Senior police tell the CPS that crucial expert witnesses from the Forensic Science Service could be lost to the courts Serious crime trials, including those for murder and sexual assault, may be jeopardised or delayed as hundreds of compulsory redundancies at the Forensic Science Service (FSS) take their toll on the justice system. Senior figures from the Metropolitan police have warned the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that crucial expert witnesses from the forensics service could be lost to the courts if they move into unrelated careers or go abroad after losing their jobs. Police chiefs are most concerned about the impact on serious and complex cases that rest on many months of painstaking forensics work, but which will not reach the courts before March next year when the FSS closes for business. Some trials may even collapse if expert witnesses are unavailable. This could happen in cases where evidence is destroyed by chemical tests, or when toxicology tests cannot be repeated, making the forensics specialist’s account a crucial part of the trial. The home secretary, Theresa May, announced the closure of the government-owned FSS last December , citing losses of £2m a month. The FSS has since cut its operating losses, but will stop taking fresh cases at the start of October, leaving private forensics companies to shoulder an extra 120,000 cases a year. Prosecutors often draw heavily on expert testimonies from forensics specialists who have personally examined evidence collected in police investigations. The closure of the FSS means some specialists may simply be unavailable or impossible to trace for court appearances. The FSS has already closed three sites, in Chorley, Chepstow and Birmingham, with the loss of more than 600 staff. The organisation estimates that 90% of those who were made redundant left the forensics profession completely, even when private companies nearby were recruiting. Another 1,200 staff will be made redundant before March. While forensic case files are occasionally handed over in criminal trials, for example, if the investigating scientist dies or leaves the country, specialists who take on fresh cases must review the material independently, a process that can cause severe delays when large volumes of complex evidence are involved. In some instances, private forensics firms and police force labs might not have staff who hold the required accreditation. “If a trial comes to court in June or July, we need the scientist and their case file to be available. But once they have left the Forensic Science Service, they are under no obligation whatsoever,” said Gary Pugh, director of forensics services at New Scotland Yard. “We have flagged up to the CPS that if there are key scientists on a case, we need to keep an eye on those specialists. If we can’t get them, we need to make sure someone else can give the evidence,” Pugh added. The CPS could face further difficulties even when former FSS specialists are available for court duties. If a scientist has not been working in forensics for many months, a jury could question their credibility, and in some cases, their accreditation might lapse. The Met already employs private forensics companies, including LGC Forensics in Middlesex and Orchid Cellmark in Oxfordshire, both of which will take on work previously handled by the FSS. Over the course of the coming year, the Met expects private contractors to take on an extra 1,500 serious violent crimes, 1,500 cases of rape and sexually motivated crime, and 300 suspicious death investigations. Many of the cases the FSS is working on now will go to trial before the March closure date, but a minority will take longer to reach the courts. “They will be the complex cases,” said Pugh, with evidence brought together from different sources and often multiple scenes. The CPS said the availability of former FSS specialists for court duties was a concern, as was the possible need to agree fees with scientists to give evidence. Another worry for the CPS is that former FSS scientists might set up in practice and provide forensics services to defence lawyers, which could, according to its submission to the science and technology committee’s inquiry, “jeopardise efficient and effective disposal of cases”. The CPS is worried that disgruntled former FSS scientists might share confidential information from cases they have worked on with defence lawyers in other cases. Speaking on the availability of former FSS staff, a CPS spokesperson said: “The CPS has highlighted this important element of the FSS closure to the Home Office FSS transition board, which has responsibility for ensuring an effective closure of the FSS. The CPS has been assured that steps have been taken to minimise any possible disruption to trials taking place after the scheduled closure of the Forensic Science Service in March 2012. “We understand that all companies that employ former FSS staff will be contractually obligated to make those staff available to give evidence in future trials. Procedures are being put in place so that employees can be asked to give evidence if required whether they continue working in the forensics industry or not.” The CPS said it raised concerns over the risk of former FSS scientists providing expertise to defendants “to highlight the importance of securing appropriate departure agreements with FSS staff that could ensure confidentiality and future access to relevant people and materials. The aim was to ensure effective working in the future.” Allan Jamieson at the Forensic Institute said the Met was right to raise concerns over forensics specialists being unavailable for court duties once they leave the FSS. “The chances of this happening increase as more people change