Category Archives: Financial Scandals

Bank Of America Sues Itself In Unusual Foreclosure Case

huffingtonpost.com | Apr 10, 2012

WASHINGTON — Bank of America is suing itself for foreclosure.

“It’s crazy,” housing data analyst Michael Olenick told HuffPost. “They shouldn’t be suing themselves.”

Over the past two years, the nation’s largest banks and the Obama administration have repeatedly vowed to clean up the foreclosure fraud mess. In February, banks agreed to pay $25 billion and overhaul their foreclosure processes as part of a 50-state investigation into bank wrongdoing, resulting from practices that included robo-signing.

Foreclosure Frenzy: Bank Of America Sues Bank Of America

But in Florida’s Palm Beach County alone, Bank of America has sued itself for foreclosure 11 times since late March, according to foreclosure fraud activist Lynn Szymoniak, who forwarded one such foreclosure filing, dated March 29, 2012, to The Huffington Post. (A white-collar crime expert, Szymoniak was recently awarded $18 million for her work helping the government recover $95 million as a result of bank foreclosure problems in North Carolina.)

In the March 29 filing, Bank of America is seeking to foreclose on a condominium and names the condo owner and Bank of America as defendants in the suit. The company is literally seeking damages from itself in order to foreclose on the condo owner.

“We are servicing the first mortgage on behalf of an investor and we own the second mortgage,” Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens told HuffPost. “Naming the second-lien holder in the suit is necessary to eliminate the junior interest,” Bauwens said.

“This just strikes me as classic robo foreclosure,” Professor Alan White of Valparaiso University Law School told HuffPost. White, a predatory lending expert who tracks and analyzes data on loan modifications and foreclosures, said that lawyers for the bank likely performed an electronic title search to see if any other liens on the property existed and simply wrote down the name of whatever bank came up in the search. Lawyers and paralegals who perform these tasks typically fill out dozens of such forms a day, White told HuffPost.

“I’m sure the paralegal who did this did 100 others that day,” he said.

Banks have been caught suing themselves before. In 2009, Dow Jones columnist Al Lewis uncovered a case in which Wells Fargo had sued itself in connection with a foreclosure in Florida’s Hillsborough County. The bank owned both the first and second liens on the property and ended up hiring two separate attorneys to deal with the snafu — one to bring the lawsuit and another to defend itself.

The Bank of America self-suits seems to have emerged from a scenario that investors have complained about for years involving home equity loans. Big banks like Bank of America service mortgages on behalf of other investors. Bank of America processes payments, negotiates with borrowers and operates the foreclosure process but does not actually own the loan. Many properties from the housing bubble had an additional home equity loan, or second lien. Banks could charge higher interest rates on these second liens because they were riskier loans — the second lien is supposed to eat losses before anything happens to the first lien.

When a bank brings a foreclosure case in court, it has to notify whoever owns the second lien that it is taking action. In this case, Bank of America owns the second lien.

But meticulous attorneys would not ordinarily let their clients sue themselves. “It is a little bit mindless on the part of the lawyer,” White said. “They don’t need to sue themselves.”

An ugly foreclosure story, starring Bank of America


After homeowner Dirma Rodriguez fell behind on her payments, the Bank of America lowered her monthly obligation, but then sold her house at a foreclosure auction last September. (Associated Press)

Dirma Rodriguez wonders how a house she’d been paying on for years, and which is specially modified for her severely disabled daughter, could be taken from her.

You might wonder why Bank of America found it smarter to sell at a loss than to work out reasonable terms with Rodriguez, who made mortgage payments for more than 20 years without incident.

Los Angeles Times | Apr 13, 2012

by Gale Holland

Dirma Rodriguez had five minutes to gather her things and vacate the West Adams house she and her severely disabled daughter had lived in for more than 25 years.

As a property manager changed the locks, Rodriguez fluttered back and forth from the yard — where a pile of stuff lay by the kitchen stove — to her car, where her daughter, Ingrid Ortiz, sat screaming and crying.

How Rodriguez and Ortiz ended up in this predicament is a long, messy story that resounds with a misery all too common in this age of foreclosure.

Rodriguez took out a loan to retrofit her house for her special-needs daughter. After she fell behind on her payments, the Bank of America lowered her monthly obligation, but then sold the house at a foreclosure auction last September. The new owner, a house flipper from El Segundo called West Ridge Rentals, moved to evict the family.

I came upon Rodriguez’s story through Occupy Fights Foreclosure, the latest offshoot of the 99% movement. Occupy interceded to stop her eviction March 26, and it just may have saved her home for good. Bank of America said last week it is considering a loan modification that would return the home to Rodriguez and her family.

But how did it come to this? Bank of America took a $45-billion bailout from taxpayers when it got into financial trouble. Why couldn’t the bank have shown Rodriguez — a widow whose life was already a trial — the same courtesy when she got squeezed?

“I would pray to God the executives from Bank of America would come over here and see what I have to deal with,” Rodriguez said through a Spanish-speaking Occupier last week.

