As part of their foreclosure fraud settlement with the federal government and state attorneys general, five of Wall Street’s biggest banks were required to provide billions of dollars in relief to homeowners. After months of lagging, the banks have finally started: according to a report from the settlement watchdog, the banks have provided $26 billion in relief, including $6.3 billion in mortgage writedowns that directly reduce the amount borrowers owe on their loans.

But much of the money devoted toward relief thus far has not been put toward writedowns. Instead, it has been used to finance short sales that likely would have occurred even without the settlement, because such sales are more beneficial to banks than writedowns and less expensive than foreclosures, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

So far, short sales account for the vast majority of relief tabbed under the settlement, with banks forgiving around $13.1 billion on more than 113,000 properties. Many of those short sales might have happened without the settlement because banks generally lose less money on those than they do on foreclosures.

Counting short sales as relief isn’t prohibited, since under the settlement banks are required to spend $10 billion on principal reduction and $10 billion on other forms of relief. That they are counting short sales they likely would have conducted anyway instead of direct relief efforts, though, is yet another troubling sign for the mortgage settlement, which was hamstrung early by state governments that used mortgage relief funds to close gaping budget holes instead of to help distressed homeowners. As of October, less than half of the funds sent to states had been spent on relief.

Further, short sales, while less expensive for the banks, aren’t the best way to provide relief. According to recent studies, principal reduction, which provides direct relief to homeowners who are underwater thanks to plunging prices from the housing crisis, is the most effective means of preventing future foreclosures.

By 2020, more than one-quarter of U.S. workers will be working low-wage jobs, not making enough money to keep a family of four out of poverty. The corporations that employ the most low-wage workers, meanwhile, “have largely recovered from the recession and most are in strong financial positions.” 92 percent of them were profitable last year, while three-quarters are making more in revenues than they were before the recession.

The retail industry is one of those that employs the most low-wage workers. (About 36 percent of low-wage workers work in retail.) And according to a new report from Demos, big retailers could afford to boost their workers’ income to $25,000 per year without eating into their bottom line:

The cost of increasing the living standards of more than 5 million Americans, adding $11.8 to $15.2 billion to GDP, and creating no less than 100,000 jobs amounts to just a small portion of total earnings among the biggest firms. The retail sector takes in more than $4 trillion annually and firms with 1000 or more employees account for more than half of that. At the same time labor compensation in the sector contributes only 12 percent of the total value of production, making payroll just a fraction of total costs. Large retailers could pay full-time, year-round workers $25,000 per year and still make a profit – satisfying shareholders while rewarding their workers for the value they bring to the firm. A raise at large retailers adds $20.8 billion to payroll for the year, or less than 1 percent of total sales in the sector. At the same time it is very likely the firm will experience benefits that offset the cost of the wage increase — in the form of productivity gains and higher sales per employee — making the net cost of the new wage even lower.

Meanwhile, “if retailers pass half of the costs of a wage raise on to their customers, the average household will see just 15 cents added to the cost of its shopping basket on any trip to a large retailer. That amounts to an annual cost of $17.73.”

For a brief moment last week, a House Republican group that serves as an idea shop for the party was on record proposing a remarkably far-reaching reform of American copyright law. The memo (PDF), written by a young staffer named Derek Khanna, was released Friday afternoon by the Republican Study Committee and noticed by The American Conservative’s Jordan Bloom.

Khanna’s memo begins by laying out the original constitutional purpose of copyright protection and how the current legal landscape has strayed from it. It then proceeds to challenge several widely-held beliefs about copyright law, including the claims that it promotes the greatest possible levels of productivity and innovation and that it represents free market ideals at work:

[A]ccording to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation.

This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights. […]

Today’s legal regime of copyright law is seen by many as a form of corporate welfare that hurts innovation and hurts the consumer. It is a system that picks winners and losers, and the losers are new industries that could generate new wealth and added value. We frankly may have no idea how it actually hurts innovation, because we don’t know what isn’t able to be produced as a result of our current system.

But by Saturday afternoon the RSC had pulled the memo, citing an inadequate review process and apologizing for the “oversight.” By then the memo had been saved by other sites and widely praised by the tech and libertarian-leaning quadrants of the blogosphere, many of whom saw the proposal as an opportunity for the GOP to energize young and internet-savvy voters while going after one of the Democrats’ biggest allies and fundraisers. Republicans, for example, were much quicker to abandon SOPA last year when protests against the law kicked into full gear.

The memo lists several specific examples of the damage done by copyright law: Stifling the DJ and remix markets in the United States, making the creation of public libraries — and in particular Project Gutenberg — more difficult, and penalizing legitimate investigative journalism. It concludes with suggestions for reform such as significantly shortening the length of copyright claims, expanding “fair use” doctrine, and reforming statutory damages. (Those damages can currently rise as high $150,000 per infringement.)

Read more

CNBC and Reuters are reporting that Hostess and the bakers’ union have agreed to mediation, avoiding bankruptcy for the maker of Twinkies and Ho Hos. Bargaining will begin tomorrow, but if the talks don’t produce an agreement, liquidation will go forward on Wednesday.

Hostess announced last week that it will go out of business, arguing that disputes with striking union workers are forcing the company out of business. On Monday, at a hearing on Hostess’ request to begin shutting down, a bankruptcy judge “asked whether he should preside over mediation” between the two parties.

Hostess had planned to request that the judge approve a plan that would have allowed it to pay $1.75 million in bonuses to 19 of its executives, who had already received pay raises earlier this year. Bankruptcy could result in “the firing of thousands of employees” and would force the company “to shut down 36 bakeries, 242 depots, 216 retail stores, and 311 hybrid depot-store facilities.”

