Skip to content

Month: May 2016

David Dayen’s “Chain of title” — a story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things

David Dayen’s “Chain of title” — a story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things

by digby

I interviewed my old friend D-day about his exceptional new book today for Salon:

Earlier this week the New York Times featured a depressing story about homeless people living in the foreclosed and abandoned houses that still dot the landscape in Nevada, reminding everyone of awful time just a few years ago when families all over the country lost their homes in what has become euphemistically known as “the housing crisis.” It was actually much more specific than that, it was an epidemic of criminal mortgage fraud and it devastated millions of people, many of whom have still not recovered.

My Salon colleague (and one-time blogging cohort) David Dayen has written a wonderful new book called “Chain of Title”
 about some amazing Americans down in Florida who were caught in the maw of this epic criminal conspiracy and bravely took on the system when no one else would do it. Faced with a morass of impenetrable documents and intractable officials they took matters into their own hands and uncovered the crime of the new century by becoming internet muckrakers, using crowd sourcing and social media. And in the process of following their fascinating story, we learn the full scope of this massive crime which goes all the way from the Florida suburbs to the boardrooms of Wall Street.

I had a chance to ask Dayen some questions about the book this week.

Can you explain in plain English how the foreclosure fraud industry worked?

I’ve described the book as picking up where The Big Short left off. From that, we know that investment banks sucked up millions of mortgages from fly-by-night companies like Countrywide and Ameriquest, put them into trusts, and packaged them into bonds for sale to investors all over the world. Well, when they did that, they simply neglected to follow the steps that would legally transfer ownership between the originators, the investment banks, and the trustees. When the bubble collapsed and homeowners began to default, the trustees needed evidence that they actually owned these loans in order to foreclose. Just like if you wanted to sue someone for stealing your car, you would have to come up with some proof that you actually owned that car. And because the mortgage trustees didn’t have that evidence, they just decided to fake it.

They hired third-party companies (or sometimes mortgage servicing companies and “foreclosure mill” law firms did this in-house) to fabricate the necessary documents after the fact. Because they needed these documents by the millions, they prized speed over accuracy. So they would have multiple people sign the same person’s name to double the output, or sign on behalf of companies that were out of business, or backdate the documents, or whatever. They would forget to change the effective date (so the mortgage was transferred on the date 9/9/9999) or who received the transfer (lots of mortgages were transferred to “BOGUS ASSIGNEE,” a placeholder name one of these third-party document fabricators used). One company had a price menu: they would mock up whatever document you needed, including re-creating the entire mortgage file, for a nominal fee. So whatever the lawyers needed to get the foreclosure done, they would fabricate.

You covered the foreclosure crisis on a daily basis as it was unfolding. Did you have any idea of the scope of the problem in the beginning? Did anyone? 

I actually feel like I got to things a little late, once it was in full swing. The first wave of defaults began in 2006-2007. I didn’t really pay attention until late in 2008, when these “Bushvilles” started popping up across the country, these large homeless encampments made up of foreclosed homeowners. It was clear by that point that this was an enormous crisis, parallel to a recession that was likely to create a second wave of defaults for families who were paying their mortgages until someone lost a job.

The problem was that we thought a new administration would get in and recognize how the foreclosure overhang could drag down the economy for years. But they never made the necessary commitment. And when the banks were caught faking documents to force through the foreclosures, they didn’t take advantage of that opportunity either, to create a reasonable solution for everyone involved, which was all the subjects of my book wanted.

It seems there were a multitude of ethical lapses and laws broken. What, in your mind, was the most important precipitating factor? Or was it really just a perfect storm? A black swan?

What precipitated this was that the mortgage industry thought they could ignore a 300-year old system of property law. They considered it too costly and time-consuming to generate and store (and pay to publicly record) paper assignments for every single transfer. Never mind that it was the law. Never mind that having a well-established property records system, so you can buy and sell property with the confidence that nobody else has a claim on it, is what separates developed and under-developed nations. The industry didn’t want to pay for it, so they didn’t. And they dared everyone – homeowners, politicians, law enforcement – to stop them. And given what transpired, and how little accountability we ended up seeing for this, you have to acknowledge that the industry made the right bet.

