ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

House GOP Wants To Repeal Requirement That Banks Hold A Portion Of Their Risky Loans

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Republicans have made quite the show of disparaging the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, calling for its repeal, refusing to provide regulators with the funds to implement it, and blocking nominees for key regulatory positions. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) took the latest step in that campaign yesterday, introducing a bill that would repeal an important Dodd-Frank safeguard for the financial system.

One of the key factors that led to the housing bubble’s boom and bust was the ability of subprime mortgage lenders to make a loan and then turn around and sell the entire loan to Wall Street. As the Center for Public Integrity wrote, “lenders were selling their loans to Wall Street, so they wouldn’t be left holding the deed in the event of a foreclosure. In a financial version of hot potato, they could make bad loans and just pass them along.” This fueled a dramatic decline in lending standards and gave subprime lenders every incentive to push loans onto people, since the lenders could divorce themselves from all the risk associated with a loan that didn’t pan out.

Dodd-Frank requires that lenders retain at least five percent of their loans, so that they have some “skin in the game.” Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee — following Financial Service Committee Spencer Bachus’ (R-AL) call to “serve the banks” — want to the repeal that requirement:

[Garret's] bill would eliminate a provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that requires financial firms to retain “skin in the game” by holding some of the risk from mortgages they packaged into bonds.

Garrett said he hopes to move his bill through his subcommittee in short order, as the full committee begins to consider other GOP housing bills as they advance to the House floor.

Banks have been quietly trying to nix this portion of the law, after they were unsuccessful in getting it out while Dodd-Frank was being debated. The banking industry said that it was counting on “better outcomes” with Republicans running the House of Representatives. This is just one more way in which that attitude is turning into reality.

NEWS FLASH

Karger Calls On NOM To Release Its Tax Returns | Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger has written to the National Organization for Marriage demanding it release its 2010 federal tax returns, which are not currently publicly available as required by law. NOM has also not filed with the IRS on time for any of the four years since it began. Karger points out, “You can’t blame me for being suspicious, since NOM has sued 23 states to try and keep the names of all your funders secret.” Read the full letter at Good As You.

Yglesias

Gone Vacationing

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Friends, readers, I am off on vacation for a while in Paris, France. I’ve been several times, but not for over 10 years so I’m really looking forward to it.

Y’all know I can’t quit blogging, so there’ll still be some posts but not, you know, too many.

Climate Progress

Mitt Romney IS a Member of a Cult: Likely GOP Nominee Asserts, “We Don’t Know What’s Causing Climate Change”

By Joe Romm on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm

The likely GOP nominee for President is Mitt Romney (going by Intrade Prediction Market).  And he is a member of a cult.

No, Mormonism isn’t a cult. But Global Warming Denial is.

And Romney swore allegiance to that cult this week:

My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

As TP Green reports:

“I think the EPA, acting in concert with the president, really doesn’t like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear,” Romney said in response to another question. “I really do believe that the EPA wants to get its hands on all of energy and be able to crush it to cause prices to go through the roof.” To applause, he concluded that “the EPA should not be regulating carbon dioxide.”

If it weren’t obvious before that global warming denial is a cult — and a dangerous one at that — the response of the cultists to the Berkeley study has  demonstrated it once and for all — see WashPost: “The Scientific Finding that Settles the Climate-Change Debate” and “Confirms” the Hockey Stick Graph.

Back in June, Climate Progress reported that Mitt Romney said:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that….  And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.

Needless to say, flip flops are not unusual where Romney is concerned.  But it’s a mark of cults that those who hang around other members — such as his fellow GOP nominees and the Tea Party activists taking over the party — become more and more indoctrinated.