Ortiz, now 27, has cerebral palsy and does not speak. Her vision is poor, and she can walk with leg braces, but she generally finds it easier to slide around the house on her knees. She often cries and wails loudly.

The stucco house on South Rimpau Boulevard, which Rodriguez keeps immaculate, is custom-conditioned for Ortiz, with gleaming floor tiles to ease her movements and a wheelchair ramp. In the summer, Rodriguez spreads a blanket on the lawn so Ingrid can enjoy the sun and gaze at the dozens of unblemished rose bushes her mother planted in honor of her quinceañera.

Given the circumstances, it’s hard to picture Rodriguez spending her loan money on a cruise. Or finding another place where Ortiz could live comfortably.

“I built all this house so she could have a castle,” Rodriguez said through a translator last week. Two portraits of a smiling Ortiz in a white quinceañera dress with rosebud trim hung nearby. “This is the only world she knows,” her mother said.

Bank of America inherited Rodriguez’s loan from Countrywide. After her payment jumped, and she fell behind, the bank placed her in a trial loan modification. She made her payments faithfully for 13 months and was awaiting a permanent modification package when the bank sold her home out from under her, she says.

How and why this came to pass is in dispute. Rodriguez says the bank began returning her payments, then put her into foreclosure without notice. Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon said she received ample notification, and the foreclosure was aboveboard.

Getting at the truth is complicated by “advocates” that Rodriguez brought in to try to save her home. One of them, G & G Financial of Los Angeles, earned a grade of “F” from the Better Business Bureau for allegedly charging homeowners advance fees to work on loan modifications, which is illegal in California. A man who answered the phone at G & G hung up on me when I tried to ask about Rodriguez’s case.

Another company, Golden Global Investments of Van Nuys, said through an employee that it helped Rodriguez fight eviction. But West Ridge lawyer Alan Dettelbach says no one was in court for Rodriguez when the eviction proceeding was heard.

Bank of America’s assertion that the foreclosure was proper might be more persuasive if it and four other banks hadn’t just signed a $25-billion settlement with the federal government and state attorneys general over shoddy, and possibly illegal, foreclosure practices. Or if it had established more of a record of helping longtime homeowners hang on to their properties.

Bank of America was the only lender that joined a 2009, $1.1-million city pilot program to help homeowners in the North San Fernando Valley obtain loan modifications. But as of February, the bank could find no “eligible borrowers,” city staff reported to the City Council.

Really? REALLY? There’s not a single Bank of America borrower in North Hollywood or Sun Valley deserving of a break?

Rodriguez owed $457,000 on the house; West Ridge picked it up for $300,100. You might wonder why Bank of America found it smarter to sell at a loss than to work out reasonable terms with Rodriguez, who made mortgage payments for more than 20 years without incident.

Basically, the bulk of the loss falls not on Bank of America, the loan servicer, but on the loan’s owner — in Rodriguez’s case, Freddie Mac.

Dettelbach, the attorney, said West Ridge is willing to walk away if the bank repays its money plus costs. Simon, the spokesman, said the bank has to be certain Rodriguez can afford the payments before they agree to a modification.

“We are certainly sympathetic to the situation involving her daughter and the renovations that have been done to the home,” Simon said in an email.

“I don’t want a free house. I just want to make my payments,” Rodriguez said.

The Chinese Communist Party’s Capitalist Elite

businessweek.com | Mar 1, 2012

By Michael Forsythe

Here’s yet another metric in which China has blown past the U.S.: The richest 70 members of China’s legislature added more to their wealth last year than the combined net worth of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress, the president, his cabinet, and the entire Supreme Court. These wealthy Chinese are members of the National People’s Congress, the nation’s lawmaking body that opens its annual session on March 5.

The collective net worth of these 70 lawmakers rose to 565.8 billion yuan ($89.8 billion) in 2011, a gain of $11.5 billion from 2010, according to figures from the Hurun Report, a Shanghai publisher of luxury magazines that ranks the country’s wealthy. That compares to the $7.5 billion net worth of all 660 top officials in the three branches of the U.S. government, data from Washington’s Center for Responsive Politics show.

In China per capita annual income in 2010 was $2,425, less than in Belarus and a fraction of the $37,527 in the U.S. The disparity between rich and poor in China underscores one of the biggest challenges China’s leadership faces—a rise in social unrest fueled by illegal land grabs and corruption. “It is extraordinary to see this degree of a marriage of wealth and politics,” says Kenneth Lieberthal, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at Washington’s Brookings Institution. “It certainly lends vivid texture to the widespread complaints in China about an extreme inequality of wealth.”

Members of the National People’s Congress, often derided as a rubber-stamp parliament, are among China’s most powerful politicians and executives, wielding power in their home provinces and shaping national tax policy. Zong Qinghou, chairman of beverage-maker Hangzhou Wahaha Group and China’s second-richest person, with a family fortune of 68 billion yuan, is a member. So is Wu Yajun, chairwoman of Beijing-based Longfor Properties. She has family wealth of 42 billion yuan and is the richest woman in China, according to the Hurun Report, which uses publicly available information such as corporate filings to compile its annual rich list.

