Showing posts with label banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banks. Show all posts

Thursday, June 9, 2011

We Are Being Lied To - MoveOn Civic Action & The Other 98% Flash Mob

I participated in this action on Monday June 6th, if you look closely you can see me in the top left hand corner holding a piece of the letter "W" (see the still photo below)...


Earlier this week, our amazing members joined MoveOn in putting together a flash mob of concerned citizens standing on the steps of Federal Hall on Wall Street, with one simple message for financial elites: We Are Being Lied To.

Click on photo to enlarge

thanks to Dennis P. Osorio for the photo

Thursday, April 28, 2011

New Yorkers to Wall Street on May 12: Make Big Banks & Millionaires Pay


COALITION PLANS WEEK OF ACTION TO STOP BLOOMBERG’S BUDGET CUTS WITH TAXES ON MILLIONAIRES AND ENDING GIVEAWAYS TO BIG BANKS

National Movement Connects the Dots to NYC, Demands Reform and Fair Share in Taxes from Financial Sector
A growing coalition of community, labor, and progressive groups announced today plans for a week of events starting May 9th, calling for Mayor Michael Bloomberg to end taxpayer-financed giveaways to Wall Street and ask for fair-share taxes from millionaires to mitigate his proposed budget cuts. The week of action will culminate in a major mobilization in Lower Manhattan on Thursday, May 12.

The coalition, uniting under the banner “Make Big Banks and Millionaires Pay” will contrast the corporate welfare, property tax giveaways, and seemingly endless local and national tax cuts enjoyed by the financial sector with Bloomberg’s proposed cuts to childcare, classrooms, public safety, and dozens of other services working New Yorkers rely on.

“The big banks wrecked our economy and are back to making billions in profits and lavish bonuses, while the rest of us are still cleaning up the mess they created,” said Mary Brosnahan, the Executive Director of the Coalition for the Homeless. “Now Bloomberg has a choice: ask Wall Street bankers to contribute their fair share to fixing New York City, rather than enacting devastating cuts to working families.”

The organizers promise more than a typical “rally” on May 12
th, with a day of diverse, creative actions across the downtown financial district. Michael Mulgrew, President of the United Federation of Teachers, said: “On May 12, tens of thousands of New Yorkers will descend on Wall Street, creating a giant school without walls throughout the financial district. Together, we will educate our city and expose the people and institutions that are destroying our jobs and our economy, and the politicians who are letting them get away with it.”

The week of actions coincides with a growing national movement by communities increasingly questioning the practices of the financial industry and fighting back against attacks on working people. “We are connecting the dots from the big banks that crashed our economy, destroyed millions of jobs and foreclosed on millions of family homes to the human impact here in the financial capital of our country, ” said Michael Kink, Executive Director of Strong Economy for All Coalition.

As the week of action approaches, organizers plan to release new data detailing the tax breaks and giveaways New York City doles out to the banking industry, as well as the effect of Wall Street-caused foreclosures on New York’s communities and tax revenue. “When New Yorkers see the skewed choices this city has made, it is no longer an abstraction,” added Kink. “Homeless shelters are bursting at the seams, and child care and senior centers are closing down -- not because we have gone broke, but because Bloomberg has chosen to spend hundreds of millions in subsidies for the people who need it least.”

The following community groups and unions have joined the May 12 coalition (list in formation):

Center for Children Initiatives
Center for Working Families
Citizen Action of New York
Coalition for the Homeless
Community Voices Heard
Housing Works
Make the Road New York
New York Communities for Change
New Deal for New York Campaign
Organization for a Free Society
Picture the Homeless
United Students Against Sweatshops
Urban Youth Collaborative
VOCAL-NY
1199 SEIU
SEIU 32BJ
CWA 1104
CWA 1180
CWA District 1
Professional Staff Congress – CUNY
United Federation of Teachers


Learn more at www.Onmay12.org
On Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/OnMay12
On Twitter:
http://twitter.com/onmay12

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Wall Street's Free Ride - American Family Voices - YouTube

Here’s a new Web ad an organization, American Family Voices, just put up that does a great job of talking about this issue from the small business point of view...

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Rich Bro/Poor Bro - Britehorn.com


Once upon a time there were two friends named Wall Street and Main Street and somehow or other their lives went in two drastically different directions.


