Category Archives: Policy

Charlie Baker, why are your budget cuts a secret?

Posted on by

Imagine that someone you don’t know very well entered your home and started throwing your things to help you “clean up”. You didn’t invite them. They decided, on their own, to come by and help you out by clearing away things they don’t think you need. Now imagine in this bizarre situation that when you ask that shadowy person which of your things they’re throwing away, they reply, “That information isn’t available to you.” How would you feel? Well, that’s what Charlie Baker is doing to Massachusetts tax-payers right now. He used Section 9C budget cuts to shut down services across the state unilaterally, but Charlie Baker won’t tell us which services he’s shutting down!

I learned about Charlie Baker’s $98 million 9C budget cuts because they took took food from the mouths of hungry children by reducing funding for an emergency local food program in Cambridge. That made me want to know what else he slashed from the state budget.

But it’s very hard to find out what else was removed from the budget—or even verify that the Cambridge Weekend Backpack program was removed. The way the line item account of the cuts was published obscures the details of what was hit. The public account of the cuts lists each reduction at the program-level, which makes each line item big and vague. Because the governor’s office bundled the individual cuts together, it’s impossible to tell which specific services are effected. For example, Charlie Baker slashed more than 3.6 million dollars from the state police budget. Does that mean they’ll lay off cops? Perhaps they won’t buy new bullet-proof vests. Maybe they’ll close down police stations. I don’t know because everything is lumped together.

So I called to ask for a more detailed line item account so that I could see for myself which services were, in fact, removed from the budget.

Here’s roughly what I asked when I called Charlie Baker’s office at (617) 725-4005:

Hi, how are you? My name is Joshua Reyes and I live in Cambridge, MA. I’m calling about the 9C cuts the governor made earlier this month. Where can I find a detailed line item account of all of the cuts? The list that’s posted on your office website makes it impossible to tell which individual services have been cut from state programs.

The aide I spoke to mentioned that the complete line item account of Charlie Baker’s budget cuts is probably not available to the public. He told me that he’d have to check with the Office of Legislative Affairs. I asked how I could contact them. He told me there is no public, direct line to that office. Instead, he took my contact information and said that someone would call me back once they had decided whether to release public information about public money to the public.

To make sure that my request was in writing, I also filled out a form on the governor’s website.

Subject: 9C Fine-grain Line Item Accounting
Hi,

I'd like a fine-grain line item account of the recent 9C budget cuts.

The listing attached to the Governor's 9C FY16 Filing Letter is 
at the department level, which makes it impossible to see which 
services within a program will actually be cut. 

As a tax-payer I am very interested in how my taxes are spent.

Please send me a copy of the communications sent to each program
effected by the 9C reductions.

Thank you very much.
Have a happy new year!
Joshua Reyes

A few hours later, I received two form-letter responses one after the other. The first thanked me for my comments on Question 4, the recent ballot measure to legalize marijuana use. The second thanked me for my concern about the budget. Neither response addressed what I asked for. They were thoughtless, empty, stock responses that you send when you want end a conversation with someone.

Subject: Governor Baker responding to your message
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM
Dear Joshua,

On behalf of Governor Charlie Baker, thank you for your recent 
correspondence regarding question 4. We understand your concern 
about this issue, and we are grateful to have your voice as part
of the discussion.

Please feel free to contact our office in the future with any
further questions or concerns; your comments are always welcome
in this administration. 

Sincerely,

Constituent Services Aide
Office of Governor Charlie Baker
(617) 725-4005
www.mass.gov/governor/contact

Subject: Governor Baker responding to your message
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM
Dear Joshua,

On behalf of Governor Charlie Baker, thank you for your recent
correspondence regarding the budget. We understand your concern
about this issue, and we are grateful to have your voice as part
of the discussion.

Please feel free to contact our office in the future with any 
further questions or concerns; your comments are always welcome
in this administration. 

Sincerely,

Constituent Services Aide
Office of Governor Charlie Baker
(617) 725-4005
www.mass.gov/governor/contact

Since both emails welcomed me to chat with them again, I called the Charlie Baker’s office one more time to explain my request.

Hi, how are you today? I’m calling because I just received two emails from your office and I found them both confusing. I was hoping you could me out.

