All the fanciful tales that Ellen Tauscher’s flak Jonathan Kaplan has been selling to bloggers all week, which we all laughed about but nobody believed, seem to finally have found a home. Maybe it’s just a happy coincidence, but an anonymous source in Elana Schor’s TPM article weirdly echoes a trollish piece of email Kaplan sent out to Chris Bowers.
Schor:
"This is not an ideological fight for them," one aide to a New Democrat told me, adding that members of the coalition "have worked closely with Democratic leaders to improve the bill, make it more expansive and push it in the direction of President Obama’s housing plan by including a loan modification plan."
Kaplan to Bowers:
Congresswoman Tauscher has worked hard during the past few weeks to improve HR 1106 by making it more progressive, more comprehensive and more effective. Bankruptcy is not a solution to the enormous foreclosure crisis. Congresswoman Tauscher has worked with Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Zoe Lofgren to include a central tenet of President Obama’s housing plan – a loan modification program – in the bill. They agreed.
Kaplan made similar comments (on the record) to an appropriately skeptical Ryan Grim:
Rep. Tauscher has worked to find a way to make the bill more comprehensive and push it closer to President Obama’s housing plan. She voted for the rule, she encouraged her fellow New Dems to vote for the rule, and she will vote to approve the bill. The goal is to make the bill more comprehensive and to give people a real opportunity to avoid bankruptcy through a loan modification plan."
As Bowers said, "Worked with Pelosi? More like made her buckle, and then bragged about it to The Concern Troll, I mean, The Politco."
The point of all this seems to be to promote a kinder, gentler New Dems who aren’t rabid conservatives like the Blue Dogs, but rather sensible moderates and reasonable stewards of the public trust. Says Schor:
My response to any progressives who’d love to lump the New Dems in with the Blue Dogs: Direct that ire at the Senate, where cramdowns were negotiated with the help of Citigroup.
Her article is entitled "Bankruptcy Compromise Draws Clear Line Between New Dems & Blue Dogs." I know that’s a theme Kaplan has been pushing, but if you are looking for daylight between the New Dems and the Blue Dogs, you won’t find it here. From Politico:
Tauscher’s New Democrat Coalition teamed with their natural allies in the Blue Dog Coalition to impose 10 significant changes, including requirements that bankruptcy judges use federal guidelines to determine the fair market value of a home and that modified loans must be "unaffordable and not just underwater" to prevent wealthy homeowners from taking advantage of the process, according to a widely distributed e-mail from Adam Pase, executive director of the New Democrat Coalition.
I’m afraid I have to come down with Bowers: "When a former lobbyist for the banking industry is distributing memos from your office about the concessions New Democrats and Blue Dogs won after delaying the legislation, don’t tell me that you are working with Speaker Pelosi, without any input from the banking industry, to make a piece of legislation more progressive."
I don’t even know what to say about the Citi comment. They dropped their opposition to mortgage write-down in early January (from when her link is dated), which was considered a real breakthrough at the time. Then JP Morgan and BofA felt like Citi betrayed them and got all cranky:
Apart from Citi, "the industry remains united in that bankruptcy cramdown would destabilize the market" by creating widespread uncertainty about the value of numerous troubled mortgages, says Steve O’Connor, senior vice-president for government relations at the Mortgage Bankers Assn. His group is distributing talking points to key congressional aides laying out reasons why "Congress should defeat bankruptcy reform legislation."
I’m fully prepared to be pissed at Citi, I’m just not sure why I should be.
Kaplan ends his missive to Bowers:
You’re picking the wrong fight with the wrong woman.
Then he slowly pulls a cigarette from behind his ear, strikes a match on the bottom of his boot, straps on his six shooter and makes that lonely walk to the town square for a rendezvous with destiny.
I mean what are we here, six?
The New Dems tried to "flex" — and failed. It doesn’t mean they weren’t trying to jam everything into the bill that the banks wanted, it just means they weren’t very good at it. They stopped the bill in its tracks last Wednesday, and yesterday they were brought to heel. The fact that everything they fought for in order to "make the bill better" tracked perfectly with what the financial services industry had lobbied for is just another happy coincidence, I guess.
