states to ban all private health insurance altogether."

Here’s what happened: Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio offered an amendment to America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 on July 17, 2009, that would have given states the option of creating a single-payer health care system run by that state’s government. Sestak voted against the amendment, but surprisingly it passed 27-19 with 13 Republican votes. Sestak later voted to report the full bill out of the Committee on Education and Labor. The single-payer provision was soon stripped out of the version that passed the House, however.

So, Toomey is correct in saying that Sestak "voted for a version" of the health care bill that included a single-payer system, because the bill Sestak voted out of committee included the Kucinich amendment. But it’s simply false to imply that he favored that provision, which he’s on record as opposing.

Is Toomey the DSCC’s No. 1 Target?

In discussing why the Pennsylvania race has begun to tighten, Toomey suggested it was because of the ads being run against him by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Toomey, Oct. 24: You know, the other side has spent a great deal of money. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has spent more money attacking me than any other candidate in the country. That may very well explain part of this tightening.

It’s not quite true, however, that the DSCC is spending the most money attacking Toomey. The Pennsylvania race ranks second behind the Colorado Senate race, according to the Federal Election Commission. As of Oct. 22, the FEC database of independent expenditures shows that the DSCC has spent $6.3 million in Colorado and $5.9 million in Pennsylvania. That’s still a lot, but not the most.

Also, as we have written before, the Pennsylvania race has attracted a lot of money from outside groups on both sides. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that the two campaigns have received roughly the same amount of support from outside groups, including party committees and independent groups.

Florida Senate Debate

CNN’s "State of the Union" hosted a debate between Florida’s three Senate candidates: Gov. Charlie Crist, Rep. Kendrick Meek and Marco Rubio. We found all three making questionable or incorrect claims.

Meek, a Democrat, claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent Americans would mean "middle-class families throughout America have to pay $6,000 per year." But that’s not correct, and even the Meek campaign admits it.

According to President Obama’s budget proposal for the 2011 fiscal year, allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans could raise $678.3 billion in revenues over 10 years. The Meek campaign divided that by 116 million, a 2007 U.S. Census Bureau estimate for U.S. households, to get almost $6,000 per family. But Meek expressed this as a "per year" cost instead of a 10-year cost. Meek’s camp said that he meant to say "over 10 years."

More important, of course, middle-income families would not pay more at all — at least not immediately. The taxes of families making less than $250,000 a year would remain the same under Obama’s proposal as they would if the cuts are extended for those making more. Meek would have been correct to say that the annual federal deficit would increase by some average amount per family, but they wouldn’t actually "pay" that amount per year.

Crist, a Republican who is now running as an Independent, claimed to have "signed into law the largest tax cut" in Florida’s history. But the fact-checkers at PolitiFact Florida have rated this claim "false" on two previous occasions. 

Crist is referring to legislation (House Bill 1B and House Bill 5B) that cut property taxes in the state and that he signed into law in 2007. The savings for those bills combined is estimated to be $25 billion over five years. But PolitiFact said that figure is questionable, and that at least one other tax cut is higher:

PolitiFact Florida, March 2: Specifically, the governor’s $25 billion estimate could be accurate only if:

• Property tax values increased as analysts predicted back when the tax package was passed (3 to 5 percent a year), and;


• Local governments failed to reduce their tax rates.

We will never know what governments would have done to their tax rates, but we do know about property tax values: They haven’t gone up. They’ve gone down. Taxable property values dropped 15 percent in 2008, according to figures from county property appraisers. Property values dropped again in 2009 and are expected to drop in 2010.

That means the governor’s projections are high.

Furthermore, PolitiFact reported that another tax cutting initiative — Save Our Homes, an amendment to the state Constitution in 1992 — resulted in more savings for state residents. "From 1996 to 2008, almost $1.9 trillion in property value went untaxed because of Save Our Homes," PolitiFact wrote. "Using a conservative tax rate of 17 mills, that equates to $32 billion less in property taxes paid — or about $2.66 billion per year without adjusting for inflation. In 2007, the savings was about $7.27 billion and from 2004 to 2008 the estimated savings was more than $26 billion."

Rubio, the Republican, repeated a GOP talking point that we’ve found to be wrong in the past. He claimed that "even with the president’s massive tax increases, the debt will double by the middle of this decade and triple by the end of this decade."

According to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the debt held by the public was $7.55 trillion at the end of the 2009 fiscal year, and is projected to climb to $11.95 trillion in 2014, $12.54 trillion in 2015, $13.21 in 2016, $15.28 trillion in 2019 and $16.07 trillion in 2020. None of those estimates amounts to a doubling by the middle of the decade, or a tripling by the end of it. Of course, we can’t say for certain what will happen in the future, but that’s not the current projection.

In the past, Republicans have used the end of fiscal year 2008 — when the debt held by the public was $5.8 trillion — as their starting point. But that was during George W. Bush’s presidency. Before Obama was sworn in as president, the CBO was already projecting that the debt held by the public would be $7.19 trillion for FY 2009, which began on Oct. 1, 2008.

In this, the first in an occasional series examining tech influence in politics using MAPLight’s nonpartisan political-finance–analysis tools, the trail leads to a mind boggling, 10-year campaign in which three key defense contractors have funneled more than $18 million to the pockets of federal lawmakers, to win various military contracts, including one for what can best be described as the government equivalent of the Bat-copter.

Last year, under pressure from politicians citing spiraling expenses, the Pentagon backed out of a $6.5 billion deal with Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland to provide 28 new, state-of-the-art birds. President Barack Obama described the procurement process as “gone amok,” with the choppers projected to reach $400 million each, almost double the original price.

Now a detailed look at campaign finance records connected to the Marine One contracts, undertaken for the first time by Wired.com and MAPLight.org, shows a flurry of corporate contributions from Lockheed rivals to lawmakers involved in the decision-making immediately before and after the deal was grounded. And with a government call for new proposals for a revised contract expected next year, pay-to-play contributions to win the coveted deal continue to flow unabated, records show.

MAPLight is a 5-year-old nonprofit based in Berkeley, California. Thanks to MAPLight’s tools, which are fueled by data from the Center for Responsive Politics of Washington, D.C., we can not only track the amount of money spent, but see the timing of payments related to legislative work, such as votes, or pressure from politicians to kill an existing contract and hand it to a friend.

In addition to keeping tabs on tech-related pork and lobbying, we are unveiling today a new campaign-finance–tracking widget, in conjunction with MAPLight and based on CRP data, to help shine a general spotlight on politicians and their contributors. (See related story).

Hail to the Chief

The jockeying for the Marine One contract began in earnest a decade ago after the 2001 terror attacks. Capt. Cate Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Navy, which is supervising the stalled project, said a new Marine One fleet was “critical” to the nation’s security. Some choppers in the current fleet are more than three decades old.

Specifications for the new Marine One chopper are classified. But public documents show the new craft must at minimum carry a sort of miniature Oval Office, with two independent communications systems, including encrypted video conferencing; have at least two engines, and be capable of flying with a failed engine; and be equipped with a missile-defense system and nuclear-fallout reflector capabilities. Together, these enhancements will make it the most advanced flying machine of its type in the world, should it ever arrive.



Sikorsky Aircraft was believed to be the leading contender, having already produced the current presidential fleet, consisting of 11 Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings and eight Sikorsky VH-60N Black Hawks.

But in 2005, it lost out to Lockheed, of Bethesda, Maryland, and AgustaWestland, a European company that was building the craft along with Lockheed and dozens of subcontractors. The Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland three-engine craft, the EH101, beat out the two-engine design of Sikorsky’s  VH-92, an offshoot of its H92 SuperHawk.

At the time, Navy acquisition chief John Young said Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland prevailed because they were deemed more likely “to meet government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at lower cost.”

Pages: 1 2 View All

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.

<b>News</b> - Rep: Blake Lively, Penn Badgley Split! - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

"They're still good friends," an insider tells the new Us Weekly.

bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.

<b>News</b> - Rep: Blake Lively, Penn Badgley Split! - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

"They're still good friends," an insider tells the new Us Weekly.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

This week, we find guests on the Sunday public affairs shows making false statements about disclosure of political funds, whether a Senate candidate pushed to have terrorists tried in his home state or favored letting states ban private health insurance, and whether middle-income families would pay more if the Bush tax cuts were extended for everybody.

Rove’s Lame Claim

Republican strategist Karl Rove misled viewers of CBS’ "Face the Nation" with a false claim that labor unions aren’t disclosing where they get the millions they are spending in the 2010 elections.

Rove: Four unions alone will — will have — according to their own announcements spent $222 million in — in money on elections this year.

Host Bob Shieffer: But we know who they are.

Rove: No, no, no you don’t, Bob. Here’s the disclosure report for the — for — for one who’s going to spend 87 and a half million dollars — the American Federation of State commun– local and Community Employees. There’s their disclosure where the money has come from. That line — that one line right there. They’re going to take in $190,477,829, and that’s the extent of where you know where it’s coming from. So there’s a lot of money floating around in politics that’s not disclosed.