Hostess Brands, the maker of sweet snacks like Twinkies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last week, will ask a bankruptcy judge today to approve a plan that will allow it to pay $1.75 million in bonuses to 19 of its executives. Hostess’ decision to file for bankruptcy came amid disputes with its union workers, who threatened a strike that Hostess said imperiled the company’s finances. The unions are now protesting Hostess’ request for the bonuses, though they are unlikely to prevail, CNN Money reports:

Hostess Brands will ask a bankruptcy judge on Monday for approval to shut down the company and pay $1.75 million in executive bonuses.

Unions representing workers at the maker of Twinkies, Wonder Bread and Drake’s snacks are arguing against the bonuses. [...]

Under the plan, bonuses ranging from $7,400 to $130,500 will be paid to 19 executives. The company argues the bonuses are below market rates for such payments.

Even as it blamed unions for the bankruptcy and the 18,500 job losses that will ensue, Hostess already gave its executives pay raises earlier this year. The salary of the company’s chief executive tripled from $750,000 to roughly $2.5 million, and at least nine other executives received pay raises ranging from $90,000 to $400,000. Those raises came just months after Hostess originally filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.

Hostess is hardly the only company that has compensated its executives during bankruptcy or times of financial instability. Failed financial firm MF Global gave CEO Jon Corzine an $8 million pay package after it filed for bankruptcy, and Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit received a $6.7 million pay package when he resigned, despite Citi’s 88 percent profit loss during his final quarter. And Hostess isn’t alone in giving executives massive raises while asking for concessions from union workers either: construction giant Caterpillar rewarded its CEO with a 60 percent pay raise, paying him $17 million, even as it forced a pay and pension freeze on its union workforce.

Walmart workers across the country have been striking during the last week, in a buildup to a coordinated walkout on Black Friday — the day after Thanksgiving, which is one of the biggest retail days of the year. According to the group Making Change at Walmart, “a thousand store protests are planned in Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C.” Here’s what you need to know about the situation:

– WHY WORKERS ARE STRIKING: Workers — organized by non-union OUR Walmart — are protesting that Walmart continues to pay low wages and cut benefits, even while it is making billions of dollars in profits. The strikes that have occurred are the first in the 50 year history of the company. Workers have demanded “more-predictable schedules, less-expensive health-care plans and minimum hourly pay of $13 with the option of working full-time.” The company is increasing employee contributions towards its health plan in 2013. Walmart made $15 billion last year, and paid its CEO $18.1 million.

– WALMART’S RESPONSE: The company has claimed that it is “not aware of any major disruptions that are going to happen Black Friday.” However, it has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the protests are being orchestrated by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which Walmart claims is a labor law violation.

– WHY NOW?: Black Friday is not only one of the biggest shopping days of the year, but Walmart and other large retailers have steadily increased their Black Friday hours to extend into Thanksgiving Day. This year, Walmart’s “Black Friday” starts at 8 p.m. Thursday, so workers will miss Thanksgiving evening with their families. Employees claim “they weren’t given a choice as to whether they would work on Thanksgiving and were told to do so with little warning.”

Workers and other concerned citizens have started several petitions aimed at getting Walmart and other big retailers to stop opening so early on Thanksgiving.

Usually, when a political party decisively loses an election, the expectation is for it to shift its policy proposals closer to those of the victors — both to promote compromise and to acknowledge the preference of the voters expressed at the ballot box. However, the GOP has apparently decided to chart a different course in the aftermath of the 2012 contest.

In the primary and the run-up to November, the Republican candidates presented various tax reforms all designed around the same basic concept: cut deductions and loopholes, use those savings to cut tax rates, and rely on boosted economic growth from the reform to bring in new revenue. Within a day of President Obama’s re-election, and the voters’ rejection of their party’s economic vision, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republican lawmakers shifted to proposing that Congress… cut deductions and loopholes, use those savings to cut tax rates, and rely on boosted economic growth from the reform to bring in new revenue.

ThinkProgress has the video report. Watch it:

Besides mangling the dictionary definition of “compromise,” there is a large practical problem with this idea: there’s no evidence that it actually works. A tax reform based on the same framework was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986; no noticeable change in economic growth or the trend in unemployment resulted. The vast majority of historical and analytical evidence says that tax rates, especially those for the wealthy, have no particular relevance for economic growth.

Which is not to say there aren’t good reasons to clean up the tax code — just that boosting economic growth or bringing in new revenue aren’t among them. More revenue could be produced by cutting tax deductions without also cutting rates, and there’s substantial revenue to be gained by cutting deductions for the wealthy — just not enough to come anywhere near President Obama’s goal of $1.6 trillion in new revenue. The remaining alternative is raising tax rates.

Early next year, the U.S. is on pace to once again hit its debt ceiling, the statutory borrowing limit imposed by Congress. When the U.S. neared its debt limit in 2011, House Republicans took it hostage, demanding spending cuts and forcing the first credit downgrade in U.S. history due to their intransigence on taxes.

That the U.S. faces periodic standoffs over the debt ceiling is a problem entirely of Congress’ own creation. The debt ceiling didn’t even exist until 1917, and serves little practical purpose. During an interview on Bloomberg Television, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner acknowledged as much, saying that the U.S. should abolish the debt ceiling entirely:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. “absolutely” should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “The sooner the better.”

Geithner did not commit to personally doing anything to eliminate the nation’s legal limit on borrowing. When pressed on the issue, Geithner told Bloomberg TV: “This is only something only Congress can solve. Congress put it on itself.”

As the American Prospect explained last year, “experts — including former Office of Budget and Management and Treasury officials, congressional staffers, and CBO employees — have suggested in the past, and are suggesting now, replacing the debt ceiling with debt targets for lawmakers to work under.” Certainly, in its current form, the debt ceiling does nothing but give the minority party a chance to manufacture a crisis every time it needs to be increased.