The third-richest person in the NPC, auto-parts magnate Lu Guanqiu, traveled with Vice President Xi Jinping—the presumed successor to President Hu Jintao—to the U.S. during his official visit in February. Zong, Wu, and Lu declined to comment for this story.

Chinese private executives such as Zong and Lu have built their fortunes on the back of economic growth that has averaged 10.1 percent in the last 30 years. (The U.S. economy expanded by an average annual rate of 2.7 percent in the same period.) Many of the NPC’s richest members are executives in real estate, a sector where property ownership disputes have prompted demonstrations and contributed to the rising wealth gap between city dwellers and farmers. A land claim by a property developer in Wukan, a fishing town in southern China’s Guangdong province, sparked protests in December that resulted in the expulsion of its Communist Party leaders.

Rupert Hoogewerf, chairman and chief researcher for the Hurun Report, estimates that for every billionaire the company discovers for its list there is another one it misses. “The prevalence of billionaires in the NPC shows the cozy relationship between the wealthy and the Communist Party,” says Bruce Jacobs, a professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. “In all levels of the system there seem to be local officials in cahoots with entrepreneurs, enriching themselves.”

The bottom line: China’s richest 70 lawmakers saw their collective net worth jump to nearly $90 billion in 2011. China’s 2010 per capita income: $2,425.

Europe moves ahead with fiscal union, deep economic integration


Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel addresses a news conference at the end of an European Union summit in Brussels December 9, 2011. Europe divided on Friday in a historic rift over building a closer fiscal union to preserve the euro, with an overwhelming majority of countries led by Germany and France agreeing to forge ahead with a separate treaty, leaving the EU’s third biggest economy Britain isolated. Reuters

New pact will have stricter debt rules and enforcement

Reuters | Dec 9, 2011

By Luke Baker and Mark John

BRUSSELS, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Europe secured an historic agreement to draft a new treaty for deeper economic integration in the euro zone on Friday, but Britain, the region’s third largest economy, refused to join the other 26 countries in a fiscal union and was isolated.

The outcome of a two-day European Union summit left financial markets uncertain whether and when more decisive action would be taken to stem a debt crisis that began in Greece in 2009, spread to Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain and now threatens France and even economic powerhouse Germany.

A new treaty could take three months to negotiate and may require risky referendums in countries such as Ireland.

Two ECB sources told Reuters the European Central Bank would keep purchases of euro zone government bonds capped for now and take no extra firefighting action. Debt markets were wary. Interbank lending rates eased but Italian 10-year bond yields rose to around 6.5 percent.

Twenty-six of the 27 EU leaders agreed to pursue a tougher budget discipline regime with automatic sanctions for deficit sinners in the single currency area, but Britain said it could not accept proposed EU treaty amendments after failing to secure concessions for itself.

“This is a breakthrough to a union of stability,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. “We will use the crisis as a chance for a new beginning.”

After 10 hours of talks that ran into the early hours of Friday, all 17 members of the euro zone and nine of the 10 outsiders resolved to negotiate a new agreement alongside the EU treaty.

Related

Britain’s few allies melted away in the Brussels dawn. All the other nine non-euro states said they wanted to take part in the fiscal union process, subject to parliamentary approval.

The rift, which could widen into a permanent divide between London and the continental mainland, occurred 20 years to the day after European leaders agreed at the Maastricht summit to create the single currency, with Britain opting to stay out.

Prime Minister David Cameron insisted at a news conference that it remained in Britain’s interest to stay in the EU and take advantage of its single market.

One senior EU diplomat called Cameron’s negotiating tactics “clumsy”. Among other things, he had sought a veto on a proposed financial transaction tax, which may now be voted through by a majority over the objections of the City of London financial centre.

NO BIG BAZOOKA

ECB President Mario Draghi called the EU’s decision a step forward for the stricter budget rules he has said are necessary for the euro zone to emerge stronger from the turmoil.

“It’s going to be the basis for a good fiscal compact and more discipline in economic policy in the euro area members,” Draghi said. “We came to conclusions that will have to be fleshed out more in the coming days.”

Two ECB sources said the bank’s governing council decided on Thursday to keep bond buying limited to around 20 billion euros a week and there was no need to review the decision in the light of the summit outcome.

“You will see some further purchases but not the huge bazooka that some people in the markets and the media are awaiting,” one central banker said on condition of anonymity.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters the ECB’s move to provide unlimited three-year funds to cash-starved European banks would be more effective, by enabling them to continue buying government bonds.

“This means that each state can turn to its banks, which will have liquidity at their disposal,” he said.

Analysts said the notion that commercial banks could step up their purchases of government bonds looked optimistic given the same banks are being asked to deleverage and recapitalise if necessary.

“SEETHES, SULKS, GLOATS”

Merkel said the world would see that Europe had learned from its mistakes and avoided “lousy compromise”.