Rove got it wrong on several counts, including the name of the union and the time period covered. The document he held up was an annual report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor on March 26 by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It does not say how much AFSCME is "going to take in," but rather reports the big labor union’s actual receipts for calendar year 2009. The union’s total receipts were more than Rove said — $202,503,691. The figure he pointed to is a subtotal, reported on line 37.

Most important, though, Rove was wrong to say that the source of the money is "not disclosed." In fact, it is. The very line to which he pointed — line 37 — states that the money is from the "per capita tax" that the national union places on its locals, which in turn comes from the monthly dues — amounting to 2 percent of pay — collected from more than 1.5 million AFSCME members.

The full report to which Rove referred can be found at the public disclosure site of the Labor Department. (Type in 000-289 under "file number," or search by union name.) Since the full report runs to several hundred pages, and the Labor website won’t permit us to provide a direct link, we have posted the first few summary pages and highlighted some of the pertinent entries for the convenience of readers.

Republicans and conservatives have complained for years about the use of union dues money for political purposes, saying it gives Democrats an unfair advantage. That’s a matter of opinion. But Rove is wrong to claim that there’s any mystery about the source.

Full Disclosure

Not to be outdone by Rove, two Democrats on two Sunday shows made false and misleading statements about the Disclose Act, a Democrat-backed piece of legislation calling for greater disclosure in political giving and independent expenditures. On ABC’s "This Week," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said:

Kaine: Every Democrat in Congress has supported the Disclose Act that would require anyone supporting any candidate to disclose.

That’s not true. Thirty-six Democrats in the House voted against the bill. It passed the House by a close 219-206 vote in June. Republicans have successfully blocked a vote in the Senate, where all Democrats did back the legislation.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Christopher Van Hollen of Maryland, also falsely said on "Face the Nation" that only one Republican supported the legislation. Two members of the GOP voted for it — Anh Cao of Louisiana and Michael Castle of Delaware.

Van Hollen: We had a bill in the House and the Senate, it was called the Disclose Act. It would require all these different interests whether they are left, center or right, to disclose, to tell the voters who they are, so the voters could exercise their own judgment. Every Republican, but one voted against it.

The legislation is more controversial than Kaine and Van Hollen let on. Both conservative and liberal groups opposed some of the provisions. The Disclose Act would require independent expenditures of more than $10,000 to be reported within 24 hours and the identities of those giving at least $600 to be disclosed. It also would ban political spending by government contractors (with at least a $10 million contract), recipients of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and those negotiating for oil and gas exploration in the outer continental shelf. Corporations and unions would have to disclose their top funders in political ads. The bill would exempt organizations that receive 15 percent or less of their money from corporations and unions, and that have at least 500,000 members. The House version, but not the Senate’s, exempted labor unions from reporting requirements of money transfers to affiliates.

Sestak ‘Advocated’ to Move Terror Trial to Pa.?

On "Fox News Sunday," Republican Pat Toomey cited several examples of why he considers Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, his opponent in the Pennsylvania Senate race, an "extreme" liberal. But Toomey went too far when he discussed the controversy over whether the U.S. should try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian or military court. Speaking of Sestak, Toomey said:

Toomey: He’s even advocated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of 9/11, be given a civilian trial in Pennsylvania, which is a terrible idea.

As we have reported, Sestak is a supporter of trying Mohammed in civilian court, saying it would "show the strength of the American judicial system." But it is a stretch to say that he "advocated" holding Mohammed’s trial in Pennsylvania. Sestak has said he would accept a civilian trial for the alleged 9/11 terrorists anywhere in America, including Pennsylvania.

Fun with Committee Votes

In another instance, Toomey portrays Sestak as "extreme" because of a committee vote he cast during the health care debate.

Toomey, Oct. 24: The health care bill he voted for — and in committee he voted for a version of the bill that would have allowed states to ban all private health insurance altogether.

That’s true, but misleading. In fact, Sestak voted against an amendment that would have allowed, in Toomey’s words, "states to ban all private health insurance altogether."

Here’s what happened: Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio offered an amendment to America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 on July 17, 2009, that would have given states the option of creating a single-payer health care system run by that state’s government. Sestak voted against the amendment, but surprisingly it passed 27-19 with 13 Republican votes. Sestak later voted to report the full bill out of the Committee on Education and Labor. The single-payer provision was soon stripped out of the version that passed the House, however.

So, Toomey is correct in saying that Sestak "voted for a version" of the health care bill that included a single-payer system, because the bill Sestak voted out of committee included the Kucinich amendment. But it’s simply false to imply that he favored that provision, which he’s on record as opposing.

Is Toomey the DSCC’s No. 1 Target?

In discussing why the Pennsylvania race has begun to tighten, Toomey suggested it was because of the ads being run against him by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Toomey, Oct. 24: You know, the other side has spent a great deal of money. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has spent more money attacking me than any other candidate in the country. That may very well explain part of this tightening.

It’s not quite true, however, that the DSCC is spending the most money attacking Toomey. The Pennsylvania race ranks second behind the Colorado Senate race, according to the Federal Election Commission. As of Oct. 22, the FEC database of independent expenditures shows that the DSCC has spent $6.3 million in Colorado and $5.9 million in Pennsylvania. That’s still a lot, but not the most.

Also, as we have written before, the Pennsylvania race has attracted a lot of money from outside groups on both sides. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that the two campaigns have received roughly the same amount of support from outside groups, including party committees and independent groups.

Florida Senate Debate

CNN’s "State of the Union" hosted a debate between Florida’s three Senate candidates: Gov. Charlie Crist, Rep. Kendrick Meek and Marco Rubio. We found all three making questionable or incorrect claims.

Meek, a Democrat, claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent Americans would mean "middle-class families throughout America have to pay $6,000 per year." But that’s not correct, and even the Meek campaign admits it.

According to President Obama’s budget proposal for the 2011 fiscal year, allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans could raise $678.3 billion in revenues over 10 years. The Meek campaign divided that by 116 million, a 2007 U.S. Census Bureau estimate for U.S. households, to get almost $6,000 per family. But Meek expressed this as a "per year" cost instead of a 10-year cost. Meek’s camp said that he meant to say "over 10 years."

More important, of course, middle-income families would not pay more at all — at least not immediately. The taxes of families making less than $250,000 a year would remain the same under Obama’s proposal as they would if the cuts are extended for those making more. Meek would have been correct to say that the annual federal deficit would increase by some average amount per family, but they wouldn’t actually "pay" that amount per year.

Crist, a Republican who is now running as an Independent, claimed to have "signed into law the largest tax cut" in Florida’s history. But the fact-checkers at PolitiFact Florida have rated this claim "false" on two previous occasions. 

Crist is referring to legislation (House Bill 1B and House Bill 5B) that cut property taxes in the state and that he signed into law in 2007. The savings for those bills combined is estimated to be $25 billion over five years. But PolitiFact said that figure is questionable, and that at least one other tax cut is higher:

PolitiFact Florida, March 2: Specifically, the governor’s $25 billion estimate could be accurate only if:

• Property tax values increased as analysts predicted back when the tax package was passed (3 to 5 percent a year), and;


• Local governments failed to reduce their tax rates.

We will never know what governments would have done to their tax rates, but we do know about property tax values: They haven’t gone up. They’ve gone down. Taxable property values dropped 15 percent in 2008, according to figures from county property appraisers. Property values dropped again in 2009 and are expected to drop in 2010.

That means the governor’s projections are high.

Furthermore, PolitiFact reported that another tax cutting initiative — Save Our Homes, an amendment to the state Constitution in 1992 — resulted in more savings for state residents. "From 1996 to 2008, almost $1.9 trillion in property value went untaxed because of Save Our Homes," PolitiFact wrote. "Using a conservative tax rate of 17 mills, that equates to $32 billion less in property taxes paid — or about $2.66 billion per year without adjusting for inflation. In 2007, the savings was about $7.27 billion and from 2004 to 2008 the estimated savings was more than $26 billion."

Rubio, the Republican, repeated a GOP talking point that we’ve found to be wrong in the past. He claimed that "even with the president’s massive tax increases, the debt will double by the middle of this decade and triple by the end of this decade."

According to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the debt held by the public was $7.55 trillion at the end of the 2009 fiscal year, and is projected to climb to $11.95 trillion in 2014, $12.54 trillion in 2015, $13.21 in 2016, $15.28 trillion in 2019 and $16.07 trillion in 2020. None of those estimates amounts to a doubling by the middle of the decade, or a tripling by the end of it. Of course, we can’t say for certain what will happen in the future, but that’s not the current projection.

In the past, Republicans have used the end of fiscal year 2008 — when the debt held by the public was $5.8 trillion — as their starting point. But that was during George W. Bush’s presidency. Before Obama was sworn in as president, the CBO was already projecting that the debt held by the public would be $7.19 trillion for FY 2009, which began on Oct. 1, 2008.

In this, the first in an occasional series examining tech influence in politics using MAPLight’s nonpartisan political-finance–analysis tools, the trail leads to a mind boggling, 10-year campaign in which three key defense contractors have funneled more than $18 million to the pockets of federal lawmakers, to win various military contracts, including one for what can best be described as the government equivalent of the Bat-copter.

