I am disappointed at the Supreme Court’s decision to expand gun ownership in Chicago and across the nation. The McDonald v. Chicago ruling calls into question the right of U.S. citizens to enact sensible gun regulation and may gut reasonable gun control. Supreme Court decisions always have broad application. We would do well to remember that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to form militias, not vigilante squads.
Ironically, the ultimate losers may be gun owners, many of whom will lose their lives or the life of a loved one with the guns they cherish. Gun manufacturers win, funeral parlors win. Emergency rooms will be more crowded. Where are the limits to this sweeping ruling protecting the right to bear arms? Apparently assault weapons are now legal. What about a howitzer? It is more important now than ever before to do everything we can to prevent gun violence. Other nations without widespread gun ownership are safer and less violent than the U.S. Guns must be kept out of the hand of felons, gun traffickers, domestic violence offenders, mentally ill individuals, and youth.
In a weird turn, Justice Thomas traced the origins of gun control to post-Reconstruction terrorism in the South propped up by Black Codes prohibiting blacks from owning weapons. It was wrong for the Klan and other terrorists to intimidate blacks in 1880 and it is wrong now to assume that guns can make us safer in 2010. Now, the states and locales are free to enact legislation as mindless as the new Georgia statute permitting concealed weapons at airport check points and in churches. At a time when state and local budgets to hire and train police are constrained, the Court has authorized putting millions more guns on the nation’s streets. This is short-sighted, unwise public policy. For months, I have been calling for an urban policy. I had in mind jobs and education, not more guns and more violence.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Causes of the Crisis
June 3, 2010
Early this morning I watched a replay as the Oracle of Omaha testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is charged with investigating the cause of the global financial crisis. It was very interesting. One of the questioners attempted to get Mr. Buffet to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the mortgage meltdown. He refused. Instead he indicated that Fannie and Freddie were doing what the Congress charged them to do. From the perspective of civil and human rights advocates who supported expanded home ownership, this is a very important point.
Some (mostly arch-conservative Republicans) in Congress and (laissez faire capitalists in) the marketplace have tended to blame efforts to expand home ownership for the meltdown. Instead, Mr. Buffet indicated that with mortgage loan payments reaching 50% of homeowner income, marketers and regulators should have known that the mortgage boom was not sustainable. He also cited sudden and drastic credit tightening as an important contributing factor to the credit crisis.
Because the conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will be used to inform public policy for decades to come, it is critical that we get the right answers now. Today, we take the FDIC for granted. Just as the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s, the Great Recession will also have a legacy. Whether that legacy will be permanently tightened credit for consumers or more robust regulation of capital depends largely upon how we interpret the causes of the crisis.
It is not surprising that the mainstream financial media will focus on Mr. Buffett’s ideas about compensation of credit rating agencies (they should have some skin in the game to keep them honest) but glosses over his opinions about the culpability of individual homeowners. The Street is not known for its concern about Main Street. But those of us who know Main Street well must make sure that the voices of everyday Americans are not drowned out as we search for causes and cures.
We need your help to make sure the policy makers and pundits hear your voice. Donate to Rainbow PUSH today. Visit www.rainbowpush.org. $25.00 will help us make the voices on Main Street heard.
Early this morning I watched a replay as the Oracle of Omaha testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is charged with investigating the cause of the global financial crisis. It was very interesting. One of the questioners attempted to get Mr. Buffet to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the mortgage meltdown. He refused. Instead he indicated that Fannie and Freddie were doing what the Congress charged them to do. From the perspective of civil and human rights advocates who supported expanded home ownership, this is a very important point.
Some (mostly arch-conservative Republicans) in Congress and (laissez faire capitalists in) the marketplace have tended to blame efforts to expand home ownership for the meltdown. Instead, Mr. Buffet indicated that with mortgage loan payments reaching 50% of homeowner income, marketers and regulators should have known that the mortgage boom was not sustainable. He also cited sudden and drastic credit tightening as an important contributing factor to the credit crisis.
Because the conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will be used to inform public policy for decades to come, it is critical that we get the right answers now. Today, we take the FDIC for granted. Just as the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s, the Great Recession will also have a legacy. Whether that legacy will be permanently tightened credit for consumers or more robust regulation of capital depends largely upon how we interpret the causes of the crisis.
It is not surprising that the mainstream financial media will focus on Mr. Buffett’s ideas about compensation of credit rating agencies (they should have some skin in the game to keep them honest) but glosses over his opinions about the culpability of individual homeowners. The Street is not known for its concern about Main Street. But those of us who know Main Street well must make sure that the voices of everyday Americans are not drowned out as we search for causes and cures.