jobs, and in these circumstances they are obviously doing that. In old cases, when there is no scientist, the work may have to be redone,” Jamieson said. “If the evidence has gone, if it was destroyed by tests or decayed over time, and you’ve lost the scientist, you might lose the case too, because there’s no one around to give evidence. This may well be an interim cost of the transition from a world with the FSS to a world without.” Forensic science Metropolitan police Crime Police London Theresa May UK criminal justice Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Senior police tell the CPS that crucial expert witnesses from the Forensic Science Service could be lost to the courts Serious crime trials, including those for murder and sexual assault, may be jeopardised or delayed as hundreds of compulsory redundancies at the Forensic Science Service (FSS) take their toll on the justice system. Senior figures from the Metropolitan police have warned the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that crucial expert witnesses from the forensics service could be lost to the courts if they move into unrelated careers or go abroad after losing their jobs. Police chiefs are most concerned about the impact on serious and complex cases that rest on many months of painstaking forensics work, but which will not reach the courts before March next year when the FSS closes for business. Some trials may even collapse if expert witnesses are unavailable. This could happen in cases where evidence is destroyed by chemical tests, or when toxicology tests cannot be repeated, making the forensics specialist’s account a crucial part of the trial. The home secretary, Theresa May, announced the closure of the government-owned FSS last December , citing losses of £2m a month. The FSS has since cut its operating losses, but will stop taking fresh cases at the start of October, leaving private forensics companies to shoulder an extra 120,000 cases a year. Prosecutors often draw heavily on expert testimonies from forensics specialists who have personally examined evidence collected in police investigations. The closure of the FSS means some specialists may simply be unavailable or impossible to trace for court appearances. The FSS has already closed three sites, in Chorley, Chepstow and Birmingham, with the loss of more than 600 staff. The organisation estimates that 90% of those who were made redundant left the forensics profession completely, even when private companies nearby were recruiting. Another 1,200 staff will be made redundant before March. While forensic case files are occasionally handed over in criminal trials, for example, if the investigating scientist dies or leaves the country, specialists who take on fresh cases must review the material independently, a process that can cause severe delays when large volumes of complex evidence are involved. In some instances, private forensics firms and police force labs might not have staff who hold the required accreditation. “If a trial comes to court in June or July, we need the scientist and their case file to be available. But once they have left the Forensic Science Service, they are under no obligation whatsoever,” said Gary Pugh, director of forensics services at New Scotland Yard. “We have flagged up to the CPS that if there are key scientists on a case, we need to keep an eye on those specialists. If we can’t get them, we need to make sure someone else can give the evidence,” Pugh added. The CPS could face further difficulties even when former FSS specialists are available for court duties. If a scientist has not been working in forensics for many months, a jury could question their credibility, and in some cases, their accreditation might lapse. The Met already employs private forensics companies, including LGC Forensics in Middlesex and Orchid Cellmark in Oxfordshire, both of which will take on work previously handled by the FSS. Over the course of the coming year, the Met expects private contractors to take on an extra 1,500 serious violent crimes, 1,500 cases of rape and sexually motivated crime, and 300 suspicious death investigations. Many of the cases the FSS is working on now will go to trial before the March closure date, but a minority will take longer to reach the courts. “They will be the complex cases,” said Pugh, with evidence brought together from different sources and often multiple scenes. The CPS said the availability of former FSS specialists for court duties was a concern, as was the possible need to agree fees with scientists to give evidence. Another worry for the CPS is that former FSS scientists might set up in practice and provide forensics services to defence lawyers, which could, according to its submission to the science and technology committee’s inquiry, “jeopardise efficient and effective disposal of cases”. The CPS is worried that disgruntled former FSS scientists might share confidential information from cases they have worked on with defence lawyers in other cases. Speaking on the availability of former FSS staff, a CPS spokesperson said: “The CPS has highlighted this important element of the FSS closure to the Home Office FSS transition board, which has responsibility for ensuring an effective closure of the FSS. The CPS has been assured that steps have been taken to minimise any possible disruption to trials taking place after the scheduled closure of the Forensic Science Service in March 2012. “We understand that all companies that employ former FSS staff will be contractually obligated to make those staff available to give evidence in future trials. Procedures are being put in place so that employees can be asked to give evidence if required whether they continue working in the forensics