As HuffPost notes, “Romney’s climate denial puts him in line with most every other contender in the Republican presidential field”:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

Justice

Tenthers Use Marijuana As A Wedge To Attack The Constitution

By Ian Millhiser on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:20 pm

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors in California announced that they were stepping up enforcement against medical marijuana clinics that have allegedly become de facto dealerships where people without a medical need can still buy pot. In response to this unfortunate diversion of scarce resources to minor drug crimes that cause, at most, negligible harm to society, a medical marijuana advocacy group called Americans for Safe Access filed an equally unfortunate lawsuit seeking to have the Justice Department’s actions declared unconstitutional:

Adamant in its disagreement with the policy choice made by the States of California to decriminalize marijuana for medical use — which is California’s sovereign right under our federalist system of government — the federal government has instituted a policy to dismantle the medical marijuana laws of the State of California and to coerce its municipalities to pass bans no medical marijuana dispensaries. . . . While the federal government is entitled to enforce its criminal laws against marijuana in the states that have decriminalized it for medical use in an even-handed manner, the Tenth Amendment forbids it from selectively employing such coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the State. This case is brought to restore the constitutional balance embodied by the federalist principles of our Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.

This is strong rhetoric, but it’s tough to find an actual legal argument in here. In essence, the lawsuit appears to claim that the federal government is violating something known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” which forbids the federal government from requiring a state government to take a particular action. As the Supreme Court held in Printz v. United States, “the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.”

The problem with this lawsuit is that there is no indication whatsoever that DOJ is ordering California to do anything. The Justice Department is targeting marijuana clinics and individuals who do business with them. None of these people are the state of California.

Yet the fact that DOJ’s attacks on these clinics is constitutional does not make them right, and they expose a very real political danger for anyone worried about the tenther movement’s effort to replace our Constitution with a radical libertarian vision that would declare much of the Twentieth Century unconstitutional. The polling trend on marijuana policy is clear and unambiguous, and it leaves no doubt which side is on the right side of history:

Our current policy, which criminalizes an activity that nearly half of all Americans will engage in is unsustainable. And many people who want to take a machete to the Constitution are eager to exploit this fact. Randy Barnett, the extremist law professor who wants to make everything from Social Security to Medicare to child labors law unconstitutional, began his crusade by unsuccessfully arguing to weaken federal marijuana laws in the Supreme Court. The Tenth Amendment Center, an even more extremist organization that lists unconstitutional nullification of federal laws as one of its primary objectives, touts an unconstitutional hemp bill as one of its top priorities.

Progressives cannot afford to cede an increasingly popular issue to a movement that wants nothing more than to dismantle our social safety net, strip workers of their most basic legal protections and create a society where wealth becomes destiny. Our current federal marijuana policy is unambiguously constitutional, but that does not make it right.

Alyssa

Cultural Norms For Culture Fans

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Spencer Ackerman is, of course, an ace defense reporter, but I really love it when he writes about culture. And I particularly appreciated this meditation on the New York punk club that was critically important to him growing up, because I think it reflects, to come back to a perpetual hobby-horse, the kind of norm-building it would be great to do in fan communities and at conventions:

Above my desk I keep a photograph that my wife bought for me of ABC No Rio. ABC No Rio is a punk club and (former?) squat on Rivington Street in the Lower East Side of Manhattan where every Saturday afternoon a motley assortment of bands perform. I think of it as the punk rock version of the Boys & Girls Club, because that was the role it played for me as a teenager…it was supposed to be a place where you would be made to feel unwelcome if you groped someone in the pit; if you made a homophobic or racist remark; or if you engaged in otherwise destructive behavior.

You could be drunk or high and have sex — you weren’t supposed to be, but no one was really going to stop you — but if that translated into behavior that threatened others, your ass would be kicked out. It was filled with contradictions — a scene that supposedly glorified nihilism and free expression being so rigid? — but they were resolved, intellectually speaking, according to the baseline principle that those were the basic social responsibilities needed for the world in which we wanted to live to exist, a haven from the aggravating bullshit around us.

Again, these principles were never fully realized. I know women who were abused at ABC No Rio. I am thinking in particular of one individual who got away with it, probably because of his scene cred. I cringe at the idea that this piece will come across as treacly or sanitized. These are the reflections of a straight white boy who came up in the mid-90s and who went on to do all manner of bad things in his life. Your mileage may vary.

But it was important that these were the basic values that you were expected to adopt if you wanted to be part of what ABC No Rio was.