And to be clear, ignoring property records law facilitated the securitization frenzy, led to the housing bubble, and drove the collapse. There wouldn’t have been a recession, at least not one that looked like this, if the banks had to follow the property laws.

I think what struck me most about this story was the fact that the foreclosure fraud these ordinary citizens uncovered was so crude and so sloppy.  I could only conclude that the people involved knew there was nobody minding the store. That says a lot about Americans’ sense of ethics. How many people working in that industry do you think knew they were committing fraud and just didn’t care? 

At the low levels, what you heard a lot in depositions and interviews is that these people needed a job, they didn’t understand the complexities of foreclosure law at all, they were told that what they were doing was legal, and it was drummed into their heads that their employer could always find someone else if they had a crisis of conscience. What I call in the book the Great Foreclosure Machine survived on this intimidation of their own workers. It was a tough time for the economy and the ordinary $12/hour working stiff didn’t have any bargaining power. So people just went along. That probably says something worse about American workplaces than American ethics!

And needless to say, workers under pressure and threats don’t do the most exquisite job, which just made things worse.

Even at the higher levels, the managers of the document processors were under pressure to supply the false mortgage paper. The law firms were under pressure from their clients to close out the cases. Sure, there were a few assholes in the executive suites, who knew that 95 percent of foreclosure victims never contested their cases, and didn’t think anybody in government would ever challenge them. But we shouldn’t discount how tunnel vision on the part of the cogs of the Great Foreclosure Machine made the ethical quandaries disappear.

The only person convicted of foreclosure fraud was the CEO of DocX, a robo-signing firm. Can you explain how the rest of the mortgage servicers wriggled out of accountability for this? It was standard operating procedure, right?

Not only was she the only person convicted, she was convicted for duping the banks! The indictment said that Lorraine Brown directed the document fabrication “unbeknownst to DocX’s clients.” So she just invented the concept of faking documents! As if there was some expectation on the part of the industry that a third-party document processor could supply them with legitimate paperwork!

After the book was done, Lynn Szymoniak, one of my subjects and the woman whose complaint triggered the investigation that led to Brown’s conviction, got the results of a Freedom of Information Act request about that whole case from the Jacksonville FBI. I’ve seen the documents, and I’m going to be writing about them. But suffice to say that was a serious investigation with a lot of agents involved, and if it were done properly, it could have gone up the chain to implicate every major bank in America. In fact the FBI was on the way to doing that in a couple respects. And then everything just stopped. Right around the time that the Justice Department got involved.

I also think that the conduct was so systemic, so routinized, that you would have had to prosecute pretty much every high-level figure in the industry. And nobody was willing to even conceive of that possibility.

How did you come upon Lisa Epstein, the oncology nurse who started the ball rolling when she discovered there were anomalies in her foreclosure documents? 

There’s a scene in the book after Lisa and her counterparts exposed foreclosure fraud, where they came to Washington for this meeting with a lot of political folks, journalists, activists, to try to figure out what to do next. I was at that meeting. I met Lisa, Michael, and Lynn there, in fact. And they became great sources of information. I read their websites every day for a few years probably. They just had a better knowledge of what was happening, better contacts on the ground, than anybody else. I couldn’t believe it was only three people, it seemed like you would need a team of assistants to pump out what they did on a daily basis.

What was it like finally meeting her and Michael Redman, the fellow victim she met online and the lawyer Lynn Szymoniak, the other two leading characters in your story? They are such interesting brave citizens. Did you get a sense of what it takes for ordinary people to rise to such an occasion? 

One thing that fascinates me about them is the nature of this obsession. Lisa described this time as like an intense romance. They really sacrificed everything going on in their lives – jobs, marriages, personal comfort – because they could not stop thinking about foreclosures, strategizing, providing support and comfort, and taking on the next challenge. And remember, they had no knowledge of foreclosures or real estate or finance when they started!

I think as bloggers, you and I have a sense of that obsession, of how you can’t let an hour go without another post. But this was much bigger than that, and it just took tremendous courage to go up against the most powerful institutions in America armed only with the truth.

Was the local press in Florida following the story as closely as you were? Was anyone?