Film by John T. Kramer. Starring Cory Sylvester, Josh Segovia, Betsy Stone, Niq Schwartz and Sherman Edwards.


http://www.britethorn.com

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Rep. Weiner Study Shows Bank Explosion in New York City (But Only For Some)

Queens Residents Being Passed By

Today, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – Queens and Brooklyn), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a report showing that although the number of banks in New York City has increased by 191 since 2006, many outer borough neighborhoods are being left behind. Over the last four years, the wealthiest borough, Manhattan, has gained 73 more banks; while only 37 additional banks stand in Queens, the City’s largest borough.

Even in the midst of an economic recession, the number of bank branches in New York City has increased by 12% since 2006. The boom, unfortunately, has largely been concentrated outside of Queens, leaving local residents without the benefits that a financial institution can offer.

Over the last four years, the number of banks in the Queens has only grown by 37. Conversely, the number of bank branches in Manhattan, the richest borough in the City, has increased by 73 – twice the growth in Queens.

Access to banking institutions and their credit and investment capital is essential to creating and retaining jobs, developing affordable housing, and supporting small businesses. But, banks in this city are disproportionately serving those of us who live in Manhattan.

In South Jamaica, only one additional bank has opened since 2006 – increasing its total from zero branches to one. Similarly, no new branches have opened in Corona, Queens over the past four years, leaving residents with access to only three banks. During that same period, Soho has added six additional banks for a total of 45. Small businesses are the life-blood of many communities here in Queens, and we need to make sure the flow of funding is made available to Queens businesses.

On average, there are 19 banks for every 100,000 Queens residents – one of the lowest averages in the City. In Manhattan, there are 43 branches, on average, for every 100,000 residents. In the least populous borough, Staten Island, there are 22 banks, on average, for every 100,000 residents.

"Neighborhoods in Queens are being squeezed out of the benefit a local bank can provide,” Weiner said. “We need better incentives and a stronger regulatory authority to increase the presence of banks in neighborhoods that need them the most. Banks can't keep getting a free pass when they are not meeting standards set by Congress."

Highlights of the Weiner Study:
  • Since 2006, New York City has seen the addition of 191 bank branches. The borough of Queens, however, accounts for only 19% of that net growth.
  • On average, there are 19 banks for every 100,000 Queens residents. Manhattan, on the other hand, averages 43 branches for every 100,000 residents, and Staten Island residents benefit from 22 banks, on average, for every 100,000 people.
  • Nearly 70% of the bank growth in the last four years occurred in neighborhoods where the median income was above $40,000.
  • In neighborhoods with a median household income above $53,000, there is a bank for every 2,300 New Yorkers, whereas neighborhoods with a median household income below $31,000 have only one bank for every 9,000 people.
  • Queens, the City's largest borough, added 50% fewer bank branches than Manhattan.
  • In Corona, Queens, residents are presently served by only three banks. In Manhattan’s Turtle Bay, there are currently 64 banks open.


Washington and Albany have both established programs meant to encourage banks to provide services in poorer neighborhoods – but they have proven to be insufficient. The New York State Banking Department offers tax breaks, job training, and public fund deposits to banks that set up shop in underserved communities. And in 1977, Congress created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to prohibit financial institutions from under-serving low-income areas and ensure equal access to housing finance resources, consumer and business lending, community investments, and low-cost services.

Four federal agencies were selected to rate banks on their effort to serve the needs of low-income neighborhoods. But the regulators, representing the Federal Deposit Insurance Agency (FDIC), Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and The Federal Reserve (The Fed) rated over 98% of banks as either Outstanding or Satisfactory even though the banking industry continues to deny the mortgage loan applications of African Americans and Latinos twice as frequently as those of whites. Further, the agencies are largely without the authority and power to require banks to open branches in underserved areas.

To help address the banking disparity in Queens, Rep. Weiner proposed the following measures:

The Weiner Plan:
  • Revise the Community Reinvestment Act’s (CRA) bank examination ratings so that branch distribution and low-income services receive more weight
  • Allow CRA administrators, i.e. FDIC, to penalize banks that receive poor ratings through fines and through denying expansion and merger requests
  • Incentivize banks to offer and actively market a portfolio of safe, no fee services to low income customers. This can be achieved by revising the CRA’s service test to give banks who offer these services higher ratings. These ratings could then be used to reward banks in a variety of ways.


