Last week we emailed you to urge you to express your support for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to hold banks accountable for foreclosure fraud and other abuses.
Over 5,000 of you sent emails, tweeted, and wrote on AG Schneiderman’s Facebook page encouraging him to investigate the banks, stand strong against pressure from financial institutions and Administration officials, and use his authority to hold lawbreakers accountable.
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit against several of the nation’s largest banks charging that the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process.
This lawsuit doesn’t target some small players. Schneiderman is already tangling with the big boys:
The lawsuit asserts that employees and agents of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, acting as “MERS certifying officers,” have repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and misleading information that made it appear that the foreclosing party had the authority to bring a case when in fact it may not have. The lawsuit names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as Virginia-based MERSCORP, Inc. and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
What’s more? This is in addition to Schneiderman’s role as co-chair of the “financial crimes unit” that President Obama announced at the State of the Union. As Dave Dayen points out, the latter role is dealing with “pre-bubble” conduct, activities that lead to the 2008 economic crisis. This lawsuit is dealing with the “post-bubble” world, where banks allegedly took actions to stick it to homeowners just the sky was falling.
Schneiderman, along with fellow Justice Democrats Kamala Harris, Martha Coakley, Beau Biden, and Catherine Cortez Masto, is showing what public service is all about. Thanks for listening to us, Eric – as long as you’re holding banks accountable and fighting for homeowners, our members stand with you.
Sheldon Silver, the Assembly Speaker who introduced the proposal, rightly noted that the increase would affect 14 percent of the workforce, or 1.2 million people. “Frankly,” he said earlier this month, “it is absurd to expect anyone – let alone a working family, to afford the cost of living today and be able to invest in their future on a salary of $7.25 an hour, or $15,000 a year.”
It goes without saying that those 14 percent of New York workers who earn minimum wage are barely scraping by. However, with 17 percent more money in their pockets, those workers will be putting that income right back into the economy, buying necessities like gas and groceries and paying their bills. They are the people least likely to pocket those savings, or invest that money out of state or out of the country.
“They have no choice but to spend that money in their local economy,” says Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute, “That’s the stimulus you get.” Translation: Raising the minimum wage means giving extra cash to the people most likely to spend it immediately, in their own communities. It’s a win-win.
Assembly Speaker Silver knows this. So does New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also supports the measure. But being politicians, they also must have their eye on another positive affect of raising the minimum wage – rising poll numbers. “When we’ve done public polls, anywhere from 86 to 67 percent say they support an increase in the minimum wage,” said Celinda Lake of the polling firm Lake Research Partners.
New York Senate Republican spokesman Scott Reif must also be aware of the political implications. Instead of opposing the proposal outright, he didn’t take a position. But corporate-interest groups that traditionally support Republicans, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have long opposed minimum wage increases and “cost of living adjustments” that tie wages to inflation.
There’s one more part of this story to keep in mind as this develops: we may not be talking about this issue at all if it weren’t for the brave men and women of the Occupy movement. As the New York Times puts it:
The Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park is no more, but the focus it brought to income inequality is having an impact in Albany and beyond.
They may be getting evicted from their camps across the country, but the 99 Percent still have the momentum as we go into the first policy fights of 2012.
In July I wrote about folk stampeding for Section 8 housing vouchers in Dallas, when thousands of people showed up, some waiting all night, to get vouchers for subsidized housing. It was a terrible story.
Since then, nothing much has changed, other than the fact that even more people are in need of affordable housing. From The Nation:
In Oakland, California, which opened its waiting list in January, officials expected as many as 100,000 people to apply for 10,000 vouchers. In Atlanta, sixty-two people were injured in 2010 at an East Point shopping center where 30,000 lined up after the local housing authority opened its waiting list for the first time in eight years. Even small communities like Aiken, South Carolina, saw hundreds queuing up in October for a chance at housing aid about as likely as seeing three cherries in a row on a Vegas slot machine.
Another way you can find tangible evidence of the housing affordability crunch is by visiting one of New York City’s exploding number of homeless shelters, where a record 41,000 homeless people bed down each night, including more than 17,000 children. The New York Times recently told the story of one of those children, fourth-grader N-Dia Layne, who travels two and a half hours each day between her Upper Manhattan shelter and her school in Brooklyn’s Brownsville neighborhood. In Cleveland, the number of homeless families and kids grew so rapidly this past summer that for the first time shelters were forced to eliminate daytime meals, housing-search assistance and other services in order to move workers to the overnight shifts, according to Brian Davis of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless.
I had to read those New York numbers a few times. I can’t imagine that there are over 17,000 homeless children in New York City and this isn’t an issue being discussed in the endless presidential debates?