We need your help to make sure the policy makers and pundits hear your voice. Donate to Rainbow PUSH today. Visit www.rainbowpush.org. $25.00 will help us make the voices on Main Street heard.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Give Homeowners Real Help - Reform Bankruptcy Laws
What is Bankruptcy Reform?
Why Do We Need It?
A consumer files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to reorganize his debts. That reorganization may include catching up on past-due child support, student loan, mortgage or car payments and wiping out some credit card and medical bills.
If for example, your auto was purchased for 40,000.00 and the outstanding balance is 30,000, but the car is only worth 20,000, a bankruptcy judge will routinely reduce the amount owed to 20,000 – the value of the car, if the borrower can meet certain conditions.
Sounds pretty simple? It can be. What needs to be changed and why?
Unlike most commercial transactions, and unlike automobiles and vacation homes, residential mortgages on the debtor’s principal residence cannot be modified in bankruptcy. Unlike the example of the depreciated car given above, a consumer may not reduce (or change in any way) the terms and conditions of his/her mortgage on the principal residence.
What changes are needed?
Simply put: consumers should be able to change their mortgage loans in bankruptcy court. Robert Reich, economic advisor to President Clinton, put it this way…
The best way to help reverse this downward slide would be to let bankruptcy judges restructure shaky home mortgages, reducing what borrowers owe. The problem is, the big banks hate this.
Frequently asked Questions
Why isn’t mortgage loan modification unfair to the lender?
Lenders are already modifying loans. The process is slow, inefficient and inequitable. This would provide a streamlined process with guidelines applicable to every consumer across the country and with every lender. Some lenders say it is not fair to modify the bankruptcy laws after they have given the loans. This is just a ruse. Business is used to changing laws. Tax laws change every year. Business adjusts. Consumer protections change regularly – business adjusts. This is an adjustment that will be good for consumers, good for the economy and ultimately, good for lenders.
Won’t people who can afford to pay take advantage of these provisions just to get a better deal?
No, just the opposite will happen. In order to get a Chapter 13 plan approved by the Court, the consumer /borrower must prove she is insolvent, i.e. that she owes more than she owns in assets. She must also prove that the Chapter 13 repayment plan is feasible (that she can actually make the payments) and that the plan is proposed in good faith ( no assets or income have been hidden from the Court.) If the bank suspects lack of good faith, or lack of true hardship, it can deny a voluntary modification and the consumer will think twice before swearing in court to false information.
Why should you have to file bankruptcy to get this simple relief from foreclosure?
That is the beauty of court-ordered loan modification. Once the banks know and accept that you can file bankruptcy to get a modification, they will conform their voluntary practices to the court rules and regulations. There will be no incentive to deny modifications.
What effect will court-supervised modification have on the overall economy?
Right now, uncertainty paralyzing consumer spending and business investment is the biggest enemy to economic recovery. One of the main causes of that uncertainty is the inability to accurately assess the value of residential real estate, or to predict how far real estate prices will fall. With court supervised modification, assessing the value of real estate will become easier, more transparent and more uniform. The Courts are used to the process of quickly and fairly evaluating property pledged as collateral for debt.
Who opposes court-supervised modification?
Lenders. Although lenders dread court-modified modification, it is actually good for their industry. Banks are doing a mediocre job of responding to the tsunami of families facing foreclosure. Documents are lost, standards are constantly in flux. Banks are not in business to modify loans. The time, energy and financial commitment currently being spent on loss mitigation should be focused on making new loans and collecting outstanding ones. That is what banks do best. Lenders will benefit from more certainty in the market. Most Republicans also oppose bankruptcy relief for homeowners.
Suppose the market for residential real estate comes back. Is it fair for consumers to reap the benefit of the recovery, leaving lenders out in the cold?
Congress could limit the amount of the write-down of the principal balance. Or it could require that the property have lost a minimum value before the provision would apply. Or it could require the lender to share in any appreciation that occurs in the future if the property is sold or transferred at death. Very conservative members of the financial community have called for court supervision.
Who supports court-supervised modification?
Center for Responsible Lending
Rainbow PUSH Coalition
Congressman Barney Frank
Senator Whitehouse
Congressman John Conyers
Senator Chuck Schumer
President Barack Obama
Economist Robert Reich
Senator Dick Durbin
Why hasn’t bankruptcy reform, or court-ordered modification passed?