industry or not.” The CPS said it raised concerns over the risk of former FSS scientists providing expertise to defendants “to highlight the importance of securing appropriate departure agreements with FSS staff that could ensure confidentiality and future access to relevant people and materials. The aim was to ensure effective working in the future.” Allan Jamieson at the Forensic Institute said the Met was right to raise concerns over forensics specialists being unavailable for court duties once they leave the FSS. “The chances of this happening increase as more people change jobs, and in these circumstances they are obviously doing that. In old cases, when there is no scientist, the work may have to be redone,” Jamieson said. “If the evidence has gone, if it was destroyed by tests or decayed over time, and you’ve lost the scientist, you might lose the case too, because there’s no one around to give evidence. This may well be an interim cost of the transition from a world with the FSS to a world without.” Forensic science Metropolitan police Crime Police London Theresa May UK criminal justice Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sir Peter Wall, head of the British army, reacts to the Gage report by saying the ‘shameful’ incident must never be repeated The death of Baha Mousa, an innocent Iraqi citizen, “cast a dark shadow” over the British army’s reputation, its head has said. General Sir Peter Wall said soldiers were now “in no doubt about the need to treat detainees humanely and with respect”, and he added that “had that been the case in Basra in 2003, Baha Mousa would not have died in British custody”. Sir Peter said: “The shameful circumstances of Baha Mousa’s death have cast a dark shadow on that reputation, and this must not happen again.” His comments came as an inquiry into the death of Mousa found that British soldiers inflicted “violent and cowardly” assaults on Iraqi civilians, subjecting them to “gratuitous” kickings and beating. In a devastating indictment of military culture, the retired appeal court judge Sir William Gage ruled that there was widespread ignorance of what was permitted in handling prisoners of war. The prime minister also condemned the abuse. Speaking from Downing Street, David Cameron said: “It is clearly a truly shocking and appalling incident. This should not have happened. It should never be allowed to happen again. “The British Army, as it does, should uphold the highest standards. We should take every step possible to make sure this never happens again. If there is further evidence that comes out of this inquiry that requires action to be taken, it should be taken. “Britain does not cover these things up, we do not sweep them under the carpet. We deal with it.” Liam Fox, the defence secretary, told the Commons: “The events that led to the death of Mousa were “deplorable, shocking and shameful”. Although Gage did not suggest there had been a policy of systematic abuse towards Iraqi suspects, he deplored the absence of any “proper Ministry of Defence doctrine on interrogation”. The report at the end of the two-year inquiry contains savage criticisms of individual soldiers and officers, as well as damning descriptions of poor internal communications, “loss of discipline and a lack of moral courage”. Mousa, 26, a hotel worker in Basra where the British army was stationed, died after spending 36 hours in detention in the custody of soldiers from the 1st Battalion Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (1QLR). He was found to have suffered 93 external injuries. Gage found that even senior commanders were ignorant of a ban, imposed in 1972, on the use of five techniques; these included hooding, stress positions and sleep deprivation. The hooding, which was prohibited under the Geneva conventions, was “unjustified and wholly unacceptable”, he said. “For almost the whole of the period up to Baha Mousa’s death … the detainees were kept handcuffed, hooded and in stress positions in extreme heat and conditions of some squalor,” the report said. Four soldiers were singled out for severe criticism, including Colonel Jorge Mendonca, the unit’s commander, who, Gage said, “bears a heavy responsibility for these events”. Gage said Mendonca ought to have known what was going on in the detention centre and should have appreciated the dangers of “conditioning”. He is acquitted, however, of having any knowledge of the beatings. Corporal Donald Payne was the only soldier convicted of what the report describes as a “dreadful catalogue of unjustified and brutal violence on the defenceless detainees”. Gage calls him a “violent bully”. Lieutenant Craig Rodgers, commander of the unit responsible for guarding the prisoners, is accused of “a very serious breach of duty” for not reporting the treatment meted out. “If he had taken action when he first knew what was occurring, Baha Mousa would almost certainly have survived,” the report said. Major Michael Peebles, responsible for monitoring detainees, was accused of “unacceptable” behaviour. There was also stinging criticism of Father Peter Madden, the unit’s Catholic chaplain, who visited the temporary detention facility (TDF). Gage concluded that he was a “poor witness”. He added: “I find that he did visit the TDF [the day Mousa died] … He must have seen the shocking condition of the detainees and the deteriorating condition of the TDF. “He ought to have intervened immediately, or reported it up the chain of command but, in fact, it seems he did not have the courage to do either.” Among the humiliations forced upon the detainees, the report said, were toilets being flushed over their heads, beatings with metal bars, verbal abuse, being forced to “dance like Michael Jackson” and having lighter