Yes, actually. The locals in Florida got this faster than the national papers. Kim Miller at the Palm Beach Post wrote some great stuff using Lisa and Michael’s information. I think she won awards. One of the great unsung heroes was a journalist named Paola Iuspa-Abbott. She worked for the Daily Business Review, this little industry trade publication in Miami. Paola was from Argentina, and she remembered during the military dictatorship in the 1970s how the rule of law broke down, and she saw the Florida courts exhibiting the same tendency. But I couldn’t believe what she would get away with, because the main revenue for the Daily Business Review came from foreclosure law firms publishing notices of default in their classified section. Paola would get incontrovertible evidence and write these stories, and they would publish them. And the whole time, she was working for a paper kept alive by the foreclosure industry!

The story sets forth a real life example of crowd-sourcing, using the internet for local activism.  Do you see this as a template for other forms of consumer activism going forward? 

I think it already has been. At the time of the book, 2009-2010, it was pretty new to have this collaborative, networked activism. It was the combination of the old blogosphere where everyone would link to and comment on each other’s stories, amplifying them to the public, and a distributed research project. And offline activism grew out of it. I think that’s the same model that gave us Occupy Wall Street, the low-wage worker Fight for $15, the Bernie Sanders campaign in some respects.

The foreclosure fraud movement was an early adopter that didn’t succeed the way its activists hoped. But I say in the book that movements in America crash onto shore like waves, each one a little bit further than the last. We should recognize what these people did because it informs so much of the movement-based culture happening today.

During the financial crisis the Wall Street story, government bailouts and executive bonuses were sexier stories and got a lot of coverage but this was one that directly affected six million mostly middle class working families and literally wiped out decades of wealth accumulation, particularly of people of color who had just gotten a leg up into the middle class. It’s an extremely compelling illustration, as your book shows, of how the abstraction of systemic corruption is relevant to average Americans. Why are you and a handful of other journalists the only ones who recognized this? 

This was a story that was mostly relegated to the business pages. I was covering it because I was working for a political website and living out in Los Angeles, and I wasn’t walking into Congress or out on the campaign trail every day, and it was how I could add value to my reporting, to sort of “own” a beat. But it took a lot of accumulation of knowledge, which the media didn’t want to invest in. There is one reporter in the story who tells Michael that it was just too complicated to explain to a daily newspaper audience, so she would have to pass on the story.

There are moments when I think that I shouldn’t have been able to write this book in 2016. This should have been common knowledge. Somebody should have gotten to this. And the fact that they didn’t represents a failure of the media to connect with a story so central to the lives of millions of people, one that probably has a better claim to explaining the anger and frustration people feel about a rigged economy than any of the other armchair explanations.

Are we safe from it happening again?

It is happening again. Every day in America people get kicked out of their homes from false documents. The government created a bunch of settlements with the mortgage companies, but central to most people’s conception a settlement is the notion that the settled misconduct stops. It never did. Nobody cleaned up the paper.

It’s going to take an entire cycle of getting mortgages originated in 2004, 2005, 2006 out of circulation to actually end this. After that, we do have new laws on what kind of mortgages get issued, and the private investors are thoroughly uninterested in buying private mortgage securities from banks. So the skepticism of the investors might save us. But those memories don’t always stay so long.

Just for fun, any thoughts on Trump Mortgage? You have to admit his timing was perfect … 2007.

I wrote about Trump Mortgage, actually. So did Lynn Szymoniak. When the first iteration of Trump Mortgage imploded, Trump licensed the name to a company called First Meridian, who originated loans that got sold up the chain to big banks, and then went through this exact same cycle of dodgy origination and securitization and foreclosure fraud. First Meridian got really mad at me for pointing this out. I guess the apples don’t fall far from the tree.

And of course Trump’s finance chair is Steven Mnuchin, one of the worst foreclosure operators of this entire period back when he was CEO of OneWest Bank. Activists sat on his lawn and threatened to move into his house unless he stopped a particularly egregious eviction. Mnuchin called in twenty police officers and a helicopter. So you know, Trump got the right guy for the job.

*It’s a wonderful book, highly recommended. It’s one of those rare stories in which a complicated issue is unraveled in easy to understand terms without you even knowing it.  This is because Dayen writes it from the perspective of the regular folks who were caught up in this awful  crime and followed them as they figured it out. It’s actually a summer beach read — but at the end you’ll have a greater understanding of the systemic corruption in our financial world and you’ll need a good stiff drink.

.