I called earlier today to request a detailed line item account of the 9C budget cuts Charlie Baker made earlier this month. One of the emails I received thanked me for my commenting on Question 4, which is about marijuana. I called about the 9C budget cuts. The second one thanked me for my concern about the budget. But I did not express any concern. I requested information about the budget.

At this point the aide explained that the obscure, program-level report was all that is available to the public. So, I continued.

But the listing on the website makes it impossible to see what was actually cut. For example, how will the $3.6M reduction to the state police be applied?

He asked what questions I had specifically. I repeated that I would like to know what will happen to the state police. Again, he took my contact information. Before the aide could hang up with me I asked:

Can I have a contact to request when I call back to follow up?

For the first time, someone in Charlie Baker’s office answered me simply and directly: No.
,
Charlie Baker, why are the details of your 9C budget cuts a secret? As a tax-payer, I’d like to know how my state uses its tax revenues. Decisions to use public money for public institutions belong to the public. Please make the details of your 9C budget cuts public. And while you’re at it, please make public the report that the commissioner of the administration needed to write in order to invoke the 9C cuts in the first place!

Want to know what Governor Charlie Baker is hiding? Please call the Governor’s office (617) 725-4005 and ask for a detailed copy of the December 9C budget cuts. And please let me know what they say!

Grinch Charlie Baker takes away food from hungry children for Christmas

Posted on by

Imagine being a child at home on Christmas.

"Freedom From Want" - NARA - 513539

What if there wasn’t any food in your house, how would you feel? How would you feel when you found out the governor doesn’t think you’re important enough to feed?

For Christmas this year, Grinch Charlie Baker, in a dazzling display of cold-heartedness, cut a grant of $110,000 from the state budget that funds Food For Free’s Cambridge Weekend Backpack emergency food program for children. The Cambridge Weekend Backpack program provides 500 of the city’s poorest kids food on weekends because, without it, they’d go hungry. (You can donate to help them out!)

Charlie Baker, is this how you lead the state—by taking food from the mouths of hungry children? I want better from my governor. So last Thursday I called his office and spoke with one of his aides to ask when Governor Baker plans to reinstate the funding.

Here’s a script you can use to call, too! It’s easy: just call (617) 725-4005.

Hello, how are you? My name is Joshua Reyes and I live in Cambridge, MA. I read in the Cambridge Chronicle that Governor Baker recently cut state funding for a program called Food for Free. Have you heard about that program?

I just want to remind you that Food for Free provides food to poor children on the weekends who would otherwise go hungry. They serve about 500 kids where I live in Cambridge.

Having food to eat is a basic dignity and these kids should not be expected to provide for themselves. Taking away food from poor kids is an especially horrible Christmas present from the governor. Can you tell me when Governor Baker plans to reinstate funding for Food for Free?

Thank you and have a good day!

Carry the giving spirit of Christmas all year round. Please call Charlie Baker’s office today to tell him to give back the food food he took away from hungry kids. Please let me know how it goes!

Happy birthday to me!

Posted on by

Today is my birthday. And I want gifts! Lots of them. But first, a little about me, as I reflect on another year.

At 34, I still believe in the power of American democracy—that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. And for my birthday I have rededicated myself so that under my watch it shall not perish from the earth.

So what do I want for my birthday? I want you to participate in this great experiment we call American democracy. Specifically, please call your congressional representative and two senators to ask them to investigate Trump’s conflicts of interest between his businesses and foreign governments.

Here’s a script for you to use when you call:

Hi, how are you today?

My name is Joshua Reyes and I live in Cambridge, MA. I’m calling because I’m worried that Trump’s conflicts of interest between his businesses with foreign governments puts the American people in danger.

As the head of the Trump Organization, the incoming president has financial interests in hundreds of companies, spread over at least 20 countries. He also has many outstanding debts. His exact assets and debts are not known because he has refused to release tax records.1

I want Trump to make the best deals for America, but I am afraid he will make the best deals for himself. Will Senator Markey hold a Congressional investigation into Trump’s conflicts of interests?

Thank you and have a good day!

Question: Who can settle questions about Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest?
Answer: Congress.

Question: And who can get Congress to do it?
Answer: You! You are the boss of Congress!

So for my birthday, I want you to call Congress. I want you to make America great again with me! And let me know if you do!