fuel poured over them. One officer who visited the detention centre told the inquiry that the detainees looked as though they had been “in a car crash”. After the death of Baha Mousa, the surviving detainees were subjected to further assaults. “Trophy photographs” were said to have been taken of them being beaten. The discovery of weapons at the hotel justified the suspects’ arrest, Gage commented. “However, I regard it as highly unlikely that the detainees or any of them were in fact involved in insurgent or terrorist activity.” One of the principal causes was “an unfounded rumour circulating” through the battalion that the detainees had been responsible for the murder of a popular officer or of members of the royal military police. The report paints a picture of “corporate” and “systemic failure” of the MoD to provide clear and consistent guidelines about what was permitted in the treatment of prisoners of war. Techniques were used that had been banned 30 years earlier as “prohibited and unlawful in warfare by reason of the Geneva convention”. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, “there was no proper MoD doctrine on interrogation of prisoners of war that was generally available”. A ban on hooding ordered by a senior officer in Basra after the invasion was never effectively communicated to 1QLR. But the incidents, Gage said, “did not amount to an entrenched culture of violence in the [British] battlegroup” – a reference to the rest of the British forces in southern Iraq. Even after Mousa’s death, an order reminding troops of the ban was not properly passed down the chain of command. Prisoner handling was “not given a high priority by the divisional commanders and their chiefs of staff”. The bans on hooding and other techniques were not even included in officers’ training at Sandhurst. The report added that there were “no standing orders or general instructions in 1QLR as to the medical care for civilian detainees”. Summing up his findings, Gage declared: “The events of 14 to 16 September 2003 were indeed a very great stain on the reputation of the army, and no doubt they did at the time greatly damage some of the good work done by 1QLR and other units in Iraq. “My judgment is that they constituted an appalling episode of serious, gratuitous violence on civilians which resulted in the death of one man and injuries to others. They represent a very serious breach of discipline by a number of members of 1QLR.” Lee Hughes, secretary to the inquiry, said the report was now in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service which would have to decide whether to take action. “The chairman has no powers to find criminal responsibility. It’s for the prosecution authorities to decide,” he said. Witnesses were protected from self-incrimination, but evidence from other sources and witnesses about individuals could lead to criminal charges or civil proceedings. The report of the inquiry, which cost £13m, includes 73 recommendations. They mainly call for clear guidance for all British forces handling prisoners, including an absolute ban on hooding. Baha Mousa Iraq Military Richard Norton-Taylor Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sir Peter Wall, head of the British army, reacts to the Gage report by saying the ‘shameful’ incident must never be repeated The death of Baha Mousa, an innocent Iraqi citizen, “cast a dark shadow” over the British army’s reputation, its head has said. General Sir Peter Wall said soldiers were now “in no doubt about the need to treat detainees humanely and with respect”, and he added that “had that been the case in Basra in 2003, Baha Mousa would not have died in British custody”. Sir Peter said: “The shameful circumstances of Baha Mousa’s death have cast a dark shadow on that reputation, and this must not happen again.” His comments came as an inquiry into the death of Mousa found that British soldiers inflicted “violent and cowardly” assaults on Iraqi civilians, subjecting them to “gratuitous” kickings and beating. In a devastating indictment of military culture, the retired appeal court judge Sir William Gage ruled that there was widespread ignorance of what was permitted in handling prisoners of war. The prime minister also condemned the abuse. Speaking from Downing Street, David Cameron said: “It is clearly a truly shocking and appalling incident. This should not have happened. It should never be allowed to happen again. “The British Army, as it does, should uphold the highest standards. We should take every step possible to make sure this never happens again. If there is further evidence that comes out of this inquiry that requires action to be taken, it should be taken. “Britain does not cover these things up, we do not sweep them under the carpet. We deal with it.” Liam Fox, the defence secretary, told the Commons: “The events that led to the death of Mousa were “deplorable, shocking and shameful”. Although Gage did not suggest there had been a policy of systematic abuse towards Iraqi suspects, he deplored the absence of any “proper Ministry of Defence doctrine on interrogation”. The report at the end of the two-year inquiry contains savage criticisms of individual soldiers and officers, as well as damning descriptions of poor internal communications, “loss of discipline and a lack of moral courage”. Mousa, 26, a hotel worker in Basra where the British army was stationed, died after spending 36 hours in detention in the custody of soldiers from the 1st Battalion Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (1QLR). He was found to have suffered 93 external injuries. Gage found that even senior commanders were ignorant of a ban, imposed in 1972, on the use of five techniques; these included hooding, stress positions