By nearly any measure, there are fewer and fewer homes affordable to working-class and poor Americans. The federal housing agency’s annual assessment finds that “worst-case housing needs” grew by 42 percent from 2001 to 2009, and nationwide there is a shortfall of nearly 3.5 million housing units for the poorest households. According to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, the share of renter households with the most severe cost burdens—that is, where more than half of income goes to rent and utilities—grew from a fifth to a quarter over the past decade and has doubled in the past half-century. And as household incomes stagnated for most of the past decade and then dropped during the economic crisis, the nation saw its already inadequate stock of cheap rental housing shrink even faster.
It’s pretty simple, really. The cost of living is increasingly high, while wages are increasingly low. It’s not a recipe for keeping a roof over one’s head.
All of the plans to “end homelessness in 10 years,” either are, or will be abject failures. The programs were all underfunded, and as the budget for federal housing programs continues to shrink, their failure is guaranteed. In the name of “deficit reduction” these programs are being cut, and cut again – with the goal being to eliminate them all together.
Despite the bleak policy landscape and the worsening affordability crisis, many local advocates and people working on the front lines talk about the renewed energy and hope generated by the nascent Occupy movement and the revived national discourse about income inequality. Donovan talks hopefully about the “other 1 percent”—the homeless and poor—saying that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the superrich 1 percent is “causing the other 1 percent to agitate, and to show that homeless people are something other than a herded mass. They’re saying, Enough is enough.”
The Occupy movement changed the national discussion when it began last fall. Instead of deficits and debt, we’re now hearing about income inequality, joblessness, and a host of other issues that weren’t even on the horizon over the summer. It is my hope (as someone living with housing insecurity) that Occupy brings housing to the forefront of our national dialogue.
“You have really been fantastic!” wrote William from Bearsville, New York, “Rarely have I been able to write that someone I voted for has actually acted as I would act…truly representative government! I love it!”
Congress is at record low approval, and distrust of government is at record highs. Occupy protesters have taken to the streets across the country to voice their anger at the current political system. In this day and age, what would possess William from Bearsville to gush over an elected official?
Turns out William was writing to Eric Schneiderman, the Attorney General of New York state. Schneiderman, elected in 2010, is one of a handful of state officials resisting a proposed “50 state settlement” with big banks that would amount to a slap on the wrist for years of unethical and sometimes illegal foreclosure practices.
The first reaction we all have to a politician doing anything we even remotely approve of is: What’s their game? What do they have to gain from this? Given what we’ve seen the last few years, it’s a fair question. Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, gave his answer in an August blog post:
I’ve known Schneiderman for a few years, back when he was a state Senator working to reform the Rockefeller drug laws. And my answer to this question is pretty simple. He wants to. That’s it. Eric Schneiderman is investigating the banks because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. So he’s doing it. This guy has thought about his politics. He wrote an article about how he sees politics in 2008 in the Nation, and in his inaugural speech as NY AG he talked about the need to restore faith in both public and private institutions. Free will still counts for something, apparently.
It’s true that these seven AG’s happen to be Democrats. But foreclosure fraud is not – or at least it should not be – a partisan issue. Even our most conservative, rabid anti-Obama friends and relatives would probably agree that those who used dirty tactics to make a killing while millions of families lost their homes should be brought to justice.
The biggest reason that there are seven AG’s standing up to the banks instead of 50 is that the price for messing around with those large financial institutions – literally trying to extract more restitution and deny blanket legal immunity – can be very high. A bunch of these guys are up for reelection, and some of them have ambitions for higher office. In an age of Citizens United, tangling with the likes of Bank of America and Citigroup can put a huge pair of crosshairs on your political career; the banks don’t care whether there is a D or an R next to your name if you vote their way.
In state capitals across the country, the legislators who should be accountable to voters are busy pushing ways to keep more voters away from the polls. Harsh crackdowns on voting are a disturbing trend that could block millions from exercising their basic rights.
Behind these laws is the heavily corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, which wrote sample voter-restriction legislation for numerous states—legislation later introduced by state legislators who are members of ALEC. And they fall hardest on young voters, elderly voters, minorities and those struggling economically—the people whose voices are already too frequently excluded from the political conversation, drowned out by corporate interests like those who fund ALEC.
This isn’t a tricky issue. Voting is the fundamental building block of participatory democracy. Everyone should have access to it, without having to jump through hoops or pay to take part. (That’s why restoring democracy by ensuring full voting rights is one of the 9 Demands of the 99 Percent.)