As Atrios noted in 2005 when the banks were ramming bankruptcy legislation through, the idea that these self-proclaimed "moderates" were operating out of some grand principle was risible. Things have not changed. Up and down the halls of Congress, people are thoroughly disgusted at the way this battle is still being directed by the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association and other industry lobbyists who issue absurd warnings about how the market will be "destabilized" by "widespread uncertainty" about housing values. I mean, someone actually says that.
Maybe there’s some "aide to a New Democrat" who just happens to track perfectly with Kaplan’s incoherent defense. But he immediately sent the TPM article to me, so he seems to be quite proud of it. Why anyone deserved anonymity here I don’t know quite know. If he’s her source, he ought to at least let her use his name. Let’s stop pretending there’s some widespread principled opposition at work and call it what it is.



58 Comments










Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
hmmmm, looks like one of your minions wasn’t buying it in the comments :D
I think Gore Vidal got it just about right. America has two parties: they are both the money party.
Among the centrist dems there is a visceral distrust of government programs other than the ones that directly help their districts. And there is visceral support that private spending on wide-screen teevees is morally better than helping poor people through government action. I don’t think there’s any short-term cure for that other than the Pres going over their heads.
Sorry for the early OT, but I couldn’t stop laughing at the appropriateness of this appointment:
hillarious! thank you.
and mebbe they’d do something like sponsor the repeal of DADT as proof of their sensible, moderate nature . . .
p.s. I blame that Hamsher woman for my cynicism
Jane, It looks like Citi has probably tried to help folks a couple of ways. This is from WSJ via Reuters yesterday.
It’s not all that great but in comparison to the other banks, it is an effort to help.
but…but…we silly bloggers just fell off the turnip truck and can’t be expected to comprehend the intricacies of legislative writing. When a banking industry crony works on a bill, he’s only got the public’s interest at heart — and he’ll tell you so repeatedly, too, if you ask him.
Berry’s appointment is notable for another reason: He’s openly gay.
This means that OPM — which until Bush had not only handled civilian Federal Government policy on employment issues, but also heavily influenced Pentagon employment policy — will be able not just to put the Feds once again at the forefront of equality, but also to help pressure the Pentagon into equal treatment. (BTW: Ellen Tauscher, ironically for her badness with most everything else, will be another part of the push for equality in the armed forces, as she’s introducing legislation this week to repeal DADT.)
It’s not all that great but in comparison to the other banks, it is an effort to help.
Perhaps they are finally listening to people who understand that defering some profit is far better than writing off any chance at recouping anything.
imo they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, maybe they can’t find the paper on their mortgages or maybe there are some rights you sign away if you sign up for it. I don’t trust them one bit.
It is a bit disheartening that the folks like Tauscher have such short memories on the impact of having the lobbyists write the bills.
You’d think after the years of Republican mis-rule, someone would have reminded her what the result was.
and perhaps the WH sent Lucca Brazzi over to Mr Parsons place to let im know what’s up . . .
I think Tauscher doesn’t look at it that way. I think she saw the Rs cashing in, and now it’s her turn.
It has a lot of PR flavor to it for sure. Especially since the caveat is that the mortgage has to be both owned and managed by Citi.
But even with that, it is still a step furtehr than the others have shown a willingness to go.
Or maybe it’s window-dressing? I am admittedly cynical at this stage of the game, but Citi’s proposal just doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Hope I’m wrong.
I hope Marcy Kaptur builds her own coalition.
Jane, Have you thought of doing an interview with Marcy and contrasting her legislative abilities against Tauscher?
That’s pretty cool news -that I’d missed- thanks!
Oh, and to cbl2 @ 5: yes– I thank Jane for a healthy part of my cynicism as well!
It’s a systemic problem whenever parties shift power, and why we started Accountability Now — to try and bring some transparency to the process and limit the influence of lobbying money.
Yes, having listened to members of both Houses at various hearings, I think most of them are what you might charitably call intellectually limited. They may be good wheelers and dealers. They may be good campaigners. They no doubt have a certain level of native clerverness, but few of them have any intellectual depth or are capable of seeing the big picture on any issue.
The Hamsher view “unobstructed”. Thanks Jane!