Sarkozy sounded elated at having united a big group around the euro zone as the EU’s core, long a French objective.

“This is a summit that will go down in history,” he said. “We would have preferred a reform of the treaties among 27. That wasn’t possible given the position of our British friends. And so it will be through an intergovernmental treaty of 17, but open to others.”

One EU diplomat summed up the outcome as: “Britain seethes, Germany sulks, and France gloats.”

Active ECB support will be vital in the coming days with markets doubting the strength of Europe’s financial firewalls to protect vulnerable economies such as Italy and Spain, which have to roll over hundreds of billions of euros in debt next year.

Traders said the ECB bought Italian bonds on Friday to steady markets.

The euro rallied in Europe and U.S. shares gained, but analysts said the summit had done little to convince markets that a solution to the crisis was at hand.

Asked if the euro was safe now, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said: “I’m not sure.”

BRITAIN OUTSIDE?

Britain refused to allow its partners to amend the EU treaty, demanding guarantees in a protocol protecting its financial services industry, roughly one-tenth of the country’s economy. Sarkozy described Cameron’s demand as unacceptable.

Cameron hinted London may now try to prevent the others from using the executive European Commission and the European Court of Justice, saying: “Clearly the institutions of the European Union belong to the European Union, they belong to the 27.”

But European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, who chaired the summit, said the EU institutions would be fully involved in the new treaty, which would be signed in early March at the latest. The euro zone plus nine may hold a summit without Britain as early as January, diplomats said.

The rift may increase pressure from Eurosceptics within Cameron’s Conservative party and outside it for Britain to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, which it joined in 1973. The prime minister strongly opposes such a course, which he has said would be disastrous for British interests.

Britain conducts more than half of its trade within the EU and could suffer on a broad range of financial regulation issues if the other countries decided to move forward as 26.

Van Rompuy said the summit’s key achievement was to tighten fiscal limits, including the need for countries to bring budgets close to balance.

“It means reinforcing our rules on excessive deficit procedures by making them more automatic. It also means that member states would have to submit their draft budgetary plans to the (European) Commission,” Van Rompuy said.

But a new treaty will take weeks of wrangling as countries like Finland and Slovakia oppose a Franco-German drive to take decisions on future bailouts by an 85 percent supermajority to avoid being taken hostage by a single small country.

LAST-CHANCE SALOON?

In a meeting billed by some as a last chance to save the euro, the leaders also took several decisions on the permanent bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism, which will come into force a year early in July 2012.

The ESM’s capacity will be capped at 500 billion euros ($666 billion), less than had been suggested was possible before the summit, and the facility will not get a banking licence, as Van Rompuy originally had proposed, due to German opposition.

It also was agreed that EU countries would provide up to 200 billion euros in bilateral loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help it tackle the crisis, with 150 billion euros of the total coming from the euro zone countries.

Cameron’s decision to stay out of the treaty-change camp could spell problems for Britain. Deeper integration on the continent could involve changes to the single market and financial regulation, both of which could have a profound impact on the British economy.

“Cameron was clumsy in his manoeuvring,” a senior EU diplomat said. It may be possible that Britain will shift its position in the days ahead if it discovers that isolation really is not a viable course of action, diplomats said.

Saif Gaddafi arrest could prove embarrassing for Tony Blair, the Duke of York and Nat Rothschild


Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is seen sitting in a plane in Zintan Photo: REUTERS

Telegraph | Nov 20, 2011

By Martin Evans

Any future trial of Saif Al Islam Gaddafi could prove embarrassing for a host of high profile British figures who struck up a relationship with the Gaddafi regime, including Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson and The Duke of York, analysts have suggested.

In 2004 Mr Blair brought Gaddafi in from the cold when the pair signed the so-called ‘deal in the desert’ during a highly symbolic meeting in Tripoli.

The former Prime Minister introduced a UN resolution to lift sanctions against Libya after Gaddafi agreed to compensate victims of the Lockerbie atrocity.

The rapprochement paved the way for a string of highly lucrative deals to be agreed between British companies and the oil rich state.

But many critics, particularly amongst the families of the Lockerbie victims, have questioned the wisdom and circumstances of the thaw in relations.

Any trial featuring Saif is likely to detail what compromises were reached by the UK government when the deals were signed.

Among those who enjoyed close relations with Saif was Lord Mandelson, who as former Business Secretary is understood to have met him on a number of occasions.

He has admitted discussing the fate of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi, who was released from prison in Scotland in August 2009.

The Duke of York was also a close associate of Colonel Gaddafi’s most trusted son and met him in Tripoli on a number of occasions in his capacity as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment.

Other British figures whose relationship with the Libyan regime could come in for scrutiny include Nat Rothschild, the billionaire financier.

Saif is understood to have been a guest of Mr Rothschild at a number of functions he hosted including a party in New York, a shoot at his British estate and a gathering at the family villa in Corfu.

Saif forged strong links with Britain studying for his PhD at the London School of Economics.