Essence of Limbaugh by @BloggersRUs

Essence of Limbaugh
by Tom Sullivan

The Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan examines the Donald Trump phenomenon. “It has nothing to do with the Republican Party … except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy.” In the Washington Post, Kagan writes:

And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

“Incubator” is perhaps the right metaphor for where Trump developed. Unless it was a Petri dish. But I too am not sure it was the Republican Party proper. Certain influential players, sure. Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Barry Goldwater, Lee Atwater, and Roger Ailes. Rush Limbaugh and a host of imitators for sure. I recall how creepy the appearance of Rush Rooms at restaurants was in the early 1990s. People could eat their lunches and not miss out on their daily Two Minutes Hate. They could share an experience validated by others. Only the Hate ran three hours a day. Would you like some ketchup with your Orwell?

That was before Barack Obama. I wrote about the reaction to him by “Tea Baggers, the Birthers, the Deathers, Glenn Beck, town hall shouters, guys with guns, and Rep. Joe Wilson” for Huffington Post:

People weren’t this crazed over Jackie Robinson, were they? Father Coughlin was off the air by then. People’s minds were not as marinated in the mind poison the right-wing has pumped out daily for the last twenty years.

Case in point. I once worked in an office where a guy recorded Rush Limbaugh every afternoon. Using a small FM transmitter, he rebroadcast the show the next morning to fellow dittoheads in the building so they would be primed for Limbaugh’s live broadcast at noon.

No lie.

The RNC may not have directly spawned it, but thought it could control the monster by how much it fed it, deploy it as required, and bring it to heel the same way. But I watched enough 1950s and 1960s science-fiction films growing up to know how that would work out.

Kagan concludes:

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.

Those popular resentments and insecurities did not just happen. They were conceived in the Southern Strategy and nurtured on nearly 30 years of right-wing talk. Trump is the essence of Limbaugh. Now the creature has broken out of the lab.

Register voters and get down to the polls in November.

QOTD: Trumpie

QOTD: Trumpie

by digby

He doesn’t get out much:


“What’s the most dangerous place in the world you’ve been to?”

He contemplated this for a second. “Brooklyn,” he said, laughing. “No,” he went on, “there are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse. Seriously.”

Yeah,  I think everyone got the message there don’t you? African Americans are definitely going to vote for him in huge numbers …

This man wants to be president of the United States. 


.

Da Negotiator

Da Negotiator


by digby

Trump said yesterday that he would “renegotiate” the Paris Climate accords which I saw some progressives saying wouldn’t be such a bad idea because it’s an inadequate plan. I got the impression that they thought he might “negotiate” a better one. That’s not going to happen. He believes “the Chinese” screwed us on the climate pact and he’s not having it.

Also, he doesn’t believe in climate change:



FYI:

Trump’s criticism of China, although commonplace among Republican climate change deniers, is debatable. Chinese diplomats worked closely with White House officials in developing the Paris Agreement. Chinese investment in clean energy technology vastly outpaces that of the US, and some energy analysts think China could actually be on track to outperform the climate targets it agreed to in Paris.

.

Rupert’s game plan

Rupert’s game plan

by digby

Gabriel Sherman gives us the low down on Murdoch’s conversion to Trump. Basically, he’s good for business which, by the way, most businessmen will believe and they will likely be wrong. Trump will destabilize the world in ways these people can’t imagine.

Anyway, Murdoch’s rationale will likely be the same one the rest of the media will share:

That Murdoch flip-flopped on Trump shouldn’t be all that surprising. Yes, Trump’s stances on immigration and trade clash with Murdoch’s more moderate views (he’s for comprehensive reform and trade deals). But throughout Murdoch’s career, he’s sacrificed core principles to forge political alliances that advance his media empire’s interests (after all, he backed both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in the U.K.).

And it’s clear Trump is good for business. According to one Fox News producer, the channel’s ratings dip whenever an anti-Trump segment airs. A Fox anchor told me that the message from Roger Ailes’s executives is they need to go easy on Trump. “It’s, ‘Make sure we don’t go after Trump,’” the anchor said. “We’ve thrown in the towel.” Similarly, the New York Post has staked out a pro-Trump position in the marketplace while its rival the Daily News remains one of Trump’s loudest critics. The Post endorsed Trump last month and dubbed him “King Don!” after he won the New York primary. (The outlier among Murdoch’s properties is The Wall Street Journal. “They’re stupid people,” Trump told me back in March).