Last year, under pressure from politicians citing spiraling expenses, the Pentagon backed out of a $6.5 billion deal with Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland to provide 28 new, state-of-the-art birds. President Barack Obama described the procurement process as “gone amok,” with the choppers projected to reach $400 million each, almost double the original price.

Now a detailed look at campaign finance records connected to the Marine One contracts, undertaken for the first time by Wired.com and MAPLight.org, shows a flurry of corporate contributions from Lockheed rivals to lawmakers involved in the decision-making immediately before and after the deal was grounded. And with a government call for new proposals for a revised contract expected next year, pay-to-play contributions to win the coveted deal continue to flow unabated, records show.

MAPLight is a 5-year-old nonprofit based in Berkeley, California. Thanks to MAPLight’s tools, which are fueled by data from the Center for Responsive Politics of Washington, D.C., we can not only track the amount of money spent, but see the timing of payments related to legislative work, such as votes, or pressure from politicians to kill an existing contract and hand it to a friend.

In addition to keeping tabs on tech-related pork and lobbying, we are unveiling today a new campaign-finance–tracking widget, in conjunction with MAPLight and based on CRP data, to help shine a general spotlight on politicians and their contributors. (See related story).

Hail to the Chief

The jockeying for the Marine One contract began in earnest a decade ago after the 2001 terror attacks. Capt. Cate Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Navy, which is supervising the stalled project, said a new Marine One fleet was “critical” to the nation’s security. Some choppers in the current fleet are more than three decades old.

Specifications for the new Marine One chopper are classified. But public documents show the new craft must at minimum carry a sort of miniature Oval Office, with two independent communications systems, including encrypted video conferencing; have at least two engines, and be capable of flying with a failed engine; and be equipped with a missile-defense system and nuclear-fallout reflector capabilities. Together, these enhancements will make it the most advanced flying machine of its type in the world, should it ever arrive.



Sikorsky Aircraft was believed to be the leading contender, having already produced the current presidential fleet, consisting of 11 Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings and eight Sikorsky VH-60N Black Hawks.

But in 2005, it lost out to Lockheed, of Bethesda, Maryland, and AgustaWestland, a European company that was building the craft along with Lockheed and dozens of subcontractors. The Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland three-engine craft, the EH101, beat out the two-engine design of Sikorsky’s  VH-92, an offshoot of its H92 SuperHawk.

At the time, Navy acquisition chief John Young said Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland prevailed because they were deemed more likely “to meet government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at lower cost.”

Pages: 1 2 View All

bench craft company complaints

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.

<b>News</b> - Rep: Blake Lively, Penn Badgley Split! - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

"They're still good friends," an insider tells the new Us Weekly.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.

<b>News</b> - Rep: Blake Lively, Penn Badgley Split! - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

"They're still good friends," an insider tells the new Us Weekly.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/27 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning Chiefs fans! There's some interesting Kansas City Chiefs news today. A great piece from Cory Greenwood's hometown newspaper, and more on Chambers' playing time start us off. Enjoy.

<b>News</b> - Rep: Blake Lively, Penn Badgley Split! - Celebrity <b>News</b> <b>...</b>

"They're still good friends," an insider tells the new Us Weekly.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

foreclosure statistics

Foreclosure fraud is ruffling a lot of feathers on Wall Street, and while the full scope of losses remains unclear, even major banks are now acknowledging that this is a multi-billion-dollar disaster, not just a set of minor paperwork headaches.

So how bad will it get for Wall Street? There are several disaster scenarios in which the housing market simply shuts down, where the potential losses for Wall Street are simply incalculable. But even situations that do not directly rip apart the basic functioning of the mortgage system could be enough to shut down one or more big banks, creating serious trouble for the financial system, and a major test of the recent Wall Street reform bill.

JPMorgan Chase loves using its research department to push its political agenda, and the bank is currently characterizing the foreclosure fraud outbreak as a set of "process-oriented problems that can be fixed." That puts them in the rosy optimist camp for this crisis, and they're projecting a total of $55 billion to $120 billion in losses for the entire industry, spread out over a few years.

But take a look at the analysts' methodology. The actual scope of losses gets drastically larger if you just change a few arbitrary assumptions.

JPMorgan's analysts look at about $6 trillion in mortgages issued between 2005 and 2007—this is the height of the bubble, but it excludes plenty of lousy loans issued in 2003, 2004 and 2008. They then estimate defaults of $2 trillion and losses of $1.1 trillion on those defaults.

So far, these estimates are reasonable. According to Valparaiso University Law School Professor Alan White, banks lose about 58 percent of the value of a subprime loan at foreclosure. JPMorgan is estimating 55 percent. The notion that one-third of mortgages issued at the height of the bubble will default may seem extreme, but the analysis includes both first-lien mortgages and second-lien mortgages (home equity loans). For houses with multiple mortgages, there's going to be a double-hit when the first lien goes bad. Right now, the official statistics from Mortgage Bankers Association indicate that 14 percent of first mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. The longer unemployment stays near 10 percent, the higher that figure will go.

Things don't get out of control until JPMorgan's analysts start deploying their assumptions. First, they assume that Fannie and Freddie will attempt to sack banks with losses from 25 percent of the defaults they see. Of those 25 percent, they assume Fannie and Freddie will successfully force banks to eat losses on 40 percent, leading to total losses of 10 percent. Why 25 percent? Why 40 percent? The analysts don't say. JPMorgan expects private-sector investors to be able to saddle banks with just 5 percent of foreclosure losses, citing a host of technical legal hurdles that make it hard for investors to have their cases heard in court.

So JPMorgan's loss projections are nothing more than a guess—and a low-ball guess at that. JPMorgan is assuming that only five to 10 percent of looming foreclosure losses will actually hit big banks. Change that assumption—20 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent—and things get far worse for Wall Street than JPMorgan's "worst-case" scenario predicts.

Let's consider the exposures of a single bank to put things in context, and let's pick Bank of America, since analysts seem to agree that BofA has the most to worry about right now. They were a big issuer of mortgages themselves, but they also purchased the notoriously predatory Countrywide Financial and also picked up securitization behemoth Merrill Lynch in 2008, giving them far more problems (hilariously, BofA actually paid cash to acquire these balance-sheet-busters).

The most dire estimates for losses on Fannie and Freddie loans at BofA have come from Christopher Whalen at Institutional Risk Analytics and Branch Hill Capital. Whalen has estimated $50 billion in Fannie and Freddie losses for the megabank, while Branch Hill has estimated $70 billion.

The trick is, BofA has $2.1 trillion in total exposure to Fannie and Freddie, according to Whalen. That means even Branch Hill's massive loss projection only amounts to a loss rate of about 3.5 percent.

As of July 2010, Fannie Mae had a serious delinquency rate of 4.82 percent—these are loans where families have missed at least three payments, but haven't been evicted. For Freddie Mac, the number is 3.83 percent. Not all of those losses can be pushed back on the banks, but those numbers will go up as the unemployment rate stays high. Tip the scales just a few percentage points and it's easy to envision catastrophic losses for banks.

But there's reason to believe that Bank of America is in even worse shape with regard to Fannie and Freddie than any of its peers. Countrywide was the single largest provider of loans to Fannie Mae during the housing bubble. Literally 28 percent of the loans Fannie Mae bought up in 2007 came from Countrywide. Fannie even featured a full-page, smiling photograph of Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo in their 2003 Annual Report (.pdf, see page 16).

It's much easier for banks to lose money on bad loans they sold to the GSEs than it is for them to lose money on securities they sold to purely private-sector investors. The fact that Bank of America's most notorious wing was the top provider to Fannie Mae during the peak years of the housing bubble does not bode well for the bank's balance sheet.

But this is just exposure to Fannie and Freddie. The private sector is angry about all kinds of things—from wronged borrowers to deceived investors. Investors are already organizing against both mortgage servicers—for improperly handling troubled loans—and against investment banks—for selling them garbage. They aren't just angry about fraudulent foreclosures—evidence is mounting that mortgage servicers can't even handle the profits from mortgages correctly, and aren't sending investors reliable, verifiable payments.

Yesterday investors sent a letter pressuring Countrywide's servicing arm to push losses from bad mortgage bonds back on the bank that sold them. Legally, it's a complicated maneuver, since Countrywide itself issued those bonds—but that just shows the multiple levels at which megabanks like BofA are exposed to fraud losses. Their original sale of mortgages to borrowers, the packaging of those mortgages into securities, the handling of payments and foreclosures, and the accounting for all of these activities—all of this is about to be subjected to serious fraud examinations by people who are trying to make money.

Up until yesterday, big banks thought they had a get-out-of-jail free card on investor lawsuits. Investors have to bring together 25 percent of the buyers of any mortgage bond in order to sue the bank that issued it—even if the actual lawsuit is an open-and-shut fraud case. Investors had not been cooperating. But yesterday's letter to Countrywide is a big deal—even though it's not (yet) a lawsuit, some of the biggest names in finance were going after Countrywide's cash: BlackRock, PIMCO and even the New York Federal Reserve.

Bill Frey, who runs the hedge fund Greenwich Capital, has organized a massive clearinghouse of mortgage investors for the express purpose of bringing lawsuits against big banks that issued bogus mortgage-backed securities. He told me this afternoon that he's about to move: In the next couple of weeks Greenwich and other investors will bring big lawsuits against major banks.