Across the country, instead of fighting for good jobs, state legislators are spending their time on unnecessary, undemocratic roadblocks to voting. In Michigan, the state legislature is pushing new limits on voting and voter registration. In Wisconsin, a schoolteacher and an 84-year-old woman who has voted in every election since 1948 are the latest people to be ensnared by the state’s new voter ID law. In New Hampshire, the state House Speaker is blunt about the fact that he wants to put limits on young people’s participation because he doesn’t like how they vote. And in Pennsylvania, where the legislature is looking at limits on voter access, the Philadelphia Daily News rightly notes:
It seems to us that the state should find some evidence that fraud is a problem before embracing a solution that will make it harder for some folks to vote — and cost a bunch of money, too.
These limits on voter access are justified with tales of large-scale “voter fraud” that are, to put it generously, misleading.
There are many serious studies that have looked at whether vote fraud is really an occurrence that commonly happens and commonly distorts elections—and the evidence says the answer is no. A New Mexico study found the rate of fraudulent registration was less than one ten thousandth of one percent and the rate of actual fraudulent voting was around two hundred thousandths of a percent. An investigation into suspected voter fraud by Maine’s Attorney General found exactly zero actual infractions. A study of Wisconsin in 2004 found only seven cases of fraud out of 3 million votes cast. (Even the people who want to push the voter fraud myth can’t seem to come up with significant numbers.) These are just not the kind of numbers that indicate a public policy problem, especially one that could deter so many legitimate voters from participating.
Thankfully, in Ohio, the legislature’s proposed limits on voter access will go to the voters as a referendum before they take effect. Other states might not be so lucky, and we could see the next election marred by deliberate efforts to undercut the high levels of participation we saw in 2008.
You could hear them a few blocks away from McPherson Square, but it was clear when the honks started that they had arrived. Marchers, about 25 of whom had been walking since they started at Zuccotti Park on November 9th, turned the corner and entered the occupy encampment at McPhereson Square carrying flags, backpacks, and smiles.
The #NYCMarch2DC started as group of protesters at Occupy Wall Street who wanted to march all the way down to DC. They had been planned to arrive by November 23, 2011, the day the Super Committee was to deliver a plan to cut trillions from the budget. It’s telling that while the Super Committee couldn’t follow through on their difficult task, the Marchers grew larger and more committed as they made their way South. A few of the Marchers I talked to said they had joined at various points along the way: at Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark, and Baltimore. They had given updates on the road with Twitter and web video, but other than that they seemed straight out of a history book.
When members of the media surrounded the Marchers and tried to peel off individuals to interview, they sprung into action. Via Mic Check, we were told that there would be a General Assembly, including a crash course in direct democracy, several testimonials, and a Q and A. They were efficient in their methods and spoke with authority to the members of the press. This was not the ragtag, disrespectful group portrayed on Fox News and talk radio. The Marchers, many from other occupations on the East Coast, were in complete control.
Through the rain and the crowd of cameras, it was difficult to pick up on everything that was being said, but the testimonials I heard were incredible. A student from Philadelphia, $80,000 dollars in debt, dropped everything to march for her fiscal freedom. An older economics professor, fed up with the backwards debate in Washington, instead joined the Marchers and shared his experiences with them. The march showed “that even with technology, it is still possible for us as Americans to share a few steps together – to share a few words together,” he said.
One of the coolest stories was from a man who had hosted the Marchers in his home as they made their way to DC. “Members of my family were worried about having the protesters in our home,” he said, adding that watching the news, one might think they “had fleas and slept in their own feces.” Turns out, they left his home “better than it was when they found it.”
The pressing contrast for me is to compare these Marchers with the people they intended to protest, the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the “Super Committee.” Those who walked from New York or Trenton or Baltimore showed incredible resilience – one of them even got hit by a car! Yet they kept walking, kept tweeting, and kept sharing their stories with those they met along the way.
Meanwhile, members of the Super Committee didn’t only announce failure this week. Several of the committee’s Republican members, most prominently former Wall Street trader Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) are seeking to undo the trigger mechanism that was set up to motivate the committee in the first place.
Supercommittee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said Democrats were not motivated to reach a deficit-reduction deal because the automatic cuts that were triggered by the panel’s failure were unfairly weighted toward programs that are important to Republicans.
“There was an asymmetry in the motivation,” Toomey said Tuesday on Townhall Radio. “If you just look at the sequester, let’s face it, there are a lot of Democrats whose lifelong ambition has been to cut defense spending.”
This attitude of constantly spinning the truth and constantly passing the buck is typical for Washington, DC, but it is unfamiliar to the Marchers I saw today. They walked through every iteration of weather, every neighborhood, and every rural highway to accomplish the goal they set out.