When I wrote about my experience at New York Comic Con, I noted how level the crowd seemed, how there were no particular signifiers of coolness. It also didn’t feel, for me, at least, like an unsafe space. The female cosplayers I saw getting their pictures taken mostly seemed to be objects of admiration because their costumes were completely and utterly awesome, less because they were intensely sexual or revealing. And almost no vendors were employing booth babes, perhaps in a sign that strategy is played out, though we’ll see when I hit San Diego Comic Con next year.

But despite that generally neutral atmosphere, it would still be great if there was a way to sell en masse the idea the dominant culture at cons was inclusive and oriented against harassment. Some changes, like panelists making a conscious effort to treat questioners who raise issues of representation and inclusiveness in art with respect, even if the questions are tough, would be relatively easy. Others, like adopting sexual harassment policies and training staff to enforce them, would take slightly more effort. But none of this is impossible. And even if enforcement’s inconsistent, the effort is important.

Special Topic

Occupying Congress: Seven Progressive House Candidates Deliver Jobs Petition From The 99 Percent To Boehner

By Zaid Jilani on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm

Wednesday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee teamed up with seven progressive Democratic Party candidates for the House of Representatives to occupy Congress by delivering petitions from thousands of members of the 99 percent to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH). The petition asked Boehner to pass the Jobs Act and to stand with the 99 percent, not the richest 1 percent of Americans.

“We need people in Congress who have the right priorities. Who don’t let Wall Street destroy Main Street,” said Franke Wilmer, who is running for an at-large seat in Montana, as the candidates gathered to enter the capitol. “Workers didn’t fire themselves and senior citizens didn’t cause this recession.” When the seven candidates got to Boehner’s office, Brittany Brammell, Boehner’s press secretary, did not allow them in but did promise to take the petitions. She did not tell them when Boehner would take up the jobs bill. Watch it:

“We’ve come to the conclusion that this really means, ‘Welcome, one percent, please come in,’” remarked House candidate Markos Liias of a welcome sign outside Boehner’s door. “Speaker Boehner and the Republicans in Congress ignore the 99 percent at their peril.”

Update

Here are the candidates who participated, from a list provided by the PCCC:

* Eric Griego (NM-1) — running in Dem primary for Martin Heinrich’s open seat
* Lois Frankel (FL-22) — running in Dem primary for Allen West’s seat.
* Ilya Sheyman (IL-10) — running in Dem primary for Bob Dold’s seat.
* Marko Liias (WA-1) — running in Dem primary for Jay Inslee’s open seat
* Franke Wilmer (MT-AL) — running in Dem primary for Denny Rehberg’s open seat
* Wenona Benally Baldenegro (AZ-1) — running in Dem primary for Paul Gosar’s seat
* Lori Saldana (CA-52) — running in Dem primary for Brian Bilbray’s seat

LGBT

Pentagon’s Benefits For Military Same-Sex Partners Fall Short Of Equality

By Zack Ford on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm

A day after the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) filed suit upon behalf of gay troops whose partners do not have access to spousal benefits, the Pentagon has released a memo identifying 14 benefits that gay servicemembers can access. Six of these benefits are “new” since the guidelines originally released upon the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, including allowing same-sex partners to attend Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events. The full list includes:

– Service Members Group Life Insurance beneficiary;

– Post Vietnam-era Veterans Assistance Program beneficiary;

– All-volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program – Active Duty Death Benefit beneficiary;

– Death Gratuity beneficiary;

– Final Settlement of Accounts;

– Wounded Warrior Designated Caregiver;

– Thrift Savings Plan beneficiary;

– Survivor Benefit for retirees;

– Casualty Notification;

– Escorts for Dependents of Deceased or Missing;

– Designation of Persons Having Interest in Status of a Missing Member;

– Veterans’ Group Life Insurance beneficiary;

– Person Eligible to Receive Effects of Deceased Persons; and

– Travel and Transportation Allowance: attendance at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events.