Will these combined troubles be enough to sink any big banks? If investors can win a couple of lawsuits, easily.

Foreclosure fraud is ruffling a lot of feathers on Wall Street, and while the full scope of losses remains unclear, even major banks are now acknowledging that this is a multi-billion-dollar disaster, not just a set of minor paperwork headaches.

So how bad will it get for Wall Street? There are several disaster scenarios in which the housing market simply shuts down, where the potential losses for Wall Street are simply incalculable. But even situations that do not directly rip apart the basic functioning of the mortgage system could be enough to shut down one or more big banks, creating serious trouble for the financial system, and a major test of the recent Wall Street reform bill.

JPMorgan Chase loves using its research department to push its political agenda, and the bank is currently characterizing the foreclosure fraud outbreak as a set of "process-oriented problems that can be fixed." That puts them in the rosy optimist camp for this crisis, and they're projecting a total of $55 billion to $120 billion in losses for the entire industry, spread out over a few years.

But take a look at the analysts' methodology. The actual scope of losses gets drastically larger if you just change a few arbitrary assumptions.

JPMorgan's analysts look at about $6 trillion in mortgages issued between 2005 and 2007—this is the height of the bubble, but it excludes plenty of lousy loans issued in 2003, 2004 and 2008. They then estimate defaults of $2 trillion and losses of $1.1 trillion on those defaults.

So far, these estimates are reasonable. According to Valparaiso University Law School Professor Alan White, banks lose about 58 percent of the value of a subprime loan at foreclosure. JPMorgan is estimating 55 percent. The notion that one-third of mortgages issued at the height of the bubble will default may seem extreme, but the analysis includes both first-lien mortgages and second-lien mortgages (home equity loans). For houses with multiple mortgages, there's going to be a double-hit when the first lien goes bad. Right now, the official statistics from Mortgage Bankers Association indicate that 14 percent of first mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. The longer unemployment stays near 10 percent, the higher that figure will go.

Things don't get out of control until JPMorgan's analysts start deploying their assumptions. First, they assume that Fannie and Freddie will attempt to sack banks with losses from 25 percent of the defaults they see. Of those 25 percent, they assume Fannie and Freddie will successfully force banks to eat losses on 40 percent, leading to total losses of 10 percent. Why 25 percent? Why 40 percent? The analysts don't say. JPMorgan expects private-sector investors to be able to saddle banks with just 5 percent of foreclosure losses, citing a host of technical legal hurdles that make it hard for investors to have their cases heard in court.

So JPMorgan's loss projections are nothing more than a guess—and a low-ball guess at that. JPMorgan is assuming that only five to 10 percent of looming foreclosure losses will actually hit big banks. Change that assumption—20 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent—and things get far worse for Wall Street than JPMorgan's "worst-case" scenario predicts.

Let's consider the exposures of a single bank to put things in context, and let's pick Bank of America, since analysts seem to agree that BofA has the most to worry about right now. They were a big issuer of mortgages themselves, but they also purchased the notoriously predatory Countrywide Financial and also picked up securitization behemoth Merrill Lynch in 2008, giving them far more problems (hilariously, BofA actually paid cash to acquire these balance-sheet-busters).

The most dire estimates for losses on Fannie and Freddie loans at BofA have come from Christopher Whalen at Institutional Risk Analytics and Branch Hill Capital. Whalen has estimated $50 billion in Fannie and Freddie losses for the megabank, while Branch Hill has estimated $70 billion.

The trick is, BofA has $2.1 trillion in total exposure to Fannie and Freddie, according to Whalen. That means even Branch Hill's massive loss projection only amounts to a loss rate of about 3.5 percent.

As of July 2010, Fannie Mae had a serious delinquency rate of 4.82 percent—these are loans where families have missed at least three payments, but haven't been evicted. For Freddie Mac, the number is 3.83 percent. Not all of those losses can be pushed back on the banks, but those numbers will go up as the unemployment rate stays high. Tip the scales just a few percentage points and it's easy to envision catastrophic losses for banks.

But there's reason to believe that Bank of America is in even worse shape with regard to Fannie and Freddie than any of its peers. Countrywide was the single largest provider of loans to Fannie Mae during the housing bubble. Literally 28 percent of the loans Fannie Mae bought up in 2007 came from Countrywide. Fannie even featured a full-page, smiling photograph of Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo in their 2003 Annual Report (.pdf, see page 16).

It's much easier for banks to lose money on bad loans they sold to the GSEs than it is for them to lose money on securities they sold to purely private-sector investors. The fact that Bank of America's most notorious wing was the top provider to Fannie Mae during the peak years of the housing bubble does not bode well for the bank's balance sheet.

But this is just exposure to Fannie and Freddie. The private sector is angry about all kinds of things—from wronged borrowers to deceived investors. Investors are already organizing against both mortgage servicers—for improperly handling troubled loans—and against investment banks—for selling them garbage. They aren't just angry about fraudulent foreclosures—evidence is mounting that mortgage servicers can't even handle the profits from mortgages correctly, and aren't sending investors reliable, verifiable payments.

Yesterday investors sent a letter pressuring Countrywide's servicing arm to push losses from bad mortgage bonds back on the bank that sold them. Legally, it's a complicated maneuver, since Countrywide itself issued those bonds—but that just shows the multiple levels at which megabanks like BofA are exposed to fraud losses. Their original sale of mortgages to borrowers, the packaging of those mortgages into securities, the handling of payments and foreclosures, and the accounting for all of these activities—all of this is about to be subjected to serious fraud examinations by people who are trying to make money.

Up until yesterday, big banks thought they had a get-out-of-jail free card on investor lawsuits. Investors have to bring together 25 percent of the buyers of any mortgage bond in order to sue the bank that issued it—even if the actual lawsuit is an open-and-shut fraud case. Investors had not been cooperating. But yesterday's letter to Countrywide is a big deal—even though it's not (yet) a lawsuit, some of the biggest names in finance were going after Countrywide's cash: BlackRock, PIMCO and even the New York Federal Reserve.

Bill Frey, who runs the hedge fund Greenwich Capital, has organized a massive clearinghouse of mortgage investors for the express purpose of bringing lawsuits against big banks that issued bogus mortgage-backed securities. He told me this afternoon that he's about to move: In the next couple of weeks Greenwich and other investors will bring big lawsuits against major banks.

Will these combined troubles be enough to sink any big banks? If investors can win a couple of lawsuits, easily.

ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/26 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning! We have a full day of Kansas City Chiefs news. O-line love and praise for the running game and a shout out to DJ are ahead. There are also a few articles on the Buffalo offense and how productive they've been recently.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints

ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/26 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning! We have a full day of Kansas City Chiefs news. O-line love and praise for the running game and a shout out to DJ are ahead. There are also a few articles on the Buffalo offense and how productive they've been recently.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Foreclosure fraud is ruffling a lot of feathers on Wall Street, and while the full scope of losses remains unclear, even major banks are now acknowledging that this is a multi-billion-dollar disaster, not just a set of minor paperwork headaches.

So how bad will it get for Wall Street? There are several disaster scenarios in which the housing market simply shuts down, where the potential losses for Wall Street are simply incalculable. But even situations that do not directly rip apart the basic functioning of the mortgage system could be enough to shut down one or more big banks, creating serious trouble for the financial system, and a major test of the recent Wall Street reform bill.

JPMorgan Chase loves using its research department to push its political agenda, and the bank is currently characterizing the foreclosure fraud outbreak as a set of "process-oriented problems that can be fixed." That puts them in the rosy optimist camp for this crisis, and they're projecting a total of $55 billion to $120 billion in losses for the entire industry, spread out over a few years.

But take a look at the analysts' methodology. The actual scope of losses gets drastically larger if you just change a few arbitrary assumptions.

JPMorgan's analysts look at about $6 trillion in mortgages issued between 2005 and 2007—this is the height of the bubble, but it excludes plenty of lousy loans issued in 2003, 2004 and 2008. They then estimate defaults of $2 trillion and losses of $1.1 trillion on those defaults.

So far, these estimates are reasonable. According to Valparaiso University Law School Professor Alan White, banks lose about 58 percent of the value of a subprime loan at foreclosure. JPMorgan is estimating 55 percent. The notion that one-third of mortgages issued at the height of the bubble will default may seem extreme, but the analysis includes both first-lien mortgages and second-lien mortgages (home equity loans). For houses with multiple mortgages, there's going to be a double-hit when the first lien goes bad. Right now, the official statistics from Mortgage Bankers Association indicate that 14 percent of first mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. The longer unemployment stays near 10 percent, the higher that figure will go.

Things don't get out of control until JPMorgan's analysts start deploying their assumptions. First, they assume that Fannie and Freddie will attempt to sack banks with losses from 25 percent of the defaults they see. Of those 25 percent, they assume Fannie and Freddie will successfully force banks to eat losses on 40 percent, leading to total losses of 10 percent. Why 25 percent? Why 40 percent? The analysts don't say. JPMorgan expects private-sector investors to be able to saddle banks with just 5 percent of foreclosure losses, citing a host of technical legal hurdles that make it hard for investors to have their cases heard in court.