Sherman points out that this is a good bet for Murdoch who will benefit no matter who wins.  If it’s Trump he’ll be a trusted advisor if it’s Clinton they’ll just crank up the lucrative hate machine. It’s all good for the media corporations.

Trump’s tiny … fortune

Trump’s tiny … fortune 

by digby

His “PFD” is the largest in the history of the FEC. Yuuuuge!

Personally, I think he’s hiding the small scope of his business dealings and the fact that he isn’t as wealthy as he claims. He’s basically a man who licenses his name on other people’s products and helps to market them as his own. That can be very lucrative, for sure. But it’s no more a sign of his great business genius that it’s a sign of Kim Kardashian’s business genius.

.

The butler’s source

The butler’s source

by digby

I wasn’t particularly startled to read the comments by Trump’s butler because that vile stuff is common in the right wing fever swamps. But I admit I had never heard the one about the Obama’s daughters being “rent-a-kids” because they allegedly don’t look like their parents. It’s weird because they actually do look like their parents, but I wondered where it came from.

Well, apparently it comes from the racist Michelle Obama hate industry, which has had a field day over the past few years.  This latest from Trump backer Alex Jones is a real doozy:

Ever-wily InfoWars broadcaster and Trump ally Alex Jones has set his sights on First Lady Michelle Obama, speculating that she’s secretly transgender — and suggesting her husband murdered comedienne Joan Rivers for joking about the fact.

On Monday, Jones told listeners that he’s loomed imperiously over plenty of videos and can verify that all these rumors are true.

He said, “The national media takes it when I talk about this and acts like I’m crazy. Listen, there’s hundreds of millions views on YouTube.”

Then, he opined that Michelle acts like she’s “god” and claimed Obama wants schools to “teach five-year-olds how to be trannies.”

Don’t forget, the famous comedienne Joan Rivers said, ‘Of course everyone knows she’s a tranny.’ She’s dead serious, ‘She’s a man.’

Deader than a doornail in a routine operation where basically she had fire poured down her throat and was a fire-breathing goblin. Dead on arrival. Shoot your mouth off, honey, you will die.”

“I really think — her daughters don’t look like her — I really think this is some weird hoax they did again, just like he didn’t get sworn in on the Bible, it was the Quran. All this weirdness, I mean, I used to laugh at this stuff, but man, it’s all about rubbing our noses in it. I think it’s all an arranged marriage, it’s all completely fake and it’s this big sick joke because he’s obsessed with transgender, just like some weird cult or something. I think Michelle Obama is a man. I really do. I really do. I believe it.”

Here’s a little trip down memory lane for you from just five months ago:

Donald Trump is heaping praise on a radio host who has asserted that the U.S. government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down,” Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor’s show.

Jones shared the love, telling Trump that “my audience, 90% of them, they support you.”
Jones, who has advanced a number of conspiracy theories, gained prominence as a 9/11 “truther.”

He has previously asserted on his radio show that there is a “98% chance this was a government-orchestrated controlled bombing.

In October, he said on a show that “there is a cover-up,” and then highlighted Trump’s recent criticism of George W. Bush’s handling of 9/11.

Trump has disputed most officials’ characterizations of 9/11 too in recent days, arguing that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the attacks. The real estate mogul and Republican presidential front-runner tweeted a link to an Infowars.com post supporting his claims.

However, Infowars.com itself in October reported on Trump dismissing a 9/11 truther’s question on the campaign trail, quoting him saying: “Is this guy some kind of conspiracy guy?”

Trump also praised libertarianism as “sort of interesting,” and said that “there are certain things I really like about it.”

His critique of libertarianism comes on the issue of national security, he said.

“If this were 100 years ago, I’d say forget about it … (But) the weaponry is so powerful and they hate us so much that we have to now protect,” Trump said.

Trump also offered his regular criticism of trade deals and a declining economy.

.

Conspiracy a-go-go

Conspiracy a-go-go

by digby

Increasingly I feel as if I’m living a country full of people wearing tin-foil hats. This NY Times article explores the reasons for the conspiracy mongering we see in the Trump campaign:

The political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent, who wrote the book “American Conspiracy Theories,” say that those on the left and the right believe in conspiracies roughly equally. But education can matter: “Forty-two percent of those without a high school diploma are high in conspiratorial predispositions, compared with 23 percent with postgraduate degrees.”

