A lecture on morals from the amoral elite

On yesterday’s This Week With Mickey Mouse, a variety of well-heeled people join in a hearty chorus of “What Do The Simple Folk Do?”. Isn’t that nice!

JONES: Well, then why — it’s certainly not being revealed. But hold on a second. This is the kind of stuff I think that turns people off from politics. I mean, this is exactly the problem we have right now. Ordinary people don’t care about this stuff. And the stuff that regular people care about more than anything is, you know, their houses. Right now, one third of the people who are watching this show, their homes are under water.


It used to be, they were talking about the good old days earlier on the show. It used to be when you signed that mortgage check, you were building wealth for your family. You got a third of Americans who are losing wealth, and in Washington, D.C., the big story that was missed, you got Ed DeMarco, a Bush administration holdover, who is still being held on to by Obama, who sits back and says, Fannie and Freddie are now–


STEPHANOPOULOS: He’s the head of the Federal Housing Administration.


JONES: The Federal Housing Administration.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Oversees Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie came up with a report that said if they just reduced some of these mortgages and gave some mortgage relief and stopped overcharging people for their homes, America would save $1 billion in foreclosures and you keep people in their houses. This one bureaucrat says, no way, takes it off the table. That’s wrong. That’s hurting ordinary Americans. It’s not even being talked about in Washington, D.C. President Obama should fire Ed DeMarco, get him out of there, but somebody in office is going to take care of the real issues. The American people can’t continue to lose their shirts trying to get people to stay in their houses.

(CROSSTALK)


STEPHANOPOULOS: — didn’t do more about that? I know he disagrees, I know he disagrees with Ed DeMarco, but he didn’t take action.


RATTNER: Well, look, the housing situation is one of the most complicated policy issues we have, because we all would like to do more for homeowners, but I think there’s a feeling in America, which I understand, of sort of equity in the sense that someone who overborrowed, who took out a second mortgage, used it to buy a new television or consume, is now under water, is living next door to somebody who acted responsibly and didn’t take out a second mortgage. And so this is a highly emotional issue in Washington.


What he means is, the “responsible” people who had well-paying jobs and enough inherited wealth that they didn’t need to use their houses as ATMs to cover up the declining purchasing power of their paychecks.

Steve Rattner is probably not the person to lecture the rest of us about moral hazard.

JONES: The great thing about the report that came out was, if you narrowed it to people who are not in that situation, you would actually save $1 billion for America. So you’ve taken it off the table, you’re not talking about people who overborrowed. You’re talking about the responsible people. They can’t get help from this administration, they can’t get help from Washington, D.C. That’s why you are going to have underwater voters sitting out this election in droves. That hurts the president. And their inability to be a part of the economy hurts the economy. You’ve got more jobs created–

I get the political strategy behind what Van Jones is saying, but to divide distressed homeowners into “good” (responsible) homeowners versus “bad” (irresponsible) ones is, in face of the overwhelming evidence of fraud and corruption on the part of the banks, rationalizing class war. We already know that black homeowners who qualified for traditional mortgages were steered into the subprime markets. This is not a matter of rational dispute.

COULTER: — families. I think they’re whole house flippers. You noticed that in the housing crisis — they won’t give you the numbers. How many of these houses that are under water are second homes. But noticeably, all the housing crisis hot spots — Arizona, Nevada, California, Florida — not New York City, it’s the hot spots–

(CROSSTALK)


WILL: 75 percent of mortgage holders who are under water are continuing to pay their mortgages. If you go to them now with competitive debt forgiveness — the president saying that maybe student loans should now be forgiven. Now we’re going to start forgiving this, breaking contracts — in a sense what they are — then you’re going to have a classic case of moral hazard, where the incentives are for perverse behavior, and you’re going to incentivize the 75 percent of honorable people paying their mortgages to stop.


A lecture on morals from the bow-tie-wearing buffoon whose previous wife tossed all his belongings onto the lawn when she found out he was cheating on her with his now-wife! But seriously, this is a guy who sold whatever he had by way of intellectual consistency a long, long time ago. There is not a Republican policy he can’t prop up with one rationale or another. He can get himself worked up into quite the moral froth over the corrupting influence of money in college sports, but remain strategically silent over the bankers who actually put us into this economic tailspin – and the Republicans who kept us in this mess.


What about that perverse behavior, George? It seems you only care about the behavior of the rabble. Funny, that.

Virtually Speaking Sunday

Virtually Speaking Sundays: Jay Rosen, Stuart Zechman and Jay Ackroyd talk about the Media as “Church of the Savvy, the Broder Brand, the ideology of the press corps and setting the stage to junk Social Security.

Listen here 

Part 1: Jay Rosen professor of Journalism at NYU (@jayrosen_nyu) and Stuart Zechman (@Stuart_Zechman), in a rerun of a discussion that took place on April 10, 2011.