So JPMorgan's loss projections are nothing more than a guess—and a low-ball guess at that. JPMorgan is assuming that only five to 10 percent of looming foreclosure losses will actually hit big banks. Change that assumption—20 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent—and things get far worse for Wall Street than JPMorgan's "worst-case" scenario predicts.

Let's consider the exposures of a single bank to put things in context, and let's pick Bank of America, since analysts seem to agree that BofA has the most to worry about right now. They were a big issuer of mortgages themselves, but they also purchased the notoriously predatory Countrywide Financial and also picked up securitization behemoth Merrill Lynch in 2008, giving them far more problems (hilariously, BofA actually paid cash to acquire these balance-sheet-busters).

The most dire estimates for losses on Fannie and Freddie loans at BofA have come from Christopher Whalen at Institutional Risk Analytics and Branch Hill Capital. Whalen has estimated $50 billion in Fannie and Freddie losses for the megabank, while Branch Hill has estimated $70 billion.

The trick is, BofA has $2.1 trillion in total exposure to Fannie and Freddie, according to Whalen. That means even Branch Hill's massive loss projection only amounts to a loss rate of about 3.5 percent.

As of July 2010, Fannie Mae had a serious delinquency rate of 4.82 percent—these are loans where families have missed at least three payments, but haven't been evicted. For Freddie Mac, the number is 3.83 percent. Not all of those losses can be pushed back on the banks, but those numbers will go up as the unemployment rate stays high. Tip the scales just a few percentage points and it's easy to envision catastrophic losses for banks.

But there's reason to believe that Bank of America is in even worse shape with regard to Fannie and Freddie than any of its peers. Countrywide was the single largest provider of loans to Fannie Mae during the housing bubble. Literally 28 percent of the loans Fannie Mae bought up in 2007 came from Countrywide. Fannie even featured a full-page, smiling photograph of Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo in their 2003 Annual Report (.pdf, see page 16).

It's much easier for banks to lose money on bad loans they sold to the GSEs than it is for them to lose money on securities they sold to purely private-sector investors. The fact that Bank of America's most notorious wing was the top provider to Fannie Mae during the peak years of the housing bubble does not bode well for the bank's balance sheet.

But this is just exposure to Fannie and Freddie. The private sector is angry about all kinds of things—from wronged borrowers to deceived investors. Investors are already organizing against both mortgage servicers—for improperly handling troubled loans—and against investment banks—for selling them garbage. They aren't just angry about fraudulent foreclosures—evidence is mounting that mortgage servicers can't even handle the profits from mortgages correctly, and aren't sending investors reliable, verifiable payments.

Yesterday investors sent a letter pressuring Countrywide's servicing arm to push losses from bad mortgage bonds back on the bank that sold them. Legally, it's a complicated maneuver, since Countrywide itself issued those bonds—but that just shows the multiple levels at which megabanks like BofA are exposed to fraud losses. Their original sale of mortgages to borrowers, the packaging of those mortgages into securities, the handling of payments and foreclosures, and the accounting for all of these activities—all of this is about to be subjected to serious fraud examinations by people who are trying to make money.

Up until yesterday, big banks thought they had a get-out-of-jail free card on investor lawsuits. Investors have to bring together 25 percent of the buyers of any mortgage bond in order to sue the bank that issued it—even if the actual lawsuit is an open-and-shut fraud case. Investors had not been cooperating. But yesterday's letter to Countrywide is a big deal—even though it's not (yet) a lawsuit, some of the biggest names in finance were going after Countrywide's cash: BlackRock, PIMCO and even the New York Federal Reserve.

Bill Frey, who runs the hedge fund Greenwich Capital, has organized a massive clearinghouse of mortgage investors for the express purpose of bringing lawsuits against big banks that issued bogus mortgage-backed securities. He told me this afternoon that he's about to move: In the next couple of weeks Greenwich and other investors will bring big lawsuits against major banks.

Will these combined troubles be enough to sink any big banks? If investors can win a couple of lawsuits, easily.

Foreclosure fraud is ruffling a lot of feathers on Wall Street, and while the full scope of losses remains unclear, even major banks are now acknowledging that this is a multi-billion-dollar disaster, not just a set of minor paperwork headaches.

So how bad will it get for Wall Street? There are several disaster scenarios in which the housing market simply shuts down, where the potential losses for Wall Street are simply incalculable. But even situations that do not directly rip apart the basic functioning of the mortgage system could be enough to shut down one or more big banks, creating serious trouble for the financial system, and a major test of the recent Wall Street reform bill.

JPMorgan Chase loves using its research department to push its political agenda, and the bank is currently characterizing the foreclosure fraud outbreak as a set of "process-oriented problems that can be fixed." That puts them in the rosy optimist camp for this crisis, and they're projecting a total of $55 billion to $120 billion in losses for the entire industry, spread out over a few years.

But take a look at the analysts' methodology. The actual scope of losses gets drastically larger if you just change a few arbitrary assumptions.

JPMorgan's analysts look at about $6 trillion in mortgages issued between 2005 and 2007—this is the height of the bubble, but it excludes plenty of lousy loans issued in 2003, 2004 and 2008. They then estimate defaults of $2 trillion and losses of $1.1 trillion on those defaults.

So far, these estimates are reasonable. According to Valparaiso University Law School Professor Alan White, banks lose about 58 percent of the value of a subprime loan at foreclosure. JPMorgan is estimating 55 percent. The notion that one-third of mortgages issued at the height of the bubble will default may seem extreme, but the analysis includes both first-lien mortgages and second-lien mortgages (home equity loans). For houses with multiple mortgages, there's going to be a double-hit when the first lien goes bad. Right now, the official statistics from Mortgage Bankers Association indicate that 14 percent of first mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. The longer unemployment stays near 10 percent, the higher that figure will go.

Things don't get out of control until JPMorgan's analysts start deploying their assumptions. First, they assume that Fannie and Freddie will attempt to sack banks with losses from 25 percent of the defaults they see. Of those 25 percent, they assume Fannie and Freddie will successfully force banks to eat losses on 40 percent, leading to total losses of 10 percent. Why 25 percent? Why 40 percent? The analysts don't say. JPMorgan expects private-sector investors to be able to saddle banks with just 5 percent of foreclosure losses, citing a host of technical legal hurdles that make it hard for investors to have their cases heard in court.

So JPMorgan's loss projections are nothing more than a guess—and a low-ball guess at that. JPMorgan is assuming that only five to 10 percent of looming foreclosure losses will actually hit big banks. Change that assumption—20 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent—and things get far worse for Wall Street than JPMorgan's "worst-case" scenario predicts.

Let's consider the exposures of a single bank to put things in context, and let's pick Bank of America, since analysts seem to agree that BofA has the most to worry about right now. They were a big issuer of mortgages themselves, but they also purchased the notoriously predatory Countrywide Financial and also picked up securitization behemoth Merrill Lynch in 2008, giving them far more problems (hilariously, BofA actually paid cash to acquire these balance-sheet-busters).

The most dire estimates for losses on Fannie and Freddie loans at BofA have come from Christopher Whalen at Institutional Risk Analytics and Branch Hill Capital. Whalen has estimated $50 billion in Fannie and Freddie losses for the megabank, while Branch Hill has estimated $70 billion.

The trick is, BofA has $2.1 trillion in total exposure to Fannie and Freddie, according to Whalen. That means even Branch Hill's massive loss projection only amounts to a loss rate of about 3.5 percent.

As of July 2010, Fannie Mae had a serious delinquency rate of 4.82 percent—these are loans where families have missed at least three payments, but haven't been evicted. For Freddie Mac, the number is 3.83 percent. Not all of those losses can be pushed back on the banks, but those numbers will go up as the unemployment rate stays high. Tip the scales just a few percentage points and it's easy to envision catastrophic losses for banks.

But there's reason to believe that Bank of America is in even worse shape with regard to Fannie and Freddie than any of its peers. Countrywide was the single largest provider of loans to Fannie Mae during the housing bubble. Literally 28 percent of the loans Fannie Mae bought up in 2007 came from Countrywide. Fannie even featured a full-page, smiling photograph of Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo in their 2003 Annual Report (.pdf, see page 16).

It's much easier for banks to lose money on bad loans they sold to the GSEs than it is for them to lose money on securities they sold to purely private-sector investors. The fact that Bank of America's most notorious wing was the top provider to Fannie Mae during the peak years of the housing bubble does not bode well for the bank's balance sheet.

But this is just exposure to Fannie and Freddie. The private sector is angry about all kinds of things—from wronged borrowers to deceived investors. Investors are already organizing against both mortgage servicers—for improperly handling troubled loans—and against investment banks—for selling them garbage. They aren't just angry about fraudulent foreclosures—evidence is mounting that mortgage servicers can't even handle the profits from mortgages correctly, and aren't sending investors reliable, verifiable payments.

Yesterday investors sent a letter pressuring Countrywide's servicing arm to push losses from bad mortgage bonds back on the bank that sold them. Legally, it's a complicated maneuver, since Countrywide itself issued those bonds—but that just shows the multiple levels at which megabanks like BofA are exposed to fraud losses. Their original sale of mortgages to borrowers, the packaging of those mortgages into securities, the handling of payments and foreclosures, and the accounting for all of these activities—all of this is about to be subjected to serious fraud examinations by people who are trying to make money.