I still hope they get a chance to meet Congress. The buck-passers and spin-meisters that currently occupy the U.S. Capitol could learn a thing or two from them.
The cleanup of the Lower Manhattan park that has been occupied by protesters for nearly a month was postponed Friday shortly before it was supposed to begin, averting a feared showdown between the police and demonstrators, who had vowed to resist any efforts to evict them from their encampment.
And a key quote:
“I did not come here to look for a fight,” said Steve Sachs of Hightstown, N.J. “I’ve never been in a fight in my life. I’ve never been arrested. But I was ready to be arrested over this.”
This is enormous – the first of hopefully many tangible, direct victories of the 99 Percent Movement. You helped make this possible, responding to our emails, Facebook posts, tweets, and texts, and making your voice heard to Mayor Bloomberg, Brookfield Properties, and all of New York City.
This is also a direct refutation of the opposition’s messaging, that Occupy Wall Street aren’t doing anything, and that they aren’t getting anything done, and that they aren’t capable of changing anything. What will they say now, after they went head to head with arguably one of the most powerful men in the world and won?
Working America is going to continue to stand with the 99 Percenters across the country. To join our movement for the 99 Percent, visit WorkingAmerica.org/NotYourATM.
(The following is a statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on October 13, 2011)
Mayor Bloomberg runs the risk of standing on the wrong side of history tomorrow. It is clear that what is being threatened in Zuccotti Park is nothing but silencing the voices and stomping out the rights of Americans. Participants in Occupy Wall Street are now in their fourth week of declaring that “we are the 99 percent” because our system is desperately, decisively out of whack—the top one percent is pocketing massive profits and dominating our politics while everyone else struggles to make ends meet. It is shocking that Mayor Bloomberg feels like that’s a message that needs to be silenced. The AFL-CIO stands with Occupy Wall Street and the 99 percent of Americans just trying to level the massively unequal playing field.
(Seth D. Michaels was on the scene at the Wall Street protests in New York City.)
As the rain set in late Monday, the protesters taking a stand in Lower Manhattan held their ground. For many of those who have come to this park, the issues they are angry about aren’t abstract – they’re deeply personal and real. Many of those present identify as “the 99 percent,”
and many bear signs indicating their difficulties in these economic times–highlighting unemployment or student loan debt.
Renae, a teacher, sees the protests as animated by the same issues that affect her and her family: the need for a voice in the political process, and the need for good jobs.
“Many of my family members have been laid off,” Renae said. “Some of them have been out of work for two or three years. There are no jobs.”
Renae, who teaches U.S. government, sees the protests as connected to her work. “Here I am telling these kids about government and democracy- am I not supposed to be a citizen with a voice?”
Layoffs and budget cuts across the public sector are an ever-present worry for young people like Renae. Cuts to much-needed services, even as corporations and the very wealthy pay remarkably low taxes, motivated her to get involved. “Teachers are bring cut left and right.
Programs are being cut left and right. They’re closing schools. What’s happening to the school system is part of this growing gap between the haves and the have nots.”
Dana, a young woman from Williamsport, Pennsylvania, came up three days ago and is among those camping in the park. “There’s so much anger everywhere,” Dana said, “and I’m glad this is happening. I’m glad people are finally coming together to do something.”
Dana was glad to see the emergence of this new protest movement around the idea of economic justice, but after three days in the park she’s hoping the community develops a more concrete agenda for action.
We’ll continue to watch these protests closely as we fight for good jobs and real democracy across the country.
(Seth D. Michaels is in New York City today, reporting live from the Wall Street protests.)
The protests here on Wall Street are easy for the media to caricature, but as they press into their third week, it’s clear they’ve grown, organically, into something that resonates across ages and experiences.
Pat Walsh, a CWA retiree, came to the protest today to show support and link the causes he fights for to the ongoing protest.
“We’ve been fighting against corporate power and the shift in the tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class – both the Bush tax cuts and cuts at the state level.” This tax shift and resulting cuts in services, he says, helped inspire the kind of anger and middle class discontent that got funneled into the Tea Party movement. He sees the Wall Street protests as part of a movement to address the real causes of this discontent.
For Walsh, the financial industry’s overwhelming power is contributing to problems for workers in other sectors. A company like Verizon, he says, gets pressure from Wall Street to focus entirely on profits, not wages and benefits for workers. “Wall Street’s greed enables Verizon’s greed. They’ve been doing all they can to break unions and slowly deteriorating workers’ ability to organize.”
“We’re here in solidarity,” Walsh said. “These young people here, they’re fighting for their future, for their own jobs.”