Monday, January 3, 2011

What We Lost Because Obama Didn’t Prosecute Banksters | Firedoglake

Read original...



Imagine that you don’t know much about high finance except what you occasionally read in the paper. You would know that we have the greatest finance business in the world, and that the smartest people make the most money. If you have a lot of money, it’s a sign of merit, so you know those Wall Street guys earned it. You know that the SEC is the cop on the beat and they are doing a great job: why, they locked up Martha Stewart to make the trading on Wall Street fair.


From the time you were a kid, you learned that the US stock market was the envy of other nations for its fairness and accessibility. You were taught that the US had come to dominate the finance business because it brought in great brains from physics and math, and the best business minds rapidly move up in the hierarchy by innovation and invention. You wanted to move your money into mutual funds, so you could share in the profits generated through wise investments, and you knew that you could manage your own retirement by careful investments. Those are the fundamental building blocks of your perception of the Way Things Work.


Even in the teeth of the Great Crash, your first thought would not be that the Wall Streeters were responsible. It was those irresponsible people who bought houses they couldn’t afford, or minorities using the government to buy houses they couldn’t afford, or whatever other nonsense you heard from your friends or the TV. It would be easy to distract you from looking at the real causes.


That is why the failure of the Obama administration to prosecute a single bankster is so depressing.Prosecutions would have proved that the Great Crash wasn’t the fault of people who bought houses they couldn’t afford, or the result of government efforts to counter discrimination against minorities trying to buy houses. Prosecutions would have placed the blame squarely on the financial elites, where it belongs. Financiers would not have been able to blame the usual suspects, and use their tools in the press and their politicians to divert attention from their responsibility for plunging the nation into economic disaster.


Prosecutions would have set the stage for real regulation of the finance business. When the banksters sent their lobbyists to Congress, people would have been repulsed, like they were when Lanny Davisshowed up to protect the brutal Ivory Coast usurper Gbagbo. Congress would have been forced to ignore them, no matter how much money went into their campaigns, and there would have been less money because the banksters would have been paying their lawyers millions for self-defense.


Prosecutions would have made it clear that the solution to the crisis wasn’t saving banksters but saving citizens from the crimes of the banksters. We could have set up foreclosure plans that would be oriented to salvaging American families instead of raising the profits of the thieves who created the problems. We could have used fiscal policy to support recovery instead of the weak tools of the Fed which have showered money on the banks at the expense of savers and retirees.


We could have shrunk the finance business back to its proper place in society. We could have pushed the Jamie Dimons and Tim Geithners out of positions of influence in government and replaced them with people whose goal is to improve things for everyone, not just the fabulously rich. Who knows, it might even have opened the eyes of those who deny global warming, and blindly support all our wars, from the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan and Yemen and Pakistan, to the wars on drugs and airplane travelers.


Try (I know it’s hard) to imagine a US Attorney prosecuting financiers for those deals set up to let financial elites short the housing market at the expense of some pension plan. Imagine a perp walk for accounting fraud in the use of Repo 105 or any of the other control frauds that were so common in the run-up to the Great Crash. Imagine any of a number of hedge fund operators in front of criminal juries explaining how they really make money. Imagine the difference in public understanding. It would have been a real life Pecora Commission.


The Obama administration threw away the chance to open the minds of average Americans to the dangers of blind trust in the myth of the market. Obama is a meliorist, only willing to take tiny steps with little chance of changing fundamentals. We need more, much more.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

New Consumer Agency is Frightfully Necessary — and Late - Op/Ed by Prof Elizabeth Warren - MiamiHerald.com

Read original...

No one has missed the headlines: Haphazard and possibly illegal practices at mortgage-servicing companies have called into question home foreclosures across the nation.

The latest disclosures are deeply troubling, but they should not come as a big surprise. For years, both individual homeowners and consumer advocates sounded alarms that foreclosure processes were riddled with problems.

While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear.

First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used “robo-signers,” false declarations, and other workarounds to cut corners, creating a legal nightmare that will waste time and money that could have been better spent to help this economy recover. Mortgage lenders will spend millions of dollars retracing their steps, often with the same result that families who cannot pay will lose their homes.