For my family, here’s a list of numbers to make it easy for you to call:

State Member of Congress Number
AZ Rep. Trent Franks (623) 776-7911
AZ Sen. Jeff Flake (602) 840-1891
AZ Sen. John McCain (602) 952-2410
CA Rep. Jared Huffman (707) 981-8967
CA Sen. Barbara Boxer (510) 286-8537
CA Sen. Diane Feinstein (415) 393-0707
MA Rep. Katherine Clark (617) 354-0292
MA Rep. Mike Capuano (617) 621-6208
MA Sen. Ed Markey (617) 565-8519
MA Sen. Elizabeth Warren (617) 565-3170
MO Rep. Billy Long (417) 889-1800
MO Sen. Roy Blunt (417) 877-7814
MO Sen. Claire McCaskill (417) 868-8745
NH Rep. Ann Custer (603) 595-2006
NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte (603) 622-7979
NH Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (603) 750-3004

What does Charlie Baker like about Jeff Sessions?

Posted on by

To celebrate Rosa Parks Day this year, I called the Governor’s office to follow-up on his thoughts about Trump’s appointees. A few weeks ago, Baker told the press that he didn’t want to “pre-judge” the appointments. Instead he said:

Trump “has made clear he wants to unify the country post-election, and I said that, based on some of Bannon’s previous remarks and activities, that was a concern to me,” Baker said of the pick. “But I’m going to take a page from President Obama’s book on this one, who said the other day that he thinks the Trump administration’s team should be judged on the totality of his appointments. Let’s see what else happens.”

Time has passed and Trump has named more people to his cabinet. In fact, so far Trump has selected individuals who control a combined eleven billion dollars in personal wealth. So much for draining the swamp.

Because the office of the Governor represents me and my interests, I want to know what Charlie Baker thinks about Trump’s appointments. So yesterday I called again, for the third time, to ask. And once again, his aide Shauna greeted me on the other end of the line. We’re starting to get familiar with one another. And I like her a lot. Our conversation went something like this:

Hi, Shauna! Good morning. How are you? First of all, I’d like to wish you a very happy Rosa Parks Day!

Shauna seemed very happy to have been wished a happy Rosa Parks Day. I continued.

I know I’ve called before to ask this. Governor Baker said that he didn’t want to pre-judge Trump’s appointments until we had a clearer view of his whole administration. Now that a few weeks have passed and we know more of his appointments, can you tell me which of Trump’s appointments the Governor likes and supports?

Regrettably, Shauna told me that she is not authorized to make statements on the subject other than what has already been released to the public. So I asked the only natural next question.

Can I speak with someone who is authorized to tell me what the Governor thinks on the matter?

Even though she wasn’t sure whether her supervisor had the proper authorization to tell me my governor’s opinion on matters of public governance, she forwarded my call to her supervisor John anyway. Once John picked up the phone, I started over.

Hi, John. Good morning. How are you today? First of all, I’d like to wish you a very happy Rosa Parks Day!

I paused for his response and half-heartedly hoped that he’d wish me a happy Rosa Parks Day in return. Instead, the line fell silent. So I pressed on.

I’ve called a few times before to find out what Charlie Baker thinks of Trump’s appointments to the cabinet. A few weeks ago he told the Globe that he wanted to wait to judge the administration on the totality of Trump’s appointments. Now that he has appointed more people to his cabinet, can you tell me which of Trump’s appointments does Governor Baker support and why?

John reminded me that Baker has already said that he is concerned by Bannon’s appointment. But that was not my question.

I appreciate that he is concerned about Bannon. But there have been several over appointments. For instance, Trump has named Jeff Sessions to run the Department of Justice. Jeff Sessions is a man who was too racist to be confirmed as a federal judge. I do not support racism in my government officials. I’d like to know does Charlie Baker support racism in his government officials? I’d like to know which of Trump’s appointments the Governor agrees with and supports and why.

John then told me that he’d pass my request onto the Governor.

Charlie Baker, please have the dignity and the courage to continue the public conversation you began a few weeks ago. Please tell me which of Trump’s cabinet appointments you support. I ask you as one of your constituents and as a voter.