Sir Howard Davies, resigned from his post as LSE director earlier this year, when it emerged that Saif’s charitable foundation had given the college a grant of £1.5 million.

Saif, who is now being held in the northern Libyan town of Zintan, is also wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for crimes against humanity.

However the ICC is unlikely to pursue the indictment if Saif is offered a fair trial in Libya.

Watchdog warns on carbon tax profiteering

The Age | Nov 16, 2011

by David Wroe

The consumer watchdog is expecting a flood of complaints. Photo: Sasha Woolley

THE consumer watchdog is expecting a flood of complaints from people worried about price gouging when the carbon tax is introduced and has urged consumers to come forward if they suspect they are being ripped off.

In a speech in Perth yesterday, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims warned businesses against using the carbon tax as cover for unjustifiable price rises.

Any business that blamed price rises on the tax would need to be able to justify them, he said, warning that the ACCC would scrutinise price rises with the same rigour that it did when the GST was introduced in 2000.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Later he told The Age the ACCC was expecting a high volume of complaints. ”I don’t think we’ll have any problem getting consumers to complain about this,” he said.

”Consumers are going to be extra sensitive as the date approaches and we’ll get a lot of complaints.”

The watchdog has already caught out businesses trying to profiteer from the carbon tax, including taxi drivers and a bottle shop that have lifted prices and blamed it on the tax, even though it doesn’t start until July.

Mr Sims stressed that businesses – provided they weren’t subject to price regulation – were generally free to change prices as they saw fit and were not compelled to justify them.

”What you can’t do is mislead people into accepting it because they think it’s due to a carbon price and it’s happening everywhere.” Businesses could be slapped with court-imposed fines of up to $1.1 million for serious breaches. The ACCC can also issue infringement notices of $1320 for individuals, $66,000 for public companies and $6600 for other companies.

The ACCC is regarded as having effectively kept a lid on price gouging following the introduction of the GST via then chairman Allan Fels’s strong public warnings to business.

Consumers could email the ACCC or call a hotline if they were suspicious. Mr Sims declined to say what consumers might consider an excessive rise, but said prices shouldn’t rise too much. ”Really it’s a lot to do with energy prices, particularly electricity,” he said.

”If you are dealing with a sector that doesn’t have a very large electricity cost, then it’s hard to see how there’s going to be very large price increases. If people say, ‘I’m putting up my price 1 or 2 per cent because of the carbon price’, that’s probably not much of an issue but where they talk about large numbers, short of being in the electricity industry, they now have to justify that.”

Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said it was ”appropriate” for the ACCC to take action but said the government was trying to dampen the reaction to carbon-related price rises. ”It’s one thing to protect against price gouging but another entirely to scare small business off providing legitimate information about the effect of the carbon tax on prices.”

The parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury, said the government had given the ACCC $12.8 million for the crackdown.

”While we recognise that the vast majority of businesses will do the right thing, the government has provided this funding to help stop the small number of businesses that may try to take advantage of their customers,” he said.

Poorest poor in US hits new record: 1 in 15 people


In a Thursday, Sept. 16, 2010 file photo, a man who did not wish to be identified, who lost his job two months ago after being hurt on the job, works to collect money for his family on a Miami .

About 20.5 million Americans, or 6.7 percent of the U.S. population, make up the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the official poverty level. Those living in deep poverty represent nearly half of the 46.2 million people scraping by below the poverty line. In 2010, the poorest poor meant an income of $5,570 or less for an individual and $11,157 for a family of four.

Associated Press | Nov 4, 2011

By HOPE YEN and LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ

WASHINGTON (AP) — The ranks of America’s poorest poor have climbed to a record high — 1 in 15 people — spread widely across metropolitan areas as the housing bust pushed many inner-city poor into suburbs and other outlying places and shriveled jobs and income.

New census data paint a stark portrait of the nation’s haves and have-nots at a time when unemployment remains persistently high. It comes a week before the government releases first-ever economic data that will show more Hispanics, elderly and working-age poor have fallen into poverty.

In all, the numbers underscore the breadth and scope by which the downturn has reached further into mainstream America.

“There now really is no unaffected group, except maybe the very top income earners,” said Robert Moffitt, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. “Recessions are supposed to be temporary, and when it’s over, everything returns to where it was before. But the worry now is that the downturn — which will end eventually — will have long-lasting effects on families who lose jobs, become worse off and can’t recover.”

Traditional inner-city black ghettos are thinning out and changing, drawing in impoverished Hispanics who have low-wage jobs or are unemployed. Neighborhoods with poverty rates of at least 40 percent are stretching over broader areas, increasing in suburbs at twice the rate of cities.

Once-booming Sun Belt metro areas are now seeing some of the biggest jumps in concentrated poverty.

Signs of a growing divide between rich and poor can be seen in places such as the upscale Miami suburb of Miami Shores, where nannies gather with their charges at a playground nestled between the township’s sprawling golf course and soccer fields. The locale is a far cry from where many of them live.