Up until yesterday, big banks thought they had a get-out-of-jail free card on investor lawsuits. Investors have to bring together 25 percent of the buyers of any mortgage bond in order to sue the bank that issued it—even if the actual lawsuit is an open-and-shut fraud case. Investors had not been cooperating. But yesterday's letter to Countrywide is a big deal—even though it's not (yet) a lawsuit, some of the biggest names in finance were going after Countrywide's cash: BlackRock, PIMCO and even the New York Federal Reserve.

Bill Frey, who runs the hedge fund Greenwich Capital, has organized a massive clearinghouse of mortgage investors for the express purpose of bringing lawsuits against big banks that issued bogus mortgage-backed securities. He told me this afternoon that he's about to move: In the next couple of weeks Greenwich and other investors will bring big lawsuits against major banks.

Will these combined troubles be enough to sink any big banks? If investors can win a couple of lawsuits, easily.

bench craft company complaints

ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/26 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning! We have a full day of Kansas City Chiefs news. O-line love and praise for the running game and a shout out to DJ are ahead. There are also a few articles on the Buffalo offense and how productive they've been recently.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/26 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning! We have a full day of Kansas City Chiefs news. O-line love and praise for the running game and a shout out to DJ are ahead. There are also a few articles on the Buffalo offense and how productive they've been recently.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

ABC <b>News</b> airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w <b>...</b>

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 10/26 - Arrowhead Pride

Good morning! We have a full day of Kansas City Chiefs news. O-line love and praise for the running game and a shout out to DJ are ahead. There are also a few articles on the Buffalo offense and how productive they've been recently.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

foreclosure defense

Before I get into the update on the financial industry's massive swindling of the world, I'd like to encourage you all to give money to Alan Grayson, one of the few Congressmen who has been making a stink about the enormous fraud that the financial industry has been unleashing on the American people. I shudder to think what will happen to this Congress if we lose one of its few courageous voices and get more shills for the financial services industry. So give to Grayson. Give, give, give.

So now, back to Wall Street's continuing quest to loot America. BoA has become the latest pack of scumbags to realize that they didn't do a good enough job of forging documents to evict people from their homes and that they'll have to backtrack a bit:

Bank of America said Friday it is halting all foreclosure sales and foreclosure proceedings nationwide while it reviews the documents being used to justify homeowner evictions.

It is the first bank to put a moratorium on foreclosures in all 50 states. Previously, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and others were only pausing foreclosures in states where a court has to participate in foreclosure proceedings.

To review how we got to this point, click here. It basically boils down this: After the securitization process the banks had no idea what mortgages were and were not on their books. So they started making stuff up to compensate. This is theft, pure and simple.

Megan McArdle predictably comes leaping to the poor banks' defense, saying they may have made a few oopsies but are overall swell people:

The story on the foreclosure mess has become a bit overblown in some tellings. It's clear that banks have been taking some shortcuts in preparing their foreclosure documents. The banks are obviously overwhelmed with the volume of foreclosures, and the (apparently) many instances in which sloppy securitization has resulted in lost paper trails, obscuring who, exactly has a right to foreclose. Rather than seeking legislative or judicial clarification, they've resorted to dubious practices that seem (to my non-legally-trained eye) illegal.

That is bad. But as Arnold Kling points out, there's little evidence that this has resulted in improper foreclosures: evicting people who've paid, or who never had a mortgage with your company. Anectdotally, these things do seem to have happened, but there's no evidence that they're frequent, or that they are connected to the procedural irregularities that we're now discovering with foreclosure documents.

Arnold says that the real scandal is our antiquated title system.

I love how this is framed. The poor banks are simply being overwhelmed by the foreclosure process! They're working so hard! And what happens when you work hard? That's right, you get sloppy. You might even take a few shortcuts to ease the dreadful burden that has been thrust upon you by those irresponsible homeowners! But certainly these little oopsies are forgivable, right? I mean, who hasn't hired thugs to break into peoples' houses and change their locks, even when their house hasn't been foreclosed? It could happen to any major financial institution!

But this isn't the only heist the banks are pulling right now. From across the pond, we have this charming story from the Guardian about the banks "threatening" to leave Europe if limits are placed on their precious, precious bonus checks:

New proposals to cap bankers' bonuses and restrict cash payments will force banks to relocate outside the City and Europe, it was warned today.

As lobbying began ahead of a one-month consultation on the proposals published by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, experts warned that European banks would be expected to comply with the guidelines wherever they employed their staff - be they in Europe, Asia or the US.

Under the proposals, bankers would only receive 20% of their bonuses in cash with the remainder paid in shares or some other financial instrument and deferred for between three and five years.

Jon Terry of PwC said that this could result in a major change in where banks do business.

"Of particular concern will be the requirements that will apply to European banks operating, for example, in Asia, compared with local firms. Unfortunately this deviation from global trends in banking remuneration could make it more likely that banks move operations, or at least expand, outside of the European Union," Terry said.

"Many banking organisations could question why a globally mobile bank employee would continue to work for a European institution that will subject their pay to these provisions as opposed to a non-EU competitor bank," Terry added.

In other words, "If you don't let us keep our bonuses we might lose the incentive to steal peoples' houses."

Wanna know my solution to this problem? Let them go.

I mean it. What do these guys provide our economy besides housing bubbles and fraudulent foreclosure documents? I say let them go over to China and wreck their economy. In fact, now that I think about it, why do we keep employing Goldman Sachs CEOs in the Treasury Department when we should be hiring them in the Pentagon. Think about how quickly Goldman and pals could sink countries like Iran and North Korea if they moved their operations over there and began looting them just as much as they've been looting us!

Frigging scumbags.

It take a fair degree of skill to pen a journalistic story that hews to the appearance of objectivity yet is out to sell a point of view.

The lead article in the Journal tonight, “Niche Lawyers Spawned Housing Fracas” telegraphs its bias in its headline: the foreclosure crisis is merely the creation of two bit lawyers who by implication don’t know what they are doing, and are pumping trivial issues up for their own enrichment, with the housing market as collateral damage.

Funny that anyone can think this spin is remotely true. The fact that solo practitioner lawyers could have such an impact on the system is not proof that they are miscreants, as the Journal implies. It is that the foundation of mortgage securitzations is rotten as a result of widespread abuses, first on the origination end, later in the foreclosure process. These small firm players are using the legal equivalent of toothpicks; the fact that their efforts have destablized the foundation of the residential mortgage backed securities market is tangible proof that they were imperiled to begin with.

Let’s parse some sections of the article, starting from the top:

The paperwork mess muddying home foreclosures erupted last month. But the legal strategy behind it traces to a lawyer’s gambit in 2006 that has helped keep one couple in their home six years beyond their last mortgage payment.

Not bad in the drive-by shooting category. The foreclosure crisis, which is the result of what increasingly appears to be a widespread failure to convey borrower promissory notes and related liens properly to the the securitization entity is reduced to a mere “paperwork mess”. So the idea that the shortcomings are serious is dismissed. Similarly, the efforts of various attorneys who have been chipping away as aspects of this problem are incorrectly lumped together, as if there was really only a single, simpleminded strategy, a mere “lawyer’s gambit” which by implication, was copied by other low life attorneys. And this effort was to keep a deadbeat borrower illegitimately housed.

Funny, this James Kowalski, the attorney behind this dastardly act, did what members of the bar normally do (at least if they are competent): they look for weaknesses in fact and law in the case presented by the other side. And part of the process involves, stunningly enough, depositions! Kowalski’s evil deed was that he was early, perhaps first, to find a robo signer, back in 2006.

But robo signers are an abuse of court process. You can’t have it one way, and say you believe in law and order and the sanctity of contract, and then say it’s just fine to abuse legal procedures if you are pretty sure you are right. Well you can’t unless you are the Journal, skilled in the art of defending plutocrats, no matter how much in the way of mental gymnastics that might require.

But this implicit focus on robo signers (which admittedly did bring the bigger issue of foreclosure abuses into the limelight) again is a convenient diversion, since the robo signer is far from the most serious problem now affecting the foreclosure process.

Back to the Journal’s account:

It was a first step in the growth of a legal sub-specialty called foreclosure defense that has sown confusion and turmoil in the housing market. Lawyers in the field now commonly use a technique more identified with corporate litigation: probing depositions, designed to uncover any lapses in judgment, flaws in a process or wrongdoing. In the 23 states where foreclosures entail a court hearing, the bank may be ordered to pay the homeowner’s legal bill if a lawyer can convince a judge that the bank has submitted false documents, such as affidavits saying employees personally reviewed the details of loans when they didn’t.

Huh? With all due respect, this is the first time I’ve heard of this “foreclosure defense” sub specialty. Please. These are consumer lawyers, and some of them have gotten good enough at fighting foreclosures that they do it full time. But “sub-speciality” implies a degree of fomalization and coordination of effort that isn’t there. Oh, and the Journal deems it to be bad form for mere consumer lawyers to use the techniques of decent trial lawyers (only corporations are supposed to have access to competent litigators, it seems).