Second, this mess might well have been avoided if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been in place just a few years ago.

The new consumer agency is one of the signature accomplishments of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama this summer.

The new agency will take on oversight responsibilities that had been scattered among several federal agencies, and it will be a new cop on the beat that will end big loopholes in the regulatory system.

For the first time, banks and non-bank lenders (such as payday lenders, check cashers and mortgage brokers) will be subject to the same federal oversight to ensure that they are all playing by the same rules-no more turning sideways and slipping through the regulatory cracks.

Lost in much of the back-and-forth over wrongful foreclosures is the question of whether the scandal could have been prevented. The answer is yes.

The practices now under investigation took root and grew because there was no single federal regulator with both the responsibility and the tools to look out for consumers.

Had it existed, the new consumer agency could have stopped these problems before they multiplied. Many of the failures already admitted were not sophisticated scams that had been carefully concealed. By enforcing existing laws and involving state authorities early on, the agency could have made sure that the law was respected. No one would need to wonder whether the world of borrowing and lending works only one way: Families have to follow the legal rules, but the rules are optional for big banks.

Once it is fully operational, the new consumer agency will have supervisory authority over all large mortgage servicers. It will be able to examine them on a regular basis to make sure they follow the rules. If those servicers decide it is cheaper or faster to circumvent federal law, the consumer agency will have the tools to hold them accountable.

No one will be allowed to break the rules without triggering a strong and prompt federal response.

Currently, the federal interagency foreclosure task force, including the members of the Financial Services Oversight Council, is working along with the state Attorneys General to get to the bottom of these problems. The implementation team for the new consumer agency is also working to assemble and coordinate teams to deal with servicing and other issues.

These efforts are critical, but there is more work to do: We must ensure this kind of scandal-or some close cousin-does not happen again.

A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime, and the toll on Florida has been especially heavy and the need for oversight particularly apparent. A few weeks ago, I watched proceedings in a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure court and saw firsthand the painful outcomes for numerous families.

Unfair servicing practices can worsen a family’s already difficult economic situation, and the injury echoes from the family to the community and ultimately throughout the economy. Cops on the beat can stop problems before the damage spreads. If there ever was any doubt that the new consumer agency is necessary, the latest foreclosure developments should put that to rest.


Elizabeth Warren is the special advisor to the secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and an assistant to the president.


Thursday, December 23, 2010

Elizabeth Warren: Held to Account - Culture - Vogue

Read original...