Notably missing from the list are central issues in the Defense of Marriage Act lawsuit, including the extension of health benefits to spouses, allowing non-military spouses access to health services for their children, and the ability for same-sex families to live together on base. In fact, Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, points out that “the benefits outlined today were, in fact, available even before the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Economy

After Calling Energy Subsidies ‘Wrong,’ Boehner Wants $2 Billion Loan Guarantee For Ohio Nuclear Plant

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:35 pm

Back in September, as the GOP was getting all riled up over the faux Solyndra scandal, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that “for the federal government to be out there picking one company over another, one type of energy source over another, I think is wrong.” Evidently, though, his attitude toward energy subsidies does not extend to nuclear plants in his home state of Ohio.

As Bloomberg reported today, despite his professed view on energy subsidies, Boehner is backing a $2 billion loan guarantee for an enriching plant run by USEC Inc., saying that failing to provide the guarantee would “betray” Ohio’s workers:

House Speaker John Boehner attacked the Obama administration for financing failed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, saying government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. That hasn’t stopped him from demanding that the U.S. make a winner of a nuclear-fuel plant in Ohio, his home state.

Boehner is backing a $2 billion Energy Department loan guarantee sought by USEC Inc. (USU) for its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, aimed at enriching uranium for commercial nuclear reactors. [...]

“In the midst of the Solyndra controversy that has raised serious questions about the Obama administration’s oversight of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of Southern Ohio workers stand to lose their jobs if the Obama administration reneges on the president’s promise to support an energy project in the small town of Piketon, Ohio,” Boehner wrote. “I urge the administration to not betray the citizens of Ohio.”

Boehner is far from the only Republican using Solyndra to score political points while asking for loan guarantees at the same time. In fact, Republican House members host $11.8 billion in loan guarantees in their districts.

According to Bloomberg, “USEC’s political action committee has given $10,000 to committees supporting Boehner since 2010.” It’s telling that he believes failure to provide a loan guarantee is a betrayal of workers, while pushing budget cuts that cost hundreds of thousands of workers their jobs is responsible governance.

Security

Romney: U.S. ‘Should Not Play The Role Of Leader’ In Mid-East Peace, ‘Follow’ Israel Instead

By Ben Armbruster on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:20 pm

If Mitt Romney becomes president, there are a lot of important foreign policy decisions that he’d leave up to others. Most notably, Romney often says that whatever the generals decide, that’s the course he’ll take in Afghanistan (although he backtracked on that stance when pressed recently).

Now it seems that a President Romney will allow the Israeli government to decide American policy toward that country. The free daily newspaper Israel Hayom — a media outlet closely associated with right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — asked Romney if, as president, he would ever consider moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his answer, Romney made some astonishing claims. First, that his policy toward Israel will be guided by Israeli leaders; second, on the Jerusalem issue, he’d do whatever Israel tells him to do; and third, he does not think the United States should take a leadership role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

The policy that the American Embassy reside in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem pre-dates the current administration. In fact, as Lara Friedman notes at Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. “does not recognize the sovereignty of any party in any part of Jerusalem (East or West)” and it’s “a policy that dates back to pre-1948, and has been followed by every U.S. Administration since, regardless of the President or party in the White House.”

In 1995, Congress passed a law allowing funding for the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but the law includes an executive waiver allowing the president to invoke national security interests to block such a move. Every U.S. president since the law passed, Clinton, Obama and Bush, has invoked that waiver.

In an email to ThinkProgress, Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann laid out the consequences should Romney follow through on his pledge:

Were an American President be actually so irresponsible as to move the US embassy to Jerusalem outside of the context of a comprehensive permanent status agreement, such a President would contribute nothing to legitimizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Instead he would be following Israel into abject isolation, and the United States into an weakened and marginal regional and global role.

Mitt Romney the candidate falls short of making that irresponsible undertaking, and one would hope that if elected President he would find less devastating ways of protecting the US interest and aiding Israel to arrive at a conflict-ending agreement.

But it might also come as a surprise to some that Romney not only wants Israel to dictate U.S. policy, but that he does not want the United States to lead the peace process. Out on the campaign trail, Romney regularly says Obama “has thrown Israel under the bus.” But perhaps now we know who Romney thinks should be driving it.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up