Righto. I was just reemphasizing that it is important to focus on what the pols true motives are, rather than what we think they should be.
what’s to be done? doesn’t this disgrace to Newark & Seton Hall have an otherwise good voting record? is it that voting records are one thing but another thing to vote for “good” bills after you’ve helped water them down?
not worth it to try to unseat her, right? so what to do? she already seems to have gotten herself a measure of influence. just keep an eye on her and write pelosi to let her know she shouldn’t get scary chairmanships ?
as for just falling off the turnip truck… i wondered why my pajamas smelled so bad.
in the answer or an answer to my question to give $$$ to Accountability Now?
Judging from my one-hour conversation with Senator D’Amato (on the DC-NYC shuttle), one of the best in my life, I think you underestimate the knowledge and intellectual capabilities of the pols. I think the truth is more sinister. I think they have all the mental tools they need and are using them for their own purposes, not for the benefit of the voters.
That’s my view of our Congressman, with whom I went to high school lo these 50 years, and who’s been in office for nearly nearly 40. Clever, but not much else. But to give him his due, he’s been solid on our side.
Well, I would agree whatever intellectual tools they do have are not being used for our benefit. I just see it some fundamental intellectual piece missing. Our economy is sinking fast and yet these pols are playing the same political games they alway have.
I’d say the truth is somewhere in between. As for my congressman? Dumber than a bag of hammers.
absolutely worth it. she would be an even more dramatic example than Al Wynn.
Sounds like the First-Class passengers on the Titanic. Eventually, the water is going to flood their cabins, too, but they just don’t seem to get that part. Yet.
that makes sense to me because whatever an individual pol’s limitations are, they have access to tremendous resources – not just in terms of the staff they can hire, but also in terms of the experts they can access. that they do not take advantage of these resources says to me that there is a problem with their priorities.
At the Leahy hearing Rivkin is weeping gallons of crocodile tears over how rights of Bush era lawbreakers might be infringed if a commission were formed to investigate their lawbreaking. Gee, where was Rivkin when these guys were, you know, breaking the law and infringing the rights of all kinds of people?
This balkanization of the Dems in the house is going to cause real pain this session.
Civil rights for them, not us. Thought you would have noticed that by now. *g*
rivkin: crazy people on the internet are saying things like war crimes happened.
Jeremy Rabkin is now up and doing it much the same, as Rivkin. Basically, trying to trivialize the need for investigation. He says if people want prosecutions there should be prosecutions. He says this knowing that Holder has said he will not go out of his way to pursue any such prosecutions.
Rabkin sez that because W didn’t kill thousands of nationals, unlike Chile and S. Africa, we shouldn’t have truth commission.
That’s Rabkin, not Rivkin.
oops sorry i think that was rabkin.
I’m shocked, shocked!!
liveblogging at emptywheel: Senate Judiciary Hearing on Truth Commission Liveblog
Rabkin says it is all about controvery and political matters. Keeps bringing up war crimes and says only a court can look at such things. Brings up poor John Yoo.
Leahy points to all the strawmen Rivkin and Rabkin have raised.
OT – roubini agrees with you. under “policy response needs to include” is:
I repeat
TERM LIMITS
solves a heckuva lot of problems
Here’s your daylight between Tauscher and the Blue Dogs — Heath Shuler claims he was going to support the bill as it was last week:
No, if Shuler is to be believed (and I have my doubts about that), Tauscher and the New Dems aren’t walking hand-in-hand with the Blue Dogs on this after all.
They’re walking to the Blue Dogs’ right.
At the end of last night’s thread Jane posted links to the amendments to the bill. Because I had been shooting my mouth off, I felt obliged to read them and did.
Clearly, the two amendments were the work of the financial industry. They want more of the clawback booty [I doubt there will be much clawback booty in the next 5 years], want people who can afford it to pay in full
[ I agree with this - I know others don’t] and, when at all possible, want the adjustment made to the interest rate as opposed to principle reduction [ I am not sure if this change is being driven by income tax strategy, a regulatory accounting concern or something I don’t understand].
All in all, I am not sure these proposed changes are all that disastrous. But, I do agree that they are all pro-bank.