Congress has not passed it.
What can I do to help?
Contact your Senators and member of Congress.
Why Do We Need It?
A consumer files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to reorganize his debts. That reorganization may include catching up on past-due child support, student loan, mortgage or car payments and wiping out some credit card and medical bills.
If for example, your auto was purchased for 40,000.00 and the outstanding balance is 30,000, but the car is only worth 20,000, a bankruptcy judge will routinely reduce the amount owed to 20,000 – the value of the car, if the borrower can meet certain conditions.
Sounds pretty simple? It can be. What needs to be changed and why?
Unlike most commercial transactions, and unlike automobiles and vacation homes, residential mortgages on the debtor’s principal residence cannot be modified in bankruptcy. Unlike the example of the depreciated car given above, a consumer may not reduce (or change in any way) the terms and conditions of his/her mortgage on the principal residence.
What changes are needed?
Simply put: consumers should be able to change their mortgage loans in bankruptcy court. Robert Reich, economic advisor to President Clinton, put it this way…
The best way to help reverse this downward slide would be to let bankruptcy judges restructure shaky home mortgages, reducing what borrowers owe. The problem is, the big banks hate this.
Frequently asked Questions
Why isn’t mortgage loan modification unfair to the lender?
Lenders are already modifying loans. The process is slow, inefficient and inequitable. This would provide a streamlined process with guidelines applicable to every consumer across the country and with every lender. Some lenders say it is not fair to modify the bankruptcy laws after they have given the loans. This is just a ruse. Business is used to changing laws. Tax laws change every year. Business adjusts. Consumer protections change regularly – business adjusts. This is an adjustment that will be good for consumers, good for the economy and ultimately, good for lenders.
Won’t people who can afford to pay take advantage of these provisions just to get a better deal?
No, just the opposite will happen. In order to get a Chapter 13 plan approved by the Court, the consumer /borrower must prove she is insolvent, i.e. that she owes more than she owns in assets. She must also prove that the Chapter 13 repayment plan is feasible (that she can actually make the payments) and that the plan is proposed in good faith ( no assets or income have been hidden from the Court.) If the bank suspects lack of good faith, or lack of true hardship, it can deny a voluntary modification and the consumer will think twice before swearing in court to false information.
Why should you have to file bankruptcy to get this simple relief from foreclosure?
That is the beauty of court-ordered loan modification. Once the banks know and accept that you can file bankruptcy to get a modification, they will conform their voluntary practices to the court rules and regulations. There will be no incentive to deny modifications.
What effect will court-supervised modification have on the overall economy?
Right now, uncertainty paralyzing consumer spending and business investment is the biggest enemy to economic recovery. One of the main causes of that uncertainty is the inability to accurately assess the value of residential real estate, or to predict how far real estate prices will fall. With court supervised modification, assessing the value of real estate will become easier, more transparent and more uniform. The Courts are used to the process of quickly and fairly evaluating property pledged as collateral for debt.
Who opposes court-supervised modification?
Lenders. Although lenders dread court-modified modification, it is actually good for their industry. Banks are doing a mediocre job of responding to the tsunami of families facing foreclosure. Documents are lost, standards are constantly in flux. Banks are not in business to modify loans. The time, energy and financial commitment currently being spent on loss mitigation should be focused on making new loans and collecting outstanding ones. That is what banks do best. Lenders will benefit from more certainty in the market. Most Republicans also oppose bankruptcy relief for homeowners.
Suppose the market for residential real estate comes back. Is it fair for consumers to reap the benefit of the recovery, leaving lenders out in the cold?
Congress could limit the amount of the write-down of the principal balance. Or it could require that the property have lost a minimum value before the provision would apply. Or it could require the lender to share in any appreciation that occurs in the future if the property is sold or transferred at death. Very conservative members of the financial community have called for court supervision.
Who supports court-supervised modification?
Center for Responsible Lending
Rainbow PUSH Coalition
Congressman Barney Frank
Senator Whitehouse
Congressman John Conyers
Senator Chuck Schumer
President Barack Obama
Economist Robert Reich
Senator Dick Durbin
Why hasn’t bankruptcy reform, or court-ordered modification passed?
Congress has not passed it.
What can I do to help?