But it gets even better. The Journal couldn’t be bothered letting facts get in the way of a tidy narrative. Kowalski weighed in in the comment section of the article:

Despite my best efforts to answer all of Mr. Whelan’s questions, the article contains a number of misstatements. First, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson did not face a foreclosure hearing after simply stopping payment – they paid the entire amount due per a statement sent to them by GMAC, and paid by certified check. GMAC mistakenly refused the check, alleging it was an NSF payment (not possible with certified funds), then placed the couple in foreclosure. I was simply trying to track the facts of the payment by deposing a witness who had sworn in court documents that she had reviewed the entire file and was familiar with the payment history, when, as it turned out, she was not only not familiar with the payment history, but the substance of her entire affidavit was false, including the allegation that the affidavit was sworn to in front of a notary. These were substantive questions I needed answers to – not an excuse for a delay. Further, the judge did not “throw out the case” – it is still pending, with GMAC still suing the Jacksons, years later.

I, and most of my fellow consumer attorneys who are members of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, do not raise these issues for delay – we raise them because we all have cases (this is the bulk of my foreclosure defense practice) where all or part of the foreclosure is purely the fault of the servicer or mill law firm – from homeowners whose payments were misrouted by the servicer, to servicers who simply changed the address of the property and then force-placed flood insurance, to servicers who ignore insurance plans the borrowers paid for (all examples from my cases) to servicers who refuse to even accept HAMP-type loan modification documents – all are substantive, real problems that were not the fault of the borrowers. The deposition was, in the Jackson case, merely an effort to get at the truth of the reversed payment – instead, GMAC admitted to wholesale manufacture of court documents, then promised to fix the practice, then continued that practice unabated for 4 more years.

Most of what we have uncovered are criminal violations – false testimony under oath, notary fraud, etc. These problems will continue until the attorneys general who have formed a task force recognize and confront the significant criminal violations, and will continue unless we have real reform of the servicing practices that emphasize speed over the truth.

Not a single one of my clients wants (or deserves) a free house. What they want (and deserve) is for their voices to be heard, and, for better or worse, consumer lawyers are the only ones capable of achieving this at the moment.

Oh, and it would have been nice if Mr. Whelan had taken the time to spell my name correctly throughout the article.

Yves here. Servicer abuses that result in foreclosures are simply not getting the media attention they deserve. The prevailing perception, and the party line from the banks, is that the borrowers are all deadbeats and therefore any efforts to aid them are simply an abuse of court processes.

But servicers are modern judges, juries, and to the extent they can railroad foreclosures through, executioners. When a payment arrives after the due date (and servicers have been found to hold checks to render payments late), under RESPA and the bank’s agreement with the borrower, the bank is supposed to apply payments to principal and interest first, then any late fees. But if you incur a late fee, they instead apply the payment to that first, which makes your regular monthly payment come up short. So then you get an insufficiency fee.

Servicers don’t send detailed monthly statements like credit card companies, telling you how your payments were applied. This process of misapplication of payment and failure to notify borrowers when fees have been incurred guarantees that the charges will balloon. It isn’t until months have passed and the extra balance become large, say $2000 or more, that the homeowner realizes they are under water according to their servicer, even though they have made all their regular payments. Many lack the extra money to clear out all these largely bogus fees; other have tried fighting, only to find the servicer won’t budge, and they rack up more charges, which forces them either to capitulate or lose their home.

Nevertheless, the Journal runs the party line that nothing is wrong with the foreclosure machinery, when the intense pushback suggests otherwise, and brandishes the usual financial services industry threat: hurt us, and it will hurt you even more:

“There is a movement afoot by [state attorneys general] and private lawyers to use technical problems to avoid foreclosures where the borrower is in default and the foreclosure is in all respects substantively appropriate. These are lawyers where the best job they can do for their clients is to keep them in their houses without paying the mortgage,” said Andrew L. Sandler, a Washington securities lawyer who represents banks and firms that service mortgages.

Mr. Sandler added: “The class-action lawyers are swarming around this issue right now, because they perceive that it can result in significant fees for them. But they’re not well-founded cases, and the banks will vigorously contest any class action around these issues.”

The big risk to banks and the housing market, indeed, is that more homeowners and lawyers come to see such cases as attractive to fight.

It’s certainly fair to say some legal actions are based on weak theories; we dissed the widely touted investor suit against Countrywide on mortgage putbacks yesterday, and have selectively argued against other legal theories. But some of these cases are based on careful study of real abuses and are attacking improper, potentially fraudulent actions. This is one of the few checks we have left on misuse of power, but the powers that be want the public to see these legal challenges as a threat to their financial security and accept compromises, just as we have been forced to accept diminished civil liberties and ever more intrusive surveillance in the name of personal security.

One encouraging sign: I didn’t take a careful tally, but despite the Journal’s heavy spin on this story, its comment section seemed to be running at only a 50% acceptance of its position. The more the banks try to press the merits of their case on dubious evidence, the more the public is coming to realize they are not to be believed.

Fashion, sports and magic: Moscow expats talk <b>news</b> over booze - RT

New Moscow Mayor, Russian Fashion Week and the Spartak – Chelsea match were among the most heavily discussed news items this week among Moscow expats.

Macsimum <b>News</b> - Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation

MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 22, 2010 at 10:52am. image Apple's announcement that they would be ceasing future development of their ...

Surprise: Fox <b>News</b> signs Juan Williams to new $2 million deal <b>...</b>

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. ...

eric seiger eric seiger
Before I get into the update on the financial industry's massive swindling of the world, I'd like to encourage you all to give money to Alan Grayson, one of the few Congressmen who has been making a stink about the enormous fraud that the financial industry has been unleashing on the American people. I shudder to think what will happen to this Congress if we lose one of its few courageous voices and get more shills for the financial services industry. So give to Grayson. Give, give, give.

So now, back to Wall Street's continuing quest to loot America. BoA has become the latest pack of scumbags to realize that they didn't do a good enough job of forging documents to evict people from their homes and that they'll have to backtrack a bit:

Bank of America said Friday it is halting all foreclosure sales and foreclosure proceedings nationwide while it reviews the documents being used to justify homeowner evictions.

It is the first bank to put a moratorium on foreclosures in all 50 states. Previously, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and others were only pausing foreclosures in states where a court has to participate in foreclosure proceedings.

To review how we got to this point, click here. It basically boils down this: After the securitization process the banks had no idea what mortgages were and were not on their books. So they started making stuff up to compensate. This is theft, pure and simple.

Megan McArdle predictably comes leaping to the poor banks' defense, saying they may have made a few oopsies but are overall swell people:

The story on the foreclosure mess has become a bit overblown in some tellings. It's clear that banks have been taking some shortcuts in preparing their foreclosure documents. The banks are obviously overwhelmed with the volume of foreclosures, and the (apparently) many instances in which sloppy securitization has resulted in lost paper trails, obscuring who, exactly has a right to foreclose. Rather than seeking legislative or judicial clarification, they've resorted to dubious practices that seem (to my non-legally-trained eye) illegal.

That is bad. But as Arnold Kling points out, there's little evidence that this has resulted in improper foreclosures: evicting people who've paid, or who never had a mortgage with your company. Anectdotally, these things do seem to have happened, but there's no evidence that they're frequent, or that they are connected to the procedural irregularities that we're now discovering with foreclosure documents.

Arnold says that the real scandal is our antiquated title system.

I love how this is framed. The poor banks are simply being overwhelmed by the foreclosure process! They're working so hard! And what happens when you work hard? That's right, you get sloppy. You might even take a few shortcuts to ease the dreadful burden that has been thrust upon you by those irresponsible homeowners! But certainly these little oopsies are forgivable, right? I mean, who hasn't hired thugs to break into peoples' houses and change their locks, even when their house hasn't been foreclosed? It could happen to any major financial institution!

But this isn't the only heist the banks are pulling right now. From across the pond, we have this charming story from the Guardian about the banks "threatening" to leave Europe if limits are placed on their precious, precious bonus checks:

New proposals to cap bankers' bonuses and restrict cash payments will force banks to relocate outside the City and Europe, it was warned today.

As lobbying began ahead of a one-month consultation on the proposals published by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, experts warned that European banks would be expected to comply with the guidelines wherever they employed their staff - be they in Europe, Asia or the US.

Under the proposals, bankers would only receive 20% of their bonuses in cash with the remainder paid in shares or some other financial instrument and deferred for between three and five years.

Jon Terry of PwC said that this could result in a major change in where banks do business.

"Of particular concern will be the requirements that will apply to European banks operating, for example, in Asia, compared with local firms. Unfortunately this deviation from global trends in banking remuneration could make it more likely that banks move operations, or at least expand, outside of the European Union," Terry said.

"Many banking organisations could question why a globally mobile bank employee would continue to work for a European institution that will subject their pay to these provisions as opposed to a non-EU competitor bank," Terry added.

In other words, "If you don't let us keep our bonuses we might lose the incentive to steal peoples' houses."

Wanna know my solution to this problem? Let them go.