One of the highest correlations for Trump support is being white without a high school diploma. People with postgraduate degrees are increasingly leaning to the left.

Mr. Uscinski and Mr. Parent found that high-stress situations like job uncertainty “prompt people to concoct, embrace and repeat conspiracy theories.” Other research shows that conspiracy theories can be a coping mechanism for uncertainty and powerlessness. (Another predictor of strong Trump by county is a high proportion of working-age adults who aren’t working.)

One study found that conservatives who believe in conspiracy theories know more about politics than conservatives who don’t. This correlation was not found for liberals. Presumably, these politically engaged conservatives would be more likely to vote in primaries.

Last week, Public Policy Polling revisited Mr. Trump’s attraction to conspiracy theories. Among voters who viewed him favorably, PPP found that 65 percent think President Obama is a Muslim; 59 percent think he was not born in the United States; 27 percent think vaccines cause autism; 24 percent think Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered; and 7 percent think Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. (We should probably allow for the possibility that some survey-takers wanted to poke or provoke with their responses.)

A big source of conspiracy theories is elections. Many Americans believe they’re often decided by cheating. In The Los Angeles Times in 2014, Mr. Uscinski and Mr. Parent wrote:

“Near equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (between 40 percent and 50 percent) said fraud would be very or somewhat likely. Each side believes that if they lose, cheating is to blame, and they believe it about equally. Nobody likes losing, but it appears hard for about half the country to accept that they lost fair and square.”

The birther movement, which essentially gave life to Mr. Trump’s political career, is an example; it argues that President Obama did not actually win his elections because he was ineligible to be president.

That way of thinking suggests a possible out for Mr. Trump if he loses in November: accusations of cheating by the other side. Those wishing for him to be humbled may be disappointed. Could he really lose if he never accepts the loss?

I think some of this is a matter of temperament as well. For the same reasons I don’t buy into a lot of superstitions or supernatural stuff, I tend not to buy most conspiracy theories. And with the decentralized, totally idiosyncratic local nature of our election system, the idea of massive voter fraud in favor of a particular candidate in one election is ludicrous.

I suppose this thinking has been around forever but it does seem to me that we’re seeing an uptick in people believing that there are puppet masters conspiring behind the scenes when I think our problems with corruption stem from much more abstract concepts like systemic incentives. I tend to believe that most people have many different motivations and usually believe they’re righteously ethical in their behavior. But that’s just me.

Millions of people will never believe that Trump lost legitimately in November, if in fact he does. And the conservative movement will continue to profit from this lie as they have been doing forever. And yes, the same phenomenon now exists on the Democratic side. Good times.

I wrote about this before, here. And it applies to what happened in Nevada over the week-end. If you don’t like Nevada’s byzantine delegate selection process there’s a legitimate way to fix it besides doxing local officials. Go to the meetings and volunteer for the committees that do all the work of local and state party elections. The woman who received death threats isn’t an elite member of the oligarchy,  she’s the day manager at a local restaurant — which was also inundated with threats. The people who make these rules are mostly volunteers doing their civic duty which consists of years and years of boring, tedious meetings in their off hours. It’s open to anyone. All you have to do is join the party. There aren’t even any dues.

Party electoral processes are something everyone is empowered to change right there in their local communities. It’s not sexy but it’s very doable.  If you start now, by the next presidential election you could have made a real difference.

.

Trump’s appeal isn’t about money

Trump’s appeal isn’t about money


by digby

I wrote about Trump’s alleged “populist” appeal today for Salon:

The unexpected successes of the two political outsiders, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, in this presidential primary season has everyone grasping for some kind of explanation that would easily explain it. The most commonly held assumption is that people are angry and cynical about the two political parties which is undoubtedly correct.  If the two campaigns share any characteristics, it’s that they absolutely loathe the political establishments of the party to which their preferred candidates have attached themselves, however tenuously. This should not come as a huge surprise to anyone since the gridlock and torpor that has characterized our national politics for the past several years is not exactly inspiring.