One is Mariana Gripaldi, 36, an Argentinian who came to the U.S. about 10 years ago to escape her own country’s economic crisis. She and her husband rent a two-bedroom apartment near Biscayne Bay in a middle-class neighborhood at the north end of Miami Beach, far from the chic hotels and stores.

But Gripaldi said in the past two years, the neighborhood has seen an increase in crime.

“The police come sometimes once or twice a night,” she said in Spanish. “We are looking for a new place, but it’s so expensive. My husband went to look at a place, and it was $1,500 for a two-bedroom, one bath. I don’t like the changes, but I don’t know if we can move.”

About 20.5 million Americans, or 6.7 percent of the U.S. population, make up the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the official poverty level. Those living in deep poverty represent nearly half of the 46.2 million people scraping by below the poverty line. In 2010, the poorest poor meant an income of $5,570 or less for an individual and $11,157 for a family of four.

That 6.7 percent share is the highest in the 35 years that the Census Bureau has maintained such records, surpassing previous highs in 2009 and 1993 of just over 6 percent.

Broken down by states, 40 states and the District of Columbia had increases in the poorest poor since 2007, and none saw decreases. The District of Columbia ranked highest at 10.7 percent, followed by Mississippi and New Mexico. Nevada had the biggest jump, rising from 4.6 percent to 7 percent.

Concentrated poverty also spread wider.

After declining during the 1990s economic boom, the proportion of poor people in large metropolitan areas who lived in high-poverty neighborhoods jumped from 11.2 percent in 2000 to 15.1 percent last year, according to a Brookings Institution analysis released Thursday. Such geographically concentrated poverty in the U.S. is now at the highest since 1990, following a decade of high unemployment and rising energy costs.

Extreme poverty today continues to be prevalent in the industrial Midwest, including Detroit, Grand Rapids, Mich., and Akron, Ohio, due to a renewed decline in manufacturing. But the biggest growth in high-poverty areas is occurring in newer Sun Belt metro areas such as Las Vegas, Riverside, Calif., and Cape Coral, Fla., after the plummeting housing market wiped out home values and dried up construction jobs.

As a whole, the number of poor in the suburbs who lived in high-poverty neighborhoods rose by 41 percent since 2000, more than double the growth of such city neighborhoods.

Elizabeth Kneebone, a senior research associate at Brookings, described a demographic shift in people living in high-poverty neighborhoods, which have less access to good schools, hospitals and government services. As concentrated poverty spreads to new areas, including suburbs, the residents are now more likely to be white, native-born and high school or college graduates — not the conventional image of high-school dropouts or single mothers in inner-city ghettos.

The more recent broader migration of the U.S. population, including working- and middle-class blacks, to the South and to suburbs helps explain some of the shifts in poverty.

A study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that the population of 133 historically black ghettos had dropped 36 percent since 1970, as the U.S. black population growth slowed and many blacks moved to new areas. The newest residents in these ghettos are now more likely to be Hispanic, who have more than tripled their share in the neighborhoods, to 21 percent.

Just over 7 percent of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33 percent in 1970.

“As extreme-poverty neighborhoods emerge in more places, that is shifting the general makeup of those populations,” said Kneebone, the lead author of the Brookings analysis.

New 2010 poverty data to be released next week by the Census Bureau will show additional demographic changes.

The new supplemental poverty measure for the first time will take into account non-cash aid such as tax credits and food stamps, but also additional everyday costs such as commuting and medical care. Official poverty figures released in September only take into account income before tax deductions.

Based on newly released estimates for 2009, the new measure will show a significant jump in overall poverty. Poverty for Americans 65 and older is on track to nearly double after factoring in rising out-of-pocket medical expenses, from 9 percent to over 15 percent. Poverty increases are also anticipated for the working-age population because of commuting and child-care costs, while child poverty will dip partly due to the positive effect of food stamps.

For the first time, the share of Hispanics living in poverty is expected to surpass that of African-Americans based on the new measure, reflecting in part the lower participation of immigrants and non-English speakers in government aid programs such as housing and food stamps. The 2009 census estimates show 27.6 percent of all Hispanics living in poverty, compared with 23.4 percent for blacks.

Alba Alvarez, 52, a nanny who chatted recently in Miami, said she is lucky because her employer rents an apartment to her and her husband at a low rate in a comfortable neighborhood on the bay. But her adult children, who followed her to the U.S. from Honduras, are having a tougher time.

They initially found work in a regional wholesale fruit and vegetable market that supplies many local supermarkets. But her youngest son recently lost his job, and since he has no legal status, he cannot get any help from the government.

“As a mother, I feel so horrible. There’s this sense of powerlessness. I wanted things to be better for them in this country,” Alvarez said. “I (recently) suggested my youngest go back to Honduras. It’s easier for me to help him there than here, where rent and everything is so expensive.”

Vatican calls for a “Global Political Authority”

Vatican Calls for New World Economic Order

Associated Press | Octr 24, 2011

VATICAN CITY –  The Vatican called Monday for radical reform of the world’s financial systems, including the creation of a global political authority to manage the economy.