Part 2: Stuart and Jay  discuss how the media cover politics. Very timely coming into the home stretch of the presidential election campaigns.

Plus this week’s Ridiculous Moment from Culture of Truth

Join the studio audience in Second Life: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Virtually%20Speaking/162/162/25

Rocky

Imagine what it would be like to vote for someone like Rocky Anderson, whose policies you actually support!

What if you tip the balance and there’s a President Romney come 2013?


Well, the question about the spoiler is actually what kept me from doing this for a long time. The reason I decided to do what I’m doing now is because, if the threat of being a spoiler is always going to trump trying to alter the system, then we will never see that kind of change. You cannot let the fear of being a spoiler stop us from raising our voices and taking action, doing everything we can to change the dangerous course on which this country is headed.


Do you agree that there are some areas where Obama has been fairly progressive: gay marriage, for example?


No, he’s a phony. What he did on gay marriage was so boldly political. He used to say he was against it. Then he said his position was evolving. Really? His position on equality was evolving? Now he says he supports marriage equality, but what does that equate to? He says, “I favor it, but it should be left up to the states.” Would he have said that about racial or religious equality? Equality for members of the GLBT community doesn’t rise to the level of importance to provide federal protections? That’s why he’s so dangerous, because there’s this pretense.


Do you worry your candidacy could help enable an extreme-right Republican Party?


No. It could be I take more votes away from Mitt Romney. In the first poll that was done after I announced my candidacy, when Romney and Obama were paired just the two of them, Romney won by 2 or 3 percent. When I was added in, Obama won. I took more votes away from Romney than Obama. The reason for that is there are people who, no matter what, will never vote for Barack Obama. When I’m put into the mix, they’ll go with me instead of Romney.


A miracle happens: you get elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2016. After eight years of a Rocky Anderson presidency, what does the country look like?


The country is back on constitutional moorings. We will not make war without an explicit authorization from Congress. We won’t be engaging in illegal wars of aggression anymore. We will never again waver on the right of habeas corpus, due process. We will not have the kind of enormous disparity of wealth and income that we see now. We will be past this new Gilded Age, back to a time where we have a healthy, thriving middle class, where we have good jobs, the strongest educational system in the world, where we provide early preschool programs through higher education, equal educational opportunities for everyone. This nation would be one where no one is above the law and everyone—at every level, regardless of wealth, regardless of political position—knows that he or she will be held accountable for violations of the law. We’ll talk about all of us being in this together, all of us paying our fair share, all of us sacrificing for the good of the country and enjoying the benefits. The prohibition of drugs will be eliminated, and substance abuse will be treated as a public health and education issue. We will finally be providing the essential leadership on climate protection, because if we don’t do that, that window of opportunity that’s so narrow right now is going to be slammed shut.

Oops

Honestly, anyone who still thinks DHS wasn’t monitoring the Occupy protests is just too silly to live. Once you have a full-scale operation that’s supposed to monitor threats, they’re going to look at everything – because they’re paranoid they’re going to miss something. This is particularly amusing that they tried to push back on “inaccuracies” that were, in fact, true:

Senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials debated whether they should pressure award-winning reporter Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings to “pull down” a report he published on the magazine’s web site about the agency’s role in monitoring Occupy Wall Street (OWS), claiming it was riddled with “inaccuracies,” according to hundreds of pages of internal DHS emails related to OWS Truthout obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we filed last October.

But it wasn’t Hastings’ February 28 report that was incorrect. Rather, it was an unauthorized five-page internal report prepared last October by DHS employees, who acted “outside the scope of their authority” and violated “privacy standards,” according to the emails, about the potential threat posed by OWS that was flawed. The internal report strongly suggested DHS had been mining social media, such as OWS’s Twitter feeds, for intelligence on the protest movement.

That document, which Hastings had accurately represented in his story, formed the basis for his Rolling Stone story. It was found in more than 5 million hacked emails from private intelligence firm Stratfor that Wikileaks released earlier this year. Hastings obtained the internal report from WikiLeaks, which entered into an investigative partnership with Rolling Stone.

It was Hastings’ characterization of the internal report that struck a nerve with top officials at DHS, who spent two days discussing how they should publicly respond to it, according to the heavily redacted emails.

Virtually Speaking Thursday

Virtually Speaking with Jay Ackroyd 6pm pacific | 9pm eastern

Tonight Melissa Thomasson, Associate Professor of Economics. She and Jay discuss her work on the economic history of medical care and health insurance in the US.

• Read: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us
• Listen to Melissa on ‘This American Life’ http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/someone-elses-money
• Watch Melissa on vimeo http://vimeo.com/15660730Listen live and later on BTR

Tweet questions to #AskVS

Join the studio audience in Second Life