Contact your Senators and member of Congress.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Lisa Madigan and Loretta King Visit Georgia
We want to thank Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for giving an outstanding overview of legal issues raised by litigation she has instituted against some of the nation's largest banks. Alleging predatory lending, and illegal steering of blacks and Latinos into sub-prime mortgage, Madigan is attempting to hold banks accountable for irresponsible lending practices that led to the world banking crisis. Madigan was in Atlanta for the Rainbow PUSH Coalition's 10th Annual Creating Opportunity Conference on October 16th.
Also in attendance was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Loretta King, who detailed her efforts to curb racial profiling, involuntary servitude and voting rights infringement from her post in the U.S. Department of Justice.
Also in attendance was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Loretta King, who detailed her efforts to curb racial profiling, involuntary servitude and voting rights infringement from her post in the U.S. Department of Justice.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Civil Rights Update with Loretta King
Constitutional Law Update
What Every Lawyer Should Know About
Equal Protection, Due Process and Diversity
Presented by the Citizenship Education Fund
Hyatt Regency Hotel
265 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30303
For More Information, Call (404) 525-5663
Friday, October 16, 2009
12:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
Luncheon
Guest Speaker - Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
12:00-2:00 p.m.
Loretta King, Esq.
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Justice
2:30 – 4:30 p.m.
Co-Sponsored by Gate City Bar Association
Hyatt Regency
265 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
$100.00 includes program materials and lunch
CLE Credit Application Pending
To Register, Call 404 525 5663.
What Every Lawyer Should Know About
Equal Protection, Due Process and Diversity
Presented by the Citizenship Education Fund
Hyatt Regency Hotel
265 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30303
For More Information, Call (404) 525-5663
Friday, October 16, 2009
12:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
Luncheon
Guest Speaker - Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
12:00-2:00 p.m.
Loretta King, Esq.
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Justice
2:30 – 4:30 p.m.
Co-Sponsored by Gate City Bar Association
Hyatt Regency
265 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
$100.00 includes program materials and lunch
CLE Credit Application Pending
To Register, Call 404 525 5663.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Bob Herbert on Racial Profiling
August 1, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Anger Has Its Place
By BOB HERBERT
Cambridge, Mass.
No more than five or six minutes elapsed from the time the police were alerted to the possibility of a break-in at a home in a quiet residential neighborhood and the awful clamping of handcuffs on the wrists of the distinguished Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
If Professor Gates ranted and raved at the cop who entered his home uninvited with a badge, a gun and an attitude, he didn’t rant and rave for long. The 911 call came in at about 12:45 on the afternoon of July 16 and, as The Times has reported, Mr. Gates was arrested, cuffed and about to be led off to jail by 12:51.
The charge: angry while black.
The president of the United States has suggested that we use this flare-up as a “teachable moment,” but so far exactly the wrong lessons are being drawn from it — especially for black people. The message that has gone out to the public is that powerful African-American leaders like Mr. Gates and President Obama will be very publicly slapped down for speaking up and speaking out about police misbehavior, and that the proper response if you think you are being unfairly targeted by the police because of your race is to chill.
I have nothing but contempt for that message.
Mr. Gates is a friend, and I was selected some months ago to receive an award from an institute that he runs at Harvard. I made no attempt to speak to him while researching this column.
The very first lesson that should be drawn from the encounter between Mr. Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, is that Professor Gates did absolutely nothing wrong. He did not swear at the officer or threaten him. He was never a danger to anyone. At worst, if you believe the police report, he yelled at Sergeant Crowley. He demanded to know if he was being treated the way he was being treated because he was black.
You can yell at a cop in America. This is not Iran. And if some people don’t like what you’re saying, too bad. You can even be wrong in what you are saying. There is no law against that. It is not an offense for which you are supposed to be arrested.
That’s a lesson that should have emerged clearly from this contretemps.
It was the police officer, Sergeant Crowley, who did something wrong in this instance. He arrested a man who had already demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that he was in his own home and had been minding his own business, bothering no one. Sergeant Crowley arrested Professor Gates and had him paraded off to jail for no good reason, and that brings us to the most important lesson to be drawn from this case. Black people are constantly being stopped, searched, harassed, publicly humiliated, assaulted, arrested and sometimes killed by police officers in this country for no good reason.
New York City cops make upwards of a half-million stops of private citizens each year, questioning and frequently frisking these men, women and children. The overwhelming majority of those stopped are black or Latino, and the overwhelming majority are innocent of any wrongdoing. A true “teachable moment” would focus a spotlight on such outrages and the urgent need to stop them.
But this country is not interested in that.