A proposal by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace calls for a new world economic order based on ethics and the “achievement of a universal common good.” It follows Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 economic encyclical that denounced a profit-at-all-cost mentality as responsible for the global financial meltdown.

The proposal acknowledges, however, that a “long road still needs to be traveled before arriving at the creation of a public authority with universal jurisdiction” and suggests the reform process begin with the United Nations as a point of reference.

Vatican pronouncements on the economy are meant to guide world leaders as well as the global church. United States Roman Catholic bishops, for example, have released a voter guide for the 2012 election that highlights social concerns such as ending poverty.

Related

“It is an exercise of responsibility not only toward the current but above all toward future generations, so that hope for a better future and confidence in human dignity and capacity for good may never be extinguished,” the document said.

It highlights that reforms must assure that financial and monetary policies will not damage the weakest economies while also achieving fair distribution of the world’s wealth.

The proposal also called for a “minimum, shared body of rules to manage the global financial market,” lamenting the “overall abrogation of controls” on capital movements.

While past Vatican pronouncements have condemned unfettered capitalism, the latest criticized “an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls.”

It also attacked “utilitarian thinking,” saying what is useful to the individual does not always favor the common good.

US taxpayers could be on hook for Europe bailout

The U.S. is coming to Europe’s financial rescue.

As the largest shareholder, the United States provides the biggest single source of funding to the IMF.

MSNBC | Sep 16, 2011

By John W. Schoen

So far, America’s role is fairly limited. But if the crisis continues to grow and the U.S. takes on a wider role, U.S. consumers and taxpayers could feel a bigger impact. The biggest exposure could come from America’s status as the single largest source of money for the International Monetary Fund.

The latest round of American financial assistance came Thursday with a promise by the Federal Reserve to swap as many dollars for euros as European bankers need. In the short run, those transactions won’t have much impact because the central banks are simply swapping currencies of equal value. If the move helps avert a wider crisis, it could help spare the global economy from another recession.

Related

Suddenly, Over There Is Over Here

But over the long term, consumers could feel the impact of central bankers flooding the financial system with cash, according to John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics.

“This is a lender of last resort function,” he told CNBC. “With the dollar injections that the Fed has done, it’s like giving a patient medicine with really bad side effects.”  Ryding said the bad side effect in the U.S. has been inflation, which has picked up to 3.8 percent year over year.

Fed policymakers meet next week to decide whether the flagging U.S. economy needs another round of easy-money measures that could include buying more Treasury bonds to push more cash into the financial system.

So far, no one has floated publicly the idea of the U.S underwriting a broader bailout of the European financial system. But Senate Republicans have already voiced concerns over such a move.

“Our concern is that innocent American taxpayers will pay for yet another bailout — this time to one or several countries whose spending and debt choices led them to financial calamity,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and seven other Republican senators wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in June.

The source of the senators’ concern is an emergency provision, approved by the Group of 20 industrialized nations in 2009, granting the IMF broad powers to expand its lending authority. That could leave American taxpayers on the hook for any IMF loans that later go bad.

In July, Geithner sought to reassure the senators that won’t happen.

“The United States has never experienced a loss on its IMF commitments,” Geithner wrote. “The IMF’s claims are recognized by Europe to stand ahead of all others. This, along with the IMF’s strong financial resources, provides further assurance that our claims on the fund are secure.”

On Friday, Geithner made an unprecedented trip to meet with European officials who are wrestling with the creation of a bailout fund similar to the U.S. government response to the Panic of 2008. With European Union leaders deadlocked for over a year, Geithner, one of the architects of the U.S. financial bailout in 2008, urged the group to move more aggressively to solve a widening debt crisis that threatens to send the world back into recession.

Investors have become increasingly worried that a $740 billion euro EU bailout fund isn’t big enough to cope with potential losses if Greece and other countries default on their debts, wiping out those assets held by European banks. With richer countries like Germany and France unwilling to commit more funds, Geithner wants the Europeans to boost the existing bailout fund’s firepower. One idea would be to use the money just to guarantee losses from bond defaults rather than buying up the bonds themselves.

European officials are running out of ideas. This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel shot down the idea of a unified Euro bond that would be substituted for the debt issued by individual nations.

After a year and half of failed attempts at a solution, the world economy has entered a “dangerous new phase” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a Washington speech Thursday.

So far, the IMF has played a supporting role in a “troika” of agencies working to head off a Greek default that include the European Central Banks and the European Union. With Greece approaching a cash squeeze at the end of this month, those agencies are demanding deeper “austerity” measures – budget cuts of higher taxes – before releasing those funds.

As the largest shareholder, the United States provides the biggest single source of funding to the IMF. The ownership stake also gives the U.S. veto power over IMF funding decisions. Geithner is a member of the IMF board of governors. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is an alternate governor.

IMF funding requires congressional approval. But following the financial crisis of 2008, the Group of 20 countries approved a plan to give the IMF emergency borrowing authority, a program known as New Arrangements for Borrowing, which tripled the IMF’s lending authority to $750 billion. The borrowing authority is set to expire in November.