I mean it. What do these guys provide our economy besides housing bubbles and fraudulent foreclosure documents? I say let them go over to China and wreck their economy. In fact, now that I think about it, why do we keep employing Goldman Sachs CEOs in the Treasury Department when we should be hiring them in the Pentagon. Think about how quickly Goldman and pals could sink countries like Iran and North Korea if they moved their operations over there and began looting them just as much as they've been looting us!

Frigging scumbags.

It take a fair degree of skill to pen a journalistic story that hews to the appearance of objectivity yet is out to sell a point of view.

The lead article in the Journal tonight, “Niche Lawyers Spawned Housing Fracas” telegraphs its bias in its headline: the foreclosure crisis is merely the creation of two bit lawyers who by implication don’t know what they are doing, and are pumping trivial issues up for their own enrichment, with the housing market as collateral damage.

Funny that anyone can think this spin is remotely true. The fact that solo practitioner lawyers could have such an impact on the system is not proof that they are miscreants, as the Journal implies. It is that the foundation of mortgage securitzations is rotten as a result of widespread abuses, first on the origination end, later in the foreclosure process. These small firm players are using the legal equivalent of toothpicks; the fact that their efforts have destablized the foundation of the residential mortgage backed securities market is tangible proof that they were imperiled to begin with.

Let’s parse some sections of the article, starting from the top:

The paperwork mess muddying home foreclosures erupted last month. But the legal strategy behind it traces to a lawyer’s gambit in 2006 that has helped keep one couple in their home six years beyond their last mortgage payment.

Not bad in the drive-by shooting category. The foreclosure crisis, which is the result of what increasingly appears to be a widespread failure to convey borrower promissory notes and related liens properly to the the securitization entity is reduced to a mere “paperwork mess”. So the idea that the shortcomings are serious is dismissed. Similarly, the efforts of various attorneys who have been chipping away as aspects of this problem are incorrectly lumped together, as if there was really only a single, simpleminded strategy, a mere “lawyer’s gambit” which by implication, was copied by other low life attorneys. And this effort was to keep a deadbeat borrower illegitimately housed.

Funny, this James Kowalski, the attorney behind this dastardly act, did what members of the bar normally do (at least if they are competent): they look for weaknesses in fact and law in the case presented by the other side. And part of the process involves, stunningly enough, depositions! Kowalski’s evil deed was that he was early, perhaps first, to find a robo signer, back in 2006.

But robo signers are an abuse of court process. You can’t have it one way, and say you believe in law and order and the sanctity of contract, and then say it’s just fine to abuse legal procedures if you are pretty sure you are right. Well you can’t unless you are the Journal, skilled in the art of defending plutocrats, no matter how much in the way of mental gymnastics that might require.

But this implicit focus on robo signers (which admittedly did bring the bigger issue of foreclosure abuses into the limelight) again is a convenient diversion, since the robo signer is far from the most serious problem now affecting the foreclosure process.

Back to the Journal’s account:

It was a first step in the growth of a legal sub-specialty called foreclosure defense that has sown confusion and turmoil in the housing market. Lawyers in the field now commonly use a technique more identified with corporate litigation: probing depositions, designed to uncover any lapses in judgment, flaws in a process or wrongdoing. In the 23 states where foreclosures entail a court hearing, the bank may be ordered to pay the homeowner’s legal bill if a lawyer can convince a judge that the bank has submitted false documents, such as affidavits saying employees personally reviewed the details of loans when they didn’t.

Huh? With all due respect, this is the first time I’ve heard of this “foreclosure defense” sub specialty. Please. These are consumer lawyers, and some of them have gotten good enough at fighting foreclosures that they do it full time. But “sub-speciality” implies a degree of fomalization and coordination of effort that isn’t there. Oh, and the Journal deems it to be bad form for mere consumer lawyers to use the techniques of decent trial lawyers (only corporations are supposed to have access to competent litigators, it seems).

But it gets even better. The Journal couldn’t be bothered letting facts get in the way of a tidy narrative. Kowalski weighed in in the comment section of the article:

Despite my best efforts to answer all of Mr. Whelan’s questions, the article contains a number of misstatements. First, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson did not face a foreclosure hearing after simply stopping payment – they paid the entire amount due per a statement sent to them by GMAC, and paid by certified check. GMAC mistakenly refused the check, alleging it was an NSF payment (not possible with certified funds), then placed the couple in foreclosure. I was simply trying to track the facts of the payment by deposing a witness who had sworn in court documents that she had reviewed the entire file and was familiar with the payment history, when, as it turned out, she was not only not familiar with the payment history, but the substance of her entire affidavit was false, including the allegation that the affidavit was sworn to in front of a notary. These were substantive questions I needed answers to – not an excuse for a delay. Further, the judge did not “throw out the case” – it is still pending, with GMAC still suing the Jacksons, years later.

I, and most of my fellow consumer attorneys who are members of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, do not raise these issues for delay – we raise them because we all have cases (this is the bulk of my foreclosure defense practice) where all or part of the foreclosure is purely the fault of the servicer or mill law firm – from homeowners whose payments were misrouted by the servicer, to servicers who simply changed the address of the property and then force-placed flood insurance, to servicers who ignore insurance plans the borrowers paid for (all examples from my cases) to servicers who refuse to even accept HAMP-type loan modification documents – all are substantive, real problems that were not the fault of the borrowers. The deposition was, in the Jackson case, merely an effort to get at the truth of the reversed payment – instead, GMAC admitted to wholesale manufacture of court documents, then promised to fix the practice, then continued that practice unabated for 4 more years.

Most of what we have uncovered are criminal violations – false testimony under oath, notary fraud, etc. These problems will continue until the attorneys general who have formed a task force recognize and confront the significant criminal violations, and will continue unless we have real reform of the servicing practices that emphasize speed over the truth.

Not a single one of my clients wants (or deserves) a free house. What they want (and deserve) is for their voices to be heard, and, for better or worse, consumer lawyers are the only ones capable of achieving this at the moment.

Oh, and it would have been nice if Mr. Whelan had taken the time to spell my name correctly throughout the article.

Yves here. Servicer abuses that result in foreclosures are simply not getting the media attention they deserve. The prevailing perception, and the party line from the banks, is that the borrowers are all deadbeats and therefore any efforts to aid them are simply an abuse of court processes.

But servicers are modern judges, juries, and to the extent they can railroad foreclosures through, executioners. When a payment arrives after the due date (and servicers have been found to hold checks to render payments late), under RESPA and the bank’s agreement with the borrower, the bank is supposed to apply payments to principal and interest first, then any late fees. But if you incur a late fee, they instead apply the payment to that first, which makes your regular monthly payment come up short. So then you get an insufficiency fee.

Servicers don’t send detailed monthly statements like credit card companies, telling you how your payments were applied. This process of misapplication of payment and failure to notify borrowers when fees have been incurred guarantees that the charges will balloon. It isn’t until months have passed and the extra balance become large, say $2000 or more, that the homeowner realizes they are under water according to their servicer, even though they have made all their regular payments. Many lack the extra money to clear out all these largely bogus fees; other have tried fighting, only to find the servicer won’t budge, and they rack up more charges, which forces them either to capitulate or lose their home.

Nevertheless, the Journal runs the party line that nothing is wrong with the foreclosure machinery, when the intense pushback suggests otherwise, and brandishes the usual financial services industry threat: hurt us, and it will hurt you even more:

“There is a movement afoot by [state attorneys general] and private lawyers to use technical problems to avoid foreclosures where the borrower is in default and the foreclosure is in all respects substantively appropriate. These are lawyers where the best job they can do for their clients is to keep them in their houses without paying the mortgage,” said Andrew L. Sandler, a Washington securities lawyer who represents banks and firms that service mortgages.

Mr. Sandler added: “The class-action lawyers are swarming around this issue right now, because they perceive that it can result in significant fees for them. But they’re not well-founded cases, and the banks will vigorously contest any class action around these issues.”

The big risk to banks and the housing market, indeed, is that more homeowners and lawyers come to see such cases as attractive to fight.

It’s certainly fair to say some legal actions are based on weak theories; we dissed the widely touted investor suit against Countrywide on mortgage putbacks yesterday, and have selectively argued against other legal theories. But some of these cases are based on careful study of real abuses and are attacking improper, potentially fraudulent actions. This is one of the few checks we have left on misuse of power, but the powers that be want the public to see these legal challenges as a threat to their financial security and accept compromises, just as we have been forced to accept diminished civil liberties and ever more intrusive surveillance in the name of personal security.

One encouraging sign: I didn’t take a careful tally, but despite the Journal’s heavy spin on this story, its comment section seemed to be running at only a 50% acceptance of its position. The more the banks try to press the merits of their case on dubious evidence, the more the public is coming to realize they are not to be believed.

Fashion, sports and magic: Moscow expats talk <b>news</b> over booze - RT

New Moscow Mayor, Russian Fashion Week and the Spartak – Chelsea match were among the most heavily discussed news items this week among Moscow expats.

Macsimum <b>News</b> - Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation

MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 22, 2010 at 10:52am. image Apple's announcement that they would be ceasing future development of their ...

Surprise: Fox <b>News</b> signs Juan Williams to new $2 million deal <b>...</b>

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. ...

eric seiger eric seiger