I wrote a number of columns about the arrests of more than 30 black and Hispanic youngsters — male and female — who were doing nothing more than walking peacefully down a quiet street in Brooklyn in broad daylight in the spring of 2007. The kids had to hire lawyers and fight the case for nearly two frustrating years before the charges were dropped and a settlement for their outlandish arrests worked out.
Black people need to roar out their anger at such treatment, lift up their voices and demand change. Anyone counseling a less militant approach is counseling self-defeat. As of mid-2008, there were 4,777 black men imprisoned in America for every 100,000 black men in the population. By comparison, there were only 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white men.
While whites use illegal drugs at substantially higher percentages than blacks, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Most whites do not want to hear about racial problems, and President Obama would rather walk through fire than spend his time dealing with them. We’re never going to have a serious national conversation about race. So that leaves it up to ordinary black Americans to rant and to rave, to demonstrate and to lobby, to march and confront and to sue and generally do whatever is necessary to stop a continuing and deeply racist criminal justice outrage.
Op-Ed Columnist
Anger Has Its Place
By BOB HERBERT
Cambridge, Mass.
No more than five or six minutes elapsed from the time the police were alerted to the possibility of a break-in at a home in a quiet residential neighborhood and the awful clamping of handcuffs on the wrists of the distinguished Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
If Professor Gates ranted and raved at the cop who entered his home uninvited with a badge, a gun and an attitude, he didn’t rant and rave for long. The 911 call came in at about 12:45 on the afternoon of July 16 and, as The Times has reported, Mr. Gates was arrested, cuffed and about to be led off to jail by 12:51.
The charge: angry while black.
The president of the United States has suggested that we use this flare-up as a “teachable moment,” but so far exactly the wrong lessons are being drawn from it — especially for black people. The message that has gone out to the public is that powerful African-American leaders like Mr. Gates and President Obama will be very publicly slapped down for speaking up and speaking out about police misbehavior, and that the proper response if you think you are being unfairly targeted by the police because of your race is to chill.
I have nothing but contempt for that message.
Mr. Gates is a friend, and I was selected some months ago to receive an award from an institute that he runs at Harvard. I made no attempt to speak to him while researching this column.
The very first lesson that should be drawn from the encounter between Mr. Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, is that Professor Gates did absolutely nothing wrong. He did not swear at the officer or threaten him. He was never a danger to anyone. At worst, if you believe the police report, he yelled at Sergeant Crowley. He demanded to know if he was being treated the way he was being treated because he was black.
You can yell at a cop in America. This is not Iran. And if some people don’t like what you’re saying, too bad. You can even be wrong in what you are saying. There is no law against that. It is not an offense for which you are supposed to be arrested.
That’s a lesson that should have emerged clearly from this contretemps.
It was the police officer, Sergeant Crowley, who did something wrong in this instance. He arrested a man who had already demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that he was in his own home and had been minding his own business, bothering no one. Sergeant Crowley arrested Professor Gates and had him paraded off to jail for no good reason, and that brings us to the most important lesson to be drawn from this case. Black people are constantly being stopped, searched, harassed, publicly humiliated, assaulted, arrested and sometimes killed by police officers in this country for no good reason.
New York City cops make upwards of a half-million stops of private citizens each year, questioning and frequently frisking these men, women and children. The overwhelming majority of those stopped are black or Latino, and the overwhelming majority are innocent of any wrongdoing. A true “teachable moment” would focus a spotlight on such outrages and the urgent need to stop them.
But this country is not interested in that.
I wrote a number of columns about the arrests of more than 30 black and Hispanic youngsters — male and female — who were doing nothing more than walking peacefully down a quiet street in Brooklyn in broad daylight in the spring of 2007. The kids had to hire lawyers and fight the case for nearly two frustrating years before the charges were dropped and a settlement for their outlandish arrests worked out.
Black people need to roar out their anger at such treatment, lift up their voices and demand change. Anyone counseling a less militant approach is counseling self-defeat. As of mid-2008, there were 4,777 black men imprisoned in America for every 100,000 black men in the population. By comparison, there were only 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white men.
While whites use illegal drugs at substantially higher percentages than blacks, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Most whites do not want to hear about racial problems, and President Obama would rather walk through fire than spend his time dealing with them. We’re never going to have a serious national conversation about race. So that leaves it up to ordinary black Americans to rant and to rave, to demonstrate and to lobby, to march and confront and to sue and generally do whatever is necessary to stop a continuing and deeply racist criminal justice outrage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)