and sleep deprivation. The hooding, which was prohibited under the Geneva conventions, was “unjustified and wholly unacceptable”, he said. “For almost the whole of the period up to Baha Mousa’s death … the detainees were kept handcuffed, hooded and in stress positions in extreme heat and conditions of some squalor,” the report said. Four soldiers were singled out for severe criticism, including Colonel Jorge Mendonca, the unit’s commander, who, Gage said, “bears a heavy responsibility for these events”. Gage said Mendonca ought to have known what was going on in the detention centre and should have appreciated the dangers of “conditioning”. He is acquitted, however, of having any knowledge of the beatings. Corporal Donald Payne was the only soldier convicted of what the report describes as a “dreadful catalogue of unjustified and brutal violence on the defenceless detainees”. Gage calls him a “violent bully”. Lieutenant Craig Rodgers, commander of the unit responsible for guarding the prisoners, is accused of “a very serious breach of duty” for not reporting the treatment meted out. “If he had taken action when he first knew what was occurring, Baha Mousa would almost certainly have survived,” the report said. Major Michael Peebles, responsible for monitoring detainees, was accused of “unacceptable” behaviour. There was also stinging criticism of Father Peter Madden, the unit’s Catholic chaplain, who visited the temporary detention facility (TDF). Gage concluded that he was a “poor witness”. He added: “I find that he did visit the TDF [the day Mousa died] … He must have seen the shocking condition of the detainees and the deteriorating condition of the TDF. “He ought to have intervened immediately, or reported it up the chain of command but, in fact, it seems he did not have the courage to do either.” Among the humiliations forced upon the detainees, the report said, were toilets being flushed over their heads, beatings with metal bars, verbal abuse, being forced to “dance like Michael Jackson” and having lighter fuel poured over them. One officer who visited the detention centre told the inquiry that the detainees looked as though they had been “in a car crash”. After the death of Baha Mousa, the surviving detainees were subjected to further assaults. “Trophy photographs” were said to have been taken of them being beaten. The discovery of weapons at the hotel justified the suspects’ arrest, Gage commented. “However, I regard it as highly unlikely that the detainees or any of them were in fact involved in insurgent or terrorist activity.” One of the principal causes was “an unfounded rumour circulating” through the battalion that the detainees had been responsible for the murder of a popular officer or of members of the royal military police. The report paints a picture of “corporate” and “systemic failure” of the MoD to provide clear and consistent guidelines about what was permitted in the treatment of prisoners of war. Techniques were used that had been banned 30 years earlier as “prohibited and unlawful in warfare by reason of the Geneva convention”. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, “there was no proper MoD doctrine on interrogation of prisoners of war that was generally available”. A ban on hooding ordered by a senior officer in Basra after the invasion was never effectively communicated to 1QLR. But the incidents, Gage said, “did not amount to an entrenched culture of violence in the [British] battlegroup” – a reference to the rest of the British forces in southern Iraq. Even after Mousa’s death, an order reminding troops of the ban was not properly passed down the chain of command. Prisoner handling was “not given a high priority by the divisional commanders and their chiefs of staff”. The bans on hooding and other techniques were not even included in officers’ training at Sandhurst. The report added that there were “no standing orders or general instructions in 1QLR as to the medical care for civilian detainees”. Summing up his findings, Gage declared: “The events of 14 to 16 September 2003 were indeed a very great stain on the reputation of the army, and no doubt they did at the time greatly damage some of the good work done by 1QLR and other units in Iraq. “My judgment is that they constituted an appalling episode of serious, gratuitous violence on civilians which resulted in the death of one man and injuries to others. They represent a very serious breach of discipline by a number of members of 1QLR.” Lee Hughes, secretary to the inquiry, said the report was now in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service which would have to decide whether to take action. “The chairman has no powers to find criminal responsibility. It’s for the prosecution authorities to decide,” he said. Witnesses were protected from self-incrimination, but evidence from other sources and witnesses about individuals could lead to criminal charges or civil proceedings. The report of the inquiry, which cost £13m, includes 73 recommendations. They mainly call for clear guidance for all British forces handling prisoners, including an absolute ban on hooding. Baha Mousa Iraq Military Richard Norton-Taylor Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Do state governors create jobs? It’s an important question, because the two leading Republican presidential candidates–former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and especially Texas governor Rick Perry–are both running on their records as job creators. So Edward Glaeser, writing in the Boston Globe, crunched the numbers, to see whether job growth in their states really seemed