Wow
Thanks for going through that, oldgold. I don’t disagree in principle that people should pay back money if they’ve obligated themselves to do so; I’m more worried about the practical implications at the moment. I do recognize the concern that it could set of a cascading effect if you devise a system where everybody sees no downside from seeking such relief, but using that as an excuse to help bank lobbyists is beyond the pale.
sorry for the repeat…I posted this on your earlier post about Tauscher. I am deeply skeptical about the ability of anyone connected with Wall Street to represent people who exist outside the bubble. From Rep. Tauscher’s website:
My problem is something neither of you has mentioned, and it has to do with the bundling of the loans and who really loses money if you value the loans at current market, and how it works out morally to discount performing loans only to have the values back up within a few short years. I’m talking mostly about the fact that many folks were in REITs or pension funds that bought the bundled loans, and that the bundled loans assets decreased at different rates due to the number of non-performing loans (those that have started or have already been foreclosed or are about to be.) I’d hate to see a lot of folks lose their entire pension or 401K due to the fact that their investment fund bought a pig in a poke, but then…
Ann, That is a damn good question. Who ultimately suffers the pain of the right downs? My only answer is to watch who is lobbying this bill.
Well, problem is, it seems to me that can be misleading, too. Most pension funds deal with big brokerages to make investments, don’t they? Insurance companies also take their considerable funds to big brokerage houses. Those brokerage houses put together the REITs, which are a conglomeration of a lot of small investors with a combined interest in real estate. Sometimes pension funds may invest in real estate investment trusts. So if the big brokerage hires a lobbyist, who was he hired to lobby for. The big brokerage house, or the thousands of smaller investors in those pension funds and REITs that were their clients?
smelly pajamas–maybe the kitty’s fault.lol.
the problem is that this legislation should have been done last fall as part of the TARP bill. now it’s probably too late for it to have the needed effect and we are going to have to move more quickly with more comprehensive policy.
for a while hugh has been advocating across the board cramdowns and now roubini agrees: “policy response needs to include” among other things “Across the board reduction of the face/principal value of mortgage debt and other consumer debt for insolvent households as a case-by-case debt re-stretching of debt will not work;”
my bold.
too little too late isn’t good enough.
that’s why galbraith is right – we’re going to have to increase SS benefits.
Well, I didn’t say it was a good answer – ha. The answer is probably a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, deep in a sea of ambiguity.
In a decade we will know who the winners and losers were.
I think Jane’s point is that as this legislation unfolds, who is looking out for the little guy and making sure they are not the losers. It sure doesn’t look to be the New or Bluedog Demos.
Large pension funds have their own in-house experts that choose the fund’s investments. Where they bought stock on an exchange, they would place a bulk-priced order with a firm, but typically only to execute the order, not to advise on what to invest in. Funds not so well-equipped might rely more on external advice. Well managed funds would not use the same firm for advice and execution of trades, at least not without negotiating low-cost fees for the advice and/or execution of trades, and not without getting advice from multiple sources. I would consider that the basic due diligence required of a fiduciary like a pension fund.
Changing interest rates lowers a portion of one revenue stream that collections of mortgages were carved into. A headache. But lowering a mortgage from face to current fair market value is like incipient pneumonia. It both lowers the revenue stream (even if interest remains the same, because it is applied to less principal) – a hit to an owner’s financial statement – and involves an immediate tax and accounting hit to the owner’s balance sheet. A double whammy.
My assessment of the financial impact is similar to how I look at ATM fees, though the scale is different. Individual fees may hurt but be tolerable for an individual consumer. But collectively they generate billions for banks. As does the current clearing practice of charging your account on day one for checks you write, but crediting it to the payee’s account only on day three. Banks are all paperwork and margins; they have huge volume.
I also think these amendments will make it harder for severely troubled debtors. Direct cost counts, for sure. So, too, does increasing the banks’ already high negotiating leverage in circumstances where troubled borrowers have little. None, really, except what the bankruptcy and consumer lending laws provide. And only if the borrower is confident, savvy and cash rich enough to hire a competent lawyer to tell them what those rights are and force banks to respect them or pay the consequence.
That leverage thingy radiates into consumer lending generally. The next tractor-trailer rig jack-knifing down the interstate is the credit card industry. Expect their keening on Capitol Hill to get louder soon.
The fight with banks is as big and multi-faceted as is the parallel fight with businesses over the EFCA and employee and union rights. The debate over to what extent troubled borrowers can cram down the value of questionable mortgages is a warm-up act for a long-playing variety show. Bring your blanket and a bottle of fizz, and find out where the port-a-potties are; it’s gonna be a long one.