But many commentators have also concluded that the reason the two campaigns captured the imaginations of so many people is that both candidates are addressing deeply felt economic distress among the American electorate. The country is only now starting to awaken from the paralysis and fear that gripped the public during the epic financial crisis and that is bound to have reverberations. Moreover, that crisis served as an educational wake up call for a whole lot of people who recognized that the system was no longer working very well for the benefit of ordinary people even as it’s working fantastically well for the one percent. And a lot of those ordinary people are sick of it.

Sanders is responsive to that concern in a very direct almost obsessive way and it makes sense that someone with his economic worldview would capture the imagination of at least some part of the electorate. There is no mystery about Bernie Sanders’ outsider appeal.

Trump is another story. Here we have a card-carrying member of the one percent, a man who flies around on his own 767, has married one gorgeous supermodel after another, brags non-stop about how he’s gamed the system for his own advantage and millions of average working Americans can’t get enough of him. What gives?

The obvious answer is that for all of his fatuous promises to “Make America Great Again” by “making deals” that will result in so much winning we’ll be begging him to stop because we can’t take it anymore, Donald Trump’s supporters aren’t actually motivated by economic frustration at all. Indeed, it’s ridiculous on its face. Whatever Trump’s talents, he’s an heir to a real estate fortune and a fame whoring celebrity brand name in a suit not a brilliant captain of industry. (One of the rumors about his opaque business dealings is that the scope of both his fortune and his empire may very well be, shall we say, overstated.) His economic message, to the extent it actually exists, is that foreigners are robbing Americans blind and he’s going to get the money back and give it to his supporters and everyone will live happily ever after,

The idea that this is responsive to the deep economic anxieties of the average working Joe is a stretch. But it is very responsive to another set of anxieties that’s been plaguing many members of the right wing for decades and went into overdrive with the election of President Obama. That would be the ethnocentric anxieties of white conservatives who are feeling emasculated by the emergence of a multi-ethnic, multi-racial majority.

These attitudes have been studied quite a bit the last few years but the Trump phenomenon is providing a plethora of information about that cohort.  Just this week Jason McDaniel and Sean McElwee  authored a statistical summary into the attitudes of these voters and unsurprisingly,  the data shows they are motivated by negative feelings about people who aren’t like them:

In our newest analysis, we examine the feelings expressed by Trump supporters towards a variety of groups in America. The results are pretty clear: compared to supporters of other Republican candidates in the primary, Trump supporters really dislike many groups in America. For these voters, Trump’s blend of casual racism and muscular nativism is the core of his appeal.

No, the Trump voter is not attracted to their man because he wan’ts to renegotiate trade deals. They are attracted to him because he bashes China, insults Mexicans, demonizes Muslims,  degrades African Americans and worships government authority to keep all of them, and more, in line. His aggressive misogyny is just an added bonus.

They looked at data among GOP primary voters which gauged feelings of warmth toward different categories of people. Across the board, Trump voters were much cooler toward blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Gay and lesbian, transgender, feminists and scientists. The only categories of people about whom they felt warmer than other Republicans were white people and police. The authors went further:

One possible explanation for the results presented above is that attitudes about race and racial identity are stronger motivations for Trump supporters compared to supporters of other candidates. Here, we explore how white racial identity, or ethnocentrism, interacts with negative feelings about people of color. The results … demonstrate that as racial identity becomes increasingly important for a white Trump supporter, they express significantly more negative feelings towards both Muslims and Latinos. 

However, racial identity does not play the same role for supporters of other Republican candidates. Although feelings towards both groups become more negative as white racial identity becomes more important, the effect is not statistically significant. This is strong evidence that white racial identity plays a more important role in how Trump supporters evaluate people of color compared to those who support other candidates.

They further show that the “American” identity is strongly correlated in the Trump voters with white identity, which also informs their militant nationalism. For Trump supporters “positive feelings about white people increase dramatically as the importance of American identity increases.” This is not true of other Republicans. Trump has a monopoly on the white nationalists in the Republican party (and according to the Wall Street Journal, the most extreme members of that cohort are feeling energized and inspired by his leadership.)

Finally, according to the data, Trump voters are much more hostile to Latino immigrants than other Republicans, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone. But more telling is the fact that they are dramatically more likely to believe that President Obama is a Muslim. In fact, 64 percent of Trumps voters believe it compared to 25% of non-Trump supporters.