Continue reading …Do state governors create jobs? It’s an important question, because the two leading Republican presidential candidates–former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and especially Texas governor Rick Perry–are both running on their records as job creators. So Edward Glaeser, writing in the Boston Globe, crunched the numbers, to see whether job growth in their states really seemed
Continue reading …
The medical examiner in New York is using DNA advances to help identify the thousands of still unidentified remains of 911 victims. The AP’s Ted Shaffrey reports from New York. (Sept. 8)
Continue reading …
The medical examiner in New York is using DNA advances to help identify the thousands of still unidentified remains of 911 victims. The AP’s Ted Shaffrey reports from New York. (Sept. 8)
Continue reading …I was on vacation this week, but the thing that stood out most to me in recent news reports had nothing to do with the date the President speaks to Congress, or the ups and downs of the stock market. The thing I was most fascinated by, because I think how it comes out will have far more to do with jobs and the health of our economy than what the President says in his speech (not that it isn’t important — politically, it’s crucial), was about the deal various administration figures, as well as some state AGs are trying to cut with the big Wall Street banks. First a little background is in order, to place the bank negotiations in context with the other big negotiations over the budget and jobs that are going on in D.C. right now. “Centrist” politicians (so-called because they are seeking the center between us rabid progressive types and the repeal-the-20th-Century policies of the Republican Party, as opposed to the actual voting center of the country which is about as rabid as us progressive types on economic policy) can’t understand why the vast majority of progressives have set ourselves in opposition to grand budget bargains and deals that Wall Street bankers are willing to sign off on. They can’t understand why we are so shrill in our defense of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, why we are so adamant in demanding big and bold jobs measures rather than modest policies that Republicans might consider, and why we would reject a deal with the big banks that would let them off the hook on future liability for all the crimes they have committed on mortgage fraud and servicing. I can give them the simple reason: the middle class in this country (let alone the poor) is being crushed, and it feels way too much like most politicians aren’t trying to do anything to change that. Earlier in the decade, with flat earnings and rising costs for essentials like groceries and gasoline, the middle class was being squeezed, or hard-pressed if you prefer. Now with real unemployment (including those too discouraged to work, and those stuck with low-wage, part-time or temporary work when they desperately need a full-time job) well above 15 percent; with housing prices collapsed and still going lower; and 30 percent of homeowners stuck with underwater mortgages; with gasoline prices still far higher than drivers were paying just a few years ago, and inflation in groceries, health care, and college tuition for their kids still moving inexorably higher; and with government officials at every level making cut after deep cut in programs that help the middle class the most: with all that, the middle class is not just squeezed or hard pressed, but is being crushed. And that’s not just me using that word: more and more, in the focus groups I am watching that is the way working and middle class Americans are describing what they are going through: we are being crushed. So when politicians complain that the Left is being unreasonable, and is stopping them from “getting things done”, I’m personally proud to ‘fess up. Like 80 percent of the American people, we don’t want Social Security benefits to be cut in exchange for some grand bargain that will trim a little more from our deficit 10 or 20 years down the road. We don’t want seniors to have to pay a higher percentage of their incomes to pay for their health care costs. We don’t want state and federal governments to slash Medicaid coverage for seniors in nursing homes or people with disabilities or poor children. We don’t want more teachers or firefighters or cops to be laid off. One more thing we don’t want: for bankers to be freed of their obligations to obey the law. Tom Miller (full disclosure: he is actually an old friend of mine, and someone I like a lot personally) and some of the people in the administration pushing this settlement are arguing that the only way to deliver tangible benefits in terms of mortgage write-downs any time soon is to settle with the banks now. Otherwise, they say, the legal fight will take years, and hard-pressed homeowners need help now. To get $20 billion now, to not have to force the banks kicking and screaming to help homeowners immediately, is a tempting argument, and I don’t doubt their good intentions. But $20 billion is nowhere near enough, and if the bankers are never held accountable they will keep doing the same kind of thing over and over again. Let’s take the amount first. Twenty billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it falls way short in two different ways. First, it is nowhere near the amount these big banks made off of the massive amount of market manipulation and shady practices in the mortgage industry in the first place, and it is in general a small amount to pay given the size of these massive companies. According to an SEIU report , last year the six biggest banks paid their executives $143 billion in bonuses, benefits and compensation, or “more than enough to fill the $130 billion total budget gap for all 50 states in FY 2011.” If you are going to discourage