Photographed by Norman Jean Roy
If Elizabeth Warren offers you a cup of tea, don’t accept. I’ve been known to pinch a penny myself, but when President Obama’s choice to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau pulls a rumpled gray object with a tail out of her desk drawer, even I blanch. It looks more like a dead mouse than a used tea bag.
“I know,” she says, laughing, when I express surprise. “But I just can’t stand the waste of throwing out a tea bag after one use. It’s like a knife in the gut for me.”
If you happen to be the CEO of a bank that took federal bailout money or used what she’s called “a trick” or “trap” to charge 30 percent interest for a late credit-card payment, Elizabeth Warren, a petite 61-year-old grandmother with big blue eyes, soft blonde hair, and the honeyed accent of the Oklahoma plains, is herself something of a knife in the gut. With the passage of the historic Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill creating a new agency to regulate the credit industry, that knife finally got a sharp point.
Consumer advocates tend to be somewhat glum and shaggy—think Ralph Nader in his shiny suits—but after her breakout role as chair of the oversight committee investigating the TARP bailout, Warren has emerged as an unlikely star in the Washington firmament. Her odyssey began two years ago, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called her at home out of the blue with the request that changed her life. “There was no short list; I had no idea it was coming,” says Warren, who was hosting a barbecue for her students from Harvard Law School at the time. Within the university, Warren was a beloved but slightly feared teacher. “She changed my life,” says Katie Porter, now a professor at the University of Iowa, who can still remember the first time Warren called on her in class. “When I didn’t get the answer right,” says Porter, “she didn’t simply move on. She said, ‘Come on, Miss Porter, think! Think!’ It was enormously empowering. As she likes to say, her classes are like a contact sport. You’re going to get bruised, but you’re going to have fun.”
Until Senator Reid’s phone call, Warren’s national profile stemmed mainly from the two books she had coauthored with her daughter, a former McKinsey consultant who now runs an employment business in Los Angeles. Both books drew heavily on Warren’s academic work about the underlying causes of personal bankruptcy and were best-sellers that landed her on the Dr. Phil show, but Reid’s offer changed the stage altogether. “I’d always been on the outside, shouting warnings,” she explains. “So when Senator Reid said, ‘Come inside and tell us what you think,’ I didn’t hesitate for a minute.” Her family, on the other hand, was shocked. “I don’t think anyone saw it coming,” says her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi. “Growing up, I never saw an appetite for politics. Even now, I don’t think she really likes Washington or politics. She’s just there to do this one thing.”
Typically, an appointment to an oversight committee means sitting behind a microphone, asking polite questions, then generating a brick of a report that nobody reads. Warren did not play by those rules. Instead of making nice, she challenged the Secretary of the Treasury to explain exactly where the $700 billion in bailout money went and why the U.S. government had to pay 100 cents on the dollar for all those bad AIG investments. Thanks to the wonders of YouTube, those testy exchanges landed on the Internet, where every American pissed off over the bailout could delight in watching Timothy Geithner squirm.
Now technically Warren’s boss, Geithner has publicly praised Warren and even gave her a police hat the day she assumed her new role, but in Washington it was widely rumored that he preferred someone else for the job. Some enmity seems to linger—not long after her appointment, a series of blind items quoting Treasury sources landed on the Web site Politico, accusing her of being more concerned with decorating her office and media appearances than with substantive work. On the charge of overfriendliness to the media, Warren pleads guilty. “Talking to the American people is part of the job. The best way to do that is to go on television. It’s not about me; it’s about the opportunity to let Americans hear about important work.”
Her own aides worried that her aggressive questioning might have meant career suicide in Washington, but Warren hit a chord with the public precisely because she wasn’t concerned with getting ahead. “Elizabeth has never been a calculating person,” says her husband, fellow Harvard Law professor Bruce Mann. “She came to Washington late in life from the very secure position of being tenured at Harvard. She’s not running for anything. I do feel sorry about the videos of her questioning Geithner, but she was just doing her job. She doesn’t personalize things. After it’s over, she’s friendly and she means it.”
Warren herself finds it hard to believe that people are so taken aback by the way she speaks. Sitting in her sparsely decorated new office, where the tags are still on the Aeron chairs, she rejects the idea that her mode of discourse is anything special. “I am glad to be useful, but I don’t think I have anything that remarkable to say. Maybe it’s just the nakedness that comes from clarity that is frightening, but if you are going to do work in the public interest”—she pauses as she searches for the right words. “Just the idea that you talk as long as you can and say as little as possible. . . .” She makes a dismissive gesture, then brings the conversation to the heart of her work, which is about the struggling middle class.
“I think it’s about having a moral compass,” she concludes. “I get how deeply wrong so much of what has happened is. I don’t do library research; I talk to families who have worked hard and just slammed into a wall. Sometimes it’s from bad decisions, but sometimes it’s from medical problems, job losses, death. Bankruptcy is about trying to scramble your way back. Maybe you won’t ride so high in the water, but you can stop those 25 calls from collection agencies every night.”
As she speaks, her eyes suddenly tear up—a reminder that her own childhood, in a small Oklahoma town where her father worked as a janitor and nobody in her immediate family graduated from college, was fraught with financial hardship. A bright student who excelled in debate, Warren was thirteen when her father had a heart attack that drastically altered the family’s financial stability. When he recovered, his new job paid half of what he once earned. The family kept their house but lost the car, and life became a juggling act. In order to pay application fees to college, Warren used baby-sitting earnings. Years later, tragedy would strike again when her older brother’s wife died of breast cancer shortly after he lost his business and their home. “She didn’t smoke; she wasn’t overweight. You know what her biggest risk factor was?” Warren asks, her voice thick with emotion. “She didn’t have health insurance. She didn’t have regular screenings, and she didn’t go to a doctor early. And I know how many times my brother has wondered whether his business failing was part of that, and I know that story repeats all over America today with its own variations.”
Those experiences created a deep determination to make a difference. “She knew people who really struggled when she was growing up,” says her daughter. “She had a profound compassion for them.” In fact, that early adversity may be the very thing that hardened her resolve. “You either develop coping strategies or you wallow,” says her husband. “Elizabeth has never wallowed in anything.” Katie Porter thinks the most effective strategy she learned was how to move on. “Look, she’s human,” Porter says. “She’s on her second marriage. She went through a lot of assistants before she found the right one, but she doesn’t brood. She’s able to refocus on the big picture.”
Warren married her high school sweetheart at nineteen, moved to New Jersey with her then husband, an engineer who worked at NASA, and had two children. The expectation for women back then was to stay home and take care of the kids, but Warren knew she’d never be happy doing that. “I love children, but I needed a job,” she says. “Otherwise, I would have driven my kids crazy. I just had too much energy.”