Please call Baker’s office and ask him the same. The number is (617) 725-4005. #makeAmericaGreatAgain #drainTheSwamp

Singing and Protesting in the Rain

Image

Protesting Kellyanne Conway's invitation to speak at the Harvard School of Government

Protesting Kellyanne Conway's invitation to speak at the Harvard School of Government

Tonight I participated in a protest at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. They invited chief propagandist Kellyanne Conway to speak. We cannot normalize post-truth spin doctors.

When we normalize racism, we commit a racist act.
When we normalize violence, we commit violence.
When we normalize financial inequality, we oppress the poor.

Stand up. #drainTheSwamp #makeAmericaGreatAgain

Help Harvard protect freedom of association. Write your professors

Posted on by

Earlier this year, Harvard instituted some very well-meaning but misguided sanctions of students who participate in single-gender social organizations. The sanctions have been marketed as promoting inclusivity, which is a pretty-sounding word. Who is against inclusivity, after all? But the way they achieve it is by coercion and restriction of thought and association. Harvard plans to discriminate against students based on who they choose to hang out with. Discrimination is not inclusion.

This policy reminds me of a joke about post-Nazi Germany. It goes something like this. After the War, Germany was trying to heal. As a matter of unifying its citizenry, there was a great campaign to encourage tolerance among the varying and fractured subpopulations within the country. Government officials went around explaining town-to-town, “You must be tolerant. If you are not tolerant, we will compel you to be tolerant.” End joke.

These sanctions are a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine final clubs. Before I go on, let me very clear: I was not a member of any final club as a student. I am not currently affiliated with a final club. I have several close friends and former students who were sexually assaulted at final clubs. And I do not support final clubs as an institution. And I cannot believe that the administration is making me defend their existence. In fact, I’m angry about it.

But I want to know, what problem are the sanctions a solution to? The administration has already said that it plans to apply the sanctions inconsistently. According to the Crimson:

According to an email from the Seneca’s undergraduate officers to Seneca members obtained by The Crimson, Associate Dean of Student Life David R. Friedrich assured the Seneca at a May meeting that if the group removed gender requirements from its charter and bylaws, the club “could continue to operate as it always has.”

Although the Seneca will continue to only invite women to their first recruitment event of the semester, men will be allowed to attend the event without an invitation and participate in the subsequent parts of the selection process should they wish, said undergraduate co-president president Avni Nahar ’17 in an interview.

“Like Women in Business or Latinas Unidas, although men may apply, our membership can be made up wholly of women without incurring the sanctions of the administration’s new policy,” Nahar and co-president Fran F. Swanson ’17 wrote in the email, according to a copy obtained by The Crimson.

So the sanctions cannot be about combating elitism or exclusivity. So what does the administration intend by these sanctions? Just to use large, centralized power to punish people they disagree with. When I was a student at Harvard, I learned not to take away freedom of thought and association simply because I don’t like someone or who they hang out with, no matter how reprehensible I find them. Harvard should not discriminate on the basis of the organization students choose to join. Harvard’s new and bizarre brand of inclusion is based on suppressing and removing the parts it doesn’t find convenient. It is not, in a word, inclusive. And these sanctions do nothing to address the very real and very grave issue of sexual violence on campus.

As a resident tutor in Quincy House, I learned the all too grim reality that sexual violence is not confined to final clubs. It happens everywhere, including in the Houses. Sexual violence transcends group and team affiliation, race, gender, age, position, religion, or creed. Sexual violence is a rank and insidious social ill that plagues our campus. Instead of curtailing freedom of association on campus, I wish the faculty would draft courageous and targeted policies that address the real problem: sexual violence.

Fortunately, there is a motion to protect students’ right to free association on campus before the faculty right now. Members of the Faculty of Arts and Science will vote next Tuesday, December 6, on the motion. I have written to faculty I know to urge them to support the motion.

Here is a letter I sent to Howard Georgi, the Residential Faculty Dean (formerly called House Master) at Leverett House:

Dear Chief,

Since the election, I’ve rededicated myself to the people, institutions, and values that are important to me. Because Harvard is important to me, I’m writing to ask you to vote in favor of the motion before the faculty next week to protect students’ freedom of association. Harvard should not discriminate on the basis of group affiliation.

First, I want you to know that I was not in a final club as an undergraduate. And I have close friends who were sexually assaulted in final clubs during my time at the College. I do not support final clubs as an institution.

But I also have friends and former students who were sexually assaulted on campus in the Houses. Sexual violence at Harvard is