bad behavior in behemoth corporations like this, you have to actually do things that will really have an impact on them: jail time, forcing them to step down from their jobs, or do such massive fines to their companies that it hurts the companies’ stock price, profit margin, and bonuses. Secondly, $20 billion is less than a third of the money it would take to write down all the mortgages currently underwater, which recent studies estimate to be in the $70 billion dollar range. We shouldn’t even be considering letting these banks off the hook for their fraud until we’ve actually solved the problem of homeowners victimized by the housing price collapse these big banks caused with their market manipulations. Which leads me to my final point: these massive banks are way too powerful for the good of our economy and our democracy. They desperately need to be held accountable in ways that will discourage them from doing the kind of economy-crashing things that led to the 2008 financial and housing collapse. One official deeply involved in the settlement talks said to me that there were two things at play in those talks, one of which was getting money into hard-pressed homeowners’ pockets quickly, and the other being to hold the big banks accountable. But, he said, if he had to sacrifice one to get the other, he would sacrifice more accountability to get money for homeowners now. Of course, as I’ve described, the $20 billion they are looking to get isn’t nearly enough. But on a more fundamental level, if we never hold these big banks accountable for breaking the law and wrecking the economy, they will never learn their lesson, and greed will trump whatever shreds of morality they still have every time. Our democracy and our economy end up in tatters if some companies are not only too big to fail but too big to jail, if they operate under a different set of laws than everyone else. Tim Geithner made the same choices in 2008-9, that “Old Testament justice,” as he called it, was less important than saving the banks. So they were not prosecuted for their crimes; they were not allowed to go out of business; they were not denied their bonuses, or fired from their jobs; they were not broken up into smaller banks. They just kept on doing what they were doing, with the hope that a few more good regulations passed in the financial reform bill will keep future disasters from happening. The problem, of course, is that if you can violate the law, and use your immense political power to weaken regulations, and no one ever holds you accountable, nothing changes. Many economists are now predicting that we will have more Too Big To Fail-style financial crises in the years to come, because the fundamental structure in the way these banks do business has not changed. The bottom line is that when you are to blame for others’ misery, you should be held accountable. It’s true with the big bankers, and it’s true with public policy in general: middle-class and low-income folks did not cause the deficit or our economic crisis, so they shouldn’t pay for fixing it. What we need right now are jobs, not cuts, and to hold those responsible (which is overwhelmingly the big banks) for our economic collapse accountable.
Continue reading …I was on vacation this week, but the thing that stood out most to me in recent news reports had nothing to do with the date the President speaks to Congress, or the ups and downs of the stock market. The thing I was most fascinated by, because I think how it comes out will have far more to do with jobs and the health of our economy than what the President says in his speech (not that it isn’t important — politically, it’s crucial), was about the deal various administration figures, as well as some state AGs are trying to cut with the big Wall Street banks. First a little background is in order, to place the bank negotiations in context with the other big negotiations over the budget and jobs that are going on in D.C. right now. “Centrist” politicians (so-called because they are seeking the center between us rabid progressive types and the repeal-the-20th-Century policies of the Republican Party, as opposed to the actual voting center of the country which is about as rabid as us progressive types on economic policy) can’t understand why the vast majority of progressives have set ourselves in opposition to grand budget bargains and deals that Wall Street bankers are willing to sign off on. They can’t understand why we are so shrill in our defense of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, why we are so adamant in demanding big and bold jobs measures rather than modest policies that Republicans might consider, and why we would reject a deal with the big banks that would let them off the hook on future liability for all the crimes they have committed on mortgage fraud and servicing. I can give them the simple reason: the middle class in this country (let alone the poor) is being crushed, and it feels way too much like most politicians aren’t trying to do anything to change that. Earlier in the decade, with flat earnings and rising costs for essentials like groceries and gasoline, the middle class was being squeezed, or hard-pressed if you prefer. Now with real unemployment (including those too discouraged to work, and those stuck with low-wage, part-time or temporary work when they desperately need a full-time job) well above 15 percent; with housing prices collapsed and still going lower; and 30 percent of homeowners stuck with underwater mortgages; with gasoline prices still far higher than drivers were paying just a few years ago, and inflation in groceries, health care, and college tuition for their kids still moving inexorably higher; and with government officials at every