Last fall, I accompanied Warren to a party given in her honor by Americans for Financial Reform, an umbrella group of progressive organizations that worked to pass the Dodd-Frank bill. Looking around the room, I felt as if I’d been transported from Washington, D.C., to some left-leaning village where the men all wear tweed jackets and the women favor Merrells over Manolos. These are the kind of people who have been so disappointed in Barack Obama for not ending the war in Afghanistan or providing universal health care, but on the issue of consumer finance, American progressives are pinching themselves over their good fortune in having Warren on their side. “Anything other than incremental change is incredibly hard in Washington,” says Ed Mierzwinski, another consumer advocate. “We have been working on this a long time, but she was able to close the sale.”
The credit-card industry is not quite so happy. “Some bank lobbyists say terrible things about me,” she acknowledges, telling a story of one who actually stuck his tongue out at her after the bankruptcy bill she fought against was passed. (“Ah,” one bank lawyer said to me, “Elizabeth Warren—our demon.”) If they could tar her personally they would, but there’s not much you can pin on a frugal former Sunday school teacher who has now been married to the same man for 30 years and spends her holidays visiting the grandchildren. Though she is adored by liberals, for the majority of her life she has voted Republican. “I believe in markets,” she says. “The appropriate role of government is to support markets so they can function, but the consumer-credit market is broken.” Her unpopularity with the business community kept her from being appointed the official head of the new agency. After looking at the number of votes they could count on in a Senate confirmation, both the president and Warren concluded a vote would have ended in defeat. Instead, Obama gave her the job without the title, a move The Wall Street Journal called “chutzpah to behold.”
Becoming a public figure with a 24/7 portfolio has its ups and downs. Once she got the call from the president last September, she left Cambridge and basically hasn’t been back. “It’s almost like she died,” says Katie Porter. “I miss her. I think her husband, her kids, and her grandkids miss her. Elizabeth has always been a hard worker, but her life was not all about work.” In the past, she and her husband enjoyed traveling, and she once raised African violets as a hobby—an anonymous admirer had sent her one the day I visited her office. Now her life is pretty much all work, all the time. Not that she’s complaining. “Saturday is the worst day for me,” she says, “because I wake up and think, Why aren’t we working on this?”
Being a media darling means having to pay more attention to ordinary concerns like how one looks. Porter says Warren chose her hairdresser because she was the first not to yell at her for typing on her laptop while getting her hair cut, but Warren does care about her appearance and even follows some fashion designers. When we run into Isaac Mizrahi backstage at The View, I am surprised to see her squeal like a teenager. “I love your clothes!” she gushes. “I am not against spending money on clothes,” she says. “As long as you are straight on your fixed expenses [housing, food, utilities, et cetera] and you have put aside 20 percent in savings, go ahead and buy those $400 shoes. That doesn’t make you a bad person. I want to live my life with color. People who can’t enjoy their money are missing the colors in life.”
Nevertheless, clothes are a source of constant struggle. “This is the one area where I really envy men,” she says. “And yet, I simply cannot dress like a man. It would mean losing who I am.” She can’t bear to watch herself on TV but will occasionally TiVo a performance so she can later watch (on mute) to see whether an outfit looked OK. “Some days I feel just right. Other times, I’ll be sitting in a meeting and I’ll look down at some frilly collar and think, Oh, Lord, what was I thinking?”
She shouldn’t worry so much. On television, she exudes an intense, winning sincerity with a dash of humor, which may explain Jon Stewart’s crush on her. “When you say it like that, when you look at me like that,” the comedian once murmured, following one of her impassioned pleas for government reform, “and I know your husband is backstage—but I still want to make out with you.” Her husband, who was indeed backstage, says the comment made him fall out of his chair laughing. “How could I be mad at him?” Mann asks. “When I listen to her, I have the same response."

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Elizabeth Warren - Person of the Year 2010 - TIME

Elizabeth Warren has been one of my heroes for a long time now. This is well-deserved recognition for someone who works hard for working class Americans every day...

Read original...


Elizabeth Warren




Highs: Few people have had as good a financial crisis as Elizabeth Warren. In early 2010, the Harvard Law Professor emerged on The Daily Show and on the cover of TIME, as one of the experts leading the charge for financial reform. In mid-July, the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill passed along with a provision to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an idea Warren first proposed three years earlier.

Lows: Despite Warren's urging, the CFPB becomes part of the Federal Reserve, instead of its own separate agency. Critics say the Fed, which has a poor track record on consumer protection, may try to limit the CFPB's power. Warren has insisted that this is not a legitimate concern. Also in 2010, Warren's chilly relationship with the financial industry, which she has long called predatory, came back to haunt her. Bank executives effectively blocked Obama from naming Warren the official head of the CFPB. Instead, in September, Warren got the post of special adviser to the President in charge of setting up the agency with a permanent director to be named later.

—Stephen Gande

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Elizabeth Warren Helped Shoot Down Bill That Would Have Sped Foreclosures, Calendar Shows by Shahien Nasiripour - The Huffington Post

Read original...



Elizabeth Warren was the first senior Obama administration official to recognize the potentially incendiary impact of a bill that would have made it significantly easier for mortgage companies to foreclose on homes, and her subsequent warnings played a crucial role in persuading the President to veto the measure, according to freshly released documents and people familiar with the deliberations.
The disclosure that Warren was instrumental in halting a bill that would have streamlined the foreclosure process comes as she confrontsfierce criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill for the way she was appointed to construct a new consumer financial protection bureau, and characterizations that she is inclined to take an overly punitive tack with Wall Street.
A long-time advocate for greater regulation of the financial system and a prominent critic of predatory lending, Warren now finds herself at the center of an intensifying debate over the relationship between the Obama administration and the business world.
For consumer advocates, who have long decried what they portray as Wall Street's outsized influence in Washington, Warren represents their greatest hope that big banks will be more tightly supervised following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. For a vocal group of business leaders and their Republican allies, Warren has become Exhibit A in their case that the Obama administration is anti-business.
The decisive way in which she labored behind the scenes to stymie a bill that would have eased requirements for documentation in the foreclosure process underscores how her arrival has altered the administration's relationship with major banks.
The bill, which passed both houses of Congress and awaited President Obama's signature to become law, essentially would have compelled notaries to accept out-of-state notarizations, regardless of the rules in those states.