Tackling the question of economic insecurity as a driving factor it turns out the assumption that the average Trump voter is a “disaffected” older, economically stressed white voter with a high school education is wrong. Their data shows that these voters were driven in the GOP in the early years of the Obama administration out of racial anxiety not economic anxiety or family income.

Rather, we find that what drives support for Trump is the mistaken belief that the government serves the interests of Blacks, rather than whites. Political scientist Brian McKenzie finds that, “whites who feel the Obama administration is looking out for the economic interests of blacks are more likely to express frustration with their own financial position.”

These statistics validate the common sense observation that while it’s very tempting to see this embrace of political outsiders in both parties as springing from the same phenomenon, beyond a general exasperation with the political establishments they are very different phenomenons. The Sanders movement is clearly motivated by an economic argument. The Trump movement, something else entirely.

The bad news for Trump in all this is that these voters are no longer a majority in America. The good news for Trump? The mainstream media thinks it’s Barack Obama’s fault:

Thanks Obama …

And then there are parasites by @BloggersRUs

And then there are parasites
by Tom Sullivan


Image via DakkaDakka.

Moses: A city is built of brick, Pharoah. The strong make many, the starving make few. The dead make none.

Venture capitalist Nick Hanauer offers up a prescription for boosting the nation’s economy in the American Prospect that you would be wise to read. Hanauer focuses on the low-wage “parasite economy” characterized by firms that derive “record profits on the backs of cheap labor” and from taxpayer subsidies that support their employees. Not so the real economy:

The real economy pays the wages that drive consumer demand, while the parasite economy erodes it. The real economy generates about $5 trillion a year in local, state, and federal tax revenue, while the parasite economy is subsidized by taxes. The real economy provides our children the education and opportunity necessary to grow into the next generation of innovators, entrepreneurs, and civic leaders, while the parasite economy traps them in a cycle of intergenerational poverty.

“The parasite economy is simply bad for business,” Hanauer writes:

As an entrepreneur and investor, I have founded or financed 35 companies across a wide range of industries: manufacturing, retailing, software, e-commerce, robotics, health care, financial services, and banking. I know a thing or two about sales and customers. And I have never been in a business that considered minimum-wage workers earning $10,000 to $20,000 per year as our target customer. Except for pawnshops or payday lenders, a typical business’s core customers very likely earn more than minimum wage. It is demand from middle-income workers that supports the small local businesses that create 64 percent of new private-sector jobs and 49 percent of all jobs in America. So a fair question to ask is: If no business wants customers who make $7.25 an hour, why in the world would we tolerate—or even worse, subsidize—businesses that pay their workers so little?

Besides low-wage service-sector jobs, American manufacturing has taken a hit:

According to a new study from the UC Berkeley Labor Center, the families of one in three manufacturing production workers now rely on public assistance at a cost of $10.2 billion a year to state and federal taxpayers. Blue-collar manufacturing workers didn’t earn solid middle-class incomes because they were better trained, better educated, or more productive than their service-sector counterparts, or because their employers were larger or more profitable than the giant service companies of today. Manufacturing workers earned middle-class wages because they were unionized, and as their bargaining power declined, so did their incomes.

This is avoidable, Hanauer believes, if collective action forces a raise in the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Better for workers and it prevents the parasite economy from leeching off the real one. And doomsayers be damned:

For every Walmart, there’s a Costco. For every McDonald’s, there’s an In-N-Out Burger. For every single mom waiting tables at the local diner for $2.13 an hour, there’s a healthier, wealthier counterpart earning $13 an hour or more (soon to be $15!) in Seattle or San Francisco or in the thousands of real-economy businesses nationwide where management understands that the “minimum wage” is meant to be a minimum, not a maximum.

Hanauer asks, “Why in the world would you pay your workers enough to clothe, house, and feed themselves, a growing number of my fellow CEOs apparently figure, when taxpayers are willing to do it for you?” For the same reason they move jobs offshore and work so hard, as Donald Trump admits, “to pay as little tax as possible” in support of this country. Because, why should the rich pay to educate other people’s children when other countrys’ taxpayers will do it for them?

Even McDonalds is slowly figuring out that paying workers higher wages and providing benefits is better for its bottom line. It’s working for Washington state.

(h/t SR)