level making cut after deep cut in programs that help the middle class the most: with all that, the middle class is not just squeezed or hard pressed, but is being crushed. And that’s not just me using that word: more and more, in the focus groups I am watching that is the way working and middle class Americans are describing what they are going through: we are being crushed. So when politicians complain that the Left is being unreasonable, and is stopping them from “getting things done”, I’m personally proud to ‘fess up. Like 80 percent of the American people, we don’t want Social Security benefits to be cut in exchange for some grand bargain that will trim a little more from our deficit 10 or 20 years down the road. We don’t want seniors to have to pay a higher percentage of their incomes to pay for their health care costs. We don’t want state and federal governments to slash Medicaid coverage for seniors in nursing homes or people with disabilities or poor children. We don’t want more teachers or firefighters or cops to be laid off. One more thing we don’t want: for bankers to be freed of their obligations to obey the law. Tom Miller (full disclosure: he is actually an old friend of mine, and someone I like a lot personally) and some of the people in the administration pushing this settlement are arguing that the only way to deliver tangible benefits in terms of mortgage write-downs any time soon is to settle with the banks now. Otherwise, they say, the legal fight will take years, and hard-pressed homeowners need help now. To get $20 billion now, to not have to force the banks kicking and screaming to help homeowners immediately, is a tempting argument, and I don’t doubt their good intentions. But $20 billion is nowhere near enough, and if the bankers are never held accountable they will keep doing the same kind of thing over and over again. Let’s take the amount first. Twenty billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it falls way short in two different ways. First, it is nowhere near the amount these big banks made off of the massive amount of market manipulation and shady practices in the mortgage industry in the first place, and it is in general a small amount to pay given the size of these massive companies. According to an SEIU report , last year the six biggest banks paid their executives $143 billion in bonuses, benefits and compensation, or “more than enough to fill the $130 billion total budget gap for all 50 states in FY 2011.” If you are going to discourage bad behavior in behemoth corporations like this, you have to actually do things that will really have an impact on them: jail time, forcing them to step down from their jobs, or do such massive fines to their companies that it hurts the companies’ stock price, profit margin, and bonuses. Secondly, $20 billion is less than a third of the money it would take to write down all the mortgages currently underwater, which recent studies estimate to be in the $70 billion dollar range. We shouldn’t even be considering letting these banks off the hook for their fraud until we’ve actually solved the problem of homeowners victimized by the housing price collapse these big banks caused with their market manipulations. Which leads me to my final point: these massive banks are way too powerful for the good of our economy and our democracy. They desperately need to be held accountable in ways that will discourage them from doing the kind of economy-crashing things that led to the 2008 financial and housing collapse. One official deeply involved in the settlement talks said to me that there were two things at play in those talks, one of which was getting money into hard-pressed homeowners’ pockets quickly, and the other being to hold the big banks accountable. But, he said, if he had to sacrifice one to get the other, he would sacrifice more accountability to get money for homeowners now. Of course, as I’ve described, the $20 billion they are looking to get isn’t nearly enough. But on a more fundamental level, if we never hold these big banks accountable for breaking the law and wrecking the economy, they will never learn their lesson, and greed will trump whatever shreds of morality they still have every time. Our democracy and our economy end up in tatters if some companies are not only too big to fail but too big to jail, if they operate under a different set of laws than everyone else. Tim Geithner made the same choices in 2008-9, that “Old Testament justice,” as he called it, was less important than saving the banks. So they were not prosecuted for their crimes; they were not allowed to go out of business; they were not denied their bonuses, or fired from their jobs; they were not broken up into smaller banks. They just kept on doing what they were doing, with the hope that a few more good regulations passed in the financial reform bill will keep future disasters from happening. The problem, of course, is that if you can violate the law, and use your immense political power to weaken regulations, and no one ever holds you accountable, nothing changes. Many economists are now predicting that we will have more Too Big To Fail-style financial crises in the years to come, because the fundamental structure in the way these banks do business has not changed. The bottom line is that when you are to blame for others’ misery, you should be held accountable. It’s true with the big bankers, and it’s true with public policy in general: middle-class and low-income folks did not cause the deficit or our economic crisis, so they shouldn’t pay for fixing it. What we need right now are jobs, not cuts, and to hold those responsible (which is overwhelmingly the big banks) for our economic collapse accountable.
Continue reading …