How Safe Are You? What Almost $8 Trillion in National Security Spending Bought You

nationalpriorities.org | Aug 16, 2011

by Chris Hellman

The killing of Osama Bin Laden did not put cuts in national security spending on the table, but the debt-ceiling debate finally did. And mild as those projected cuts might have been, last week newly minted Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was already digging in his heels and decrying the modest potential cost-cutting plans as a “doomsday mechanism” for the military. Pentagon allies on Capitol Hill were similarly raising the alarm as they moved forward with this year’s even larger military budget.

None of this should surprise you. As with all addictions, once you’re hooked on massive military spending, it’s hard to think realistically or ask the obvious questions. So, at a moment when discussion about cutting military spending is actually on the rise for the first time in years, let me offer some little known basics about the spending spree this country has been on since September 11, 2001, and raise just a few simple questions about what all that money has actually bought Americans.

Consider this my contribution to a future 12-step program for national security sobriety.

Let’s start with the three basic post-9/11 numbers that Washington’s addicts need to know:

1. $5.9 trillion: That’s the sum of taxpayer dollars that’s gone into the Pentagon’s annual “base budget,” from 2000 to today. Note that the base budget includes nuclear weapons activities, even though they are overseen by the Department of Energy, but — and this is crucial — not the cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, even without those war costs, the Pentagon budget managed to grow from $302.9 billion in 2000, to $545.1 billion in 2011. That’s a dollar increase of $242.2 billion or an 80% jump ($163.6 billion and 44% if you adjust for inflation). It’s enough to make your head swim, and we’re barely started.

2. $1.36 trillion: That’s the total cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars by this September 30th, the end of the current fiscal year, including all moneys spent for those wars by the Pentagon, the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other federal agencies. Of this, $869 billion will have been for Iraq, $487.6 billion for Afghanistan.

Add up our first two key national security spending numbers and you’re already at $7.2 trillion since the September 11th attacks. And even that staggering figure doesn’t catch the full extent of Washington spending in these years. So onward to our third number.

3. $636 billion: Most people usually ignore this part of the national security budget and we seldom see any figures for it, but it’s the amount, adjusted for inflation, that the U.S. government has spent so far on “homeland security.” This isn’t an easy figure to arrive at because homeland-security funding flows through literally dozens of federal agencies and not just the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A mere $16 billion was requested for homeland security in 2001. For 2012, the figure is $71.6 billion, only $37 billion of which will go through DHS. A substantial part, $18.1 billion, will be funneled through — don’t be surprised — the Department of Defense, while other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services ($4.6 billion) and the Department of Justice ($4.1 billion) pick up the slack.

Add those three figures together and you’re at the edge of $8 trillion in national security spending for the last decade-plus and perhaps wondering where the nearest group for compulsive-spending addiction meets.

Now, for a few of those questions I mentioned, just to bring reality further into focus:

Q. How does that nearly $8 trillion compare with past spending?

In the decade before the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon base budget added up to an impressive $4.2 trillion, only one-third less than for the past decade. But add in the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars and total Pentagon spending post-9/11 is actually two-thirds greater than in the previous decade. That’s quite a jump. As for homeland-security funding, spending figures for the years prior to 2000 are hard to identify because the category didn’t exist (nor did anyone who mattered in Washington even think to use that word “homeland”). But there can be no question that whatever it was, it would pale next to present spending.

Q. Is that nearly $8 trillion the real total for these years, or could it be even higher?

The war-cost calculations I’ve used above, which come from my own organization, the National Priorities Project, only take into account funds that have been requested by the President and appropriated by Congress. This, however, is just one way of considering the problem of war and national security spending. A recent study published by the Watson Institute of Brown University took a much broader approach. In the summary of their work, the Watson Institute analysts wrote, “There are at least three ways to think about the economic costs of these wars: what has been spent already, what could or must be spent in the future, and the comparative economic effects of spending money on war instead of something else.”

By including funding for such things as veterans benefits, future costs for treating the war-wounded, and interest payments on war-related borrowing, they came up with $3.2 trillion to $4 trillion in war costs, which would put those overall national security figures since 2001 at around $11 trillion.

I took a similar approach in an earlier TomDispatch piece in which I calculated the true costs of national security at $1.2 trillion annually.

All of this brings another simple, but seldom-asked question to mind:

Q. Are we safer?

Regardless of what figures you choose to use, one thing is certain: we’re talking about trillions and trillions of dollars. And given the debate raging in Washington this summer about how to rein in trillion-dollar deficits and a spiraling debt, it’s surprising that no one thinks to ask just how much safety bang for its buck the U.S. is getting from those trillions.

Of course, it’s not an easy question to answer, but there are some troubling facts out there that should give one pause. Let’s start with government accounting, which, like military music, is something of an oxymoron. Despite decades of complaints from Capitol Hill and various congressional attempts to force changes via legislation, the Department of Defense still cannot pass an audit. Believe it or not, it never has.

Full Article