State officials across the country--who have been pursuing probes looking into wrongdoing within the foreclosure process-- feared that those jurisdictions with lax standards could have become hotbeds for foreclosure documentation fraud. Lenders and mortgage companies could have used those states as central clearing houses to produce bogus foreclosure paperwork, and then export those documents to other states with more stringent regulations--an expedient bypass around the strictures.
Obama ultimately declined to sign the law, and the House of Representatives failed to override the veto.
Officials said Warren was among the first federal officials to recognize the significance of the notary bill, titled the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. She met with authorities from several states and then relayed their concerns to influential administration officials.
During the morning of Oct. 6, Warren's team at the Treasury Department wrote the first memos on the bill, raising questions about the possible consequences if it became law, these people said.
That evening, Warren met for 30 minutes with Peter Rouse, Obama's interim chief of staff, her calendar shows. She later spent an hour on the phone with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who once sued Countrywide Financial and exacted an $8.4 billion multi-state settlement.
The next day, Warren participated in an afternoon meeting on the bill, her calendar shows. During that meeting one of Obama's top spokesmen, Dan Pfeiffer, posted an entry on the White House Blog explaining why Obama would not sign the bill.
On Oct. 8, Obama declined to sign the bill into law, citing the need for "further deliberations about the possible unintended impact" of the bill on "consumer protections, including those for mortgages."
Documents released Wednesday show that Warren met or spoke with at least eight state officials leading a 50-state investigation into possibly-fraudulent mortgage documentation practices.
The state attorneys general, secretaries of state and bank supervisors are probing the way in which major mortgage companies have pushed through thousands of foreclosure cases at a time, as if on a factory assembly line, by short-cutting the required documentation process.
Recent weeks have featured a host of unsavory disclosures about how mortgage companies employed so-called robo-signers-- people whose sole job was to sign foreclosure documents without reading them or confirming basic facts, as required by law. The volume of cases and shoddy handling of paperwork is reflective of the messy and indiscriminate lending practices that characterized the nation's housing boom, as Wall Street eagerly handed mortgages to seemingly anyone willing to sign off.
The states' investigation and a parallel multi-agency federal probe are now roiling the mortgage industry, heightening the possibility that major lenders could face potentially huge fresh losses as bad loans continue to emerge. With legal and regulatory uncertainty now enshrouding the industry and public outrage trained on foreclosures, the banks could have trouble limiting those losses by selling off the homes pledged against bad mortgages.
The nation's biggest lender, Bank of America, has seen its share price drop 18 percent through yesterday's market close since the day before the states announced their joint inquiry.
Warren serves as an assistant to Obama and a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as she leads the effort to create the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a watchdog designed to protect borrowers from abusive lenders. Her calendar from Sept. 20 to Nov. 2 was released per a Freedom of Information Act request.
The longtime Harvard Law School professor and consumer advocate met or spoke with the state attorneys general from Iowa, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, Massachusetts and Ohio, her calendar shows. She also met with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and spoke with New York's top banking regulator, Richard H. Neiman. They are among the leaders of the combined state probe.
Warren has long chided federal regulators for their lax oversight of the financial industry and slipshod protection of consumers. She's championed state regulators, however, who have often been ahead of their federal counterparts when it comes to consumer finance issues.
Warren's calendar also shows numerous meetings with bankers and their representatives. Financial executives and lobbyists have noted that Warren was reaching out to them more than they initially expected. The calendar confirms her outreach.
On Sept. 20, the same day she took a photo for her Treasury Department badge, Warren spent an hour and a half meeting with bankers from Oklahoma, her calendar shows. She spent an hour having lunch with Geithner that day as well.
Since then she's met with the chief executives of the nation's largest banks, including Vikram Pandit of Citigroup; Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase; John Stumpf of Wells Fargo; James Gorman of Morgan Stanley; Richard Davis of U.S. Bancorp; W. Edmund Clark of TD Bank Financial Group; David Nelms of Discover Financial Services; Niall Booker of HSBC North America Holdings; and Kenneth Chenault of American Express.
The calendar entry for Chenault's one-hour meeting on Oct. 13 notes that "He's flying here for us."
Warren also met with officials from Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest lender and one of the world's biggest financial institutions.
Notably absent from Warren's calendar are officials from Bank of America, the biggest bank in the U.S. by assets and branches, including its chief executive, Brian Moynihan.
Warren's calendar includes meetings with investors and trade groups, like the Consumer Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
Though Warren is known for her vigorous advocacy on behalf of consumers, she's spent more time with bankers and their lobbyists than with consumer groups and advocates during her roughly two months on the job.
Warren's 2007 journal article calling for the creation of a dedicated consumer agency inspired policymakers to enact it into law. Big banks opposed it.
Warren has also met with nearly two dozen members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including the likely incoming chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus, and the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Richard Shelby. The Alabama Republicans have been particularly critical of Warren and her new agency.
Warren's calendar features numerous White House meetings, like a two-hour dinner on Sept. 23 with top Obama adviser David Axelrod and breakfasts and lunches with another top Obama counselor, Valerie Jarrett. She's also met with the heads of all the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Among Warren's early initiatives are efforts to make credit card disclosure forms shorter and easier to read, and simplifying mortgage documents. Her first major speech since joining the administration was a Sept. 29 address to the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group representing firms like JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock and State Farm. She asked the assembled executives to work with her to create a new system of consumer regulation focused on core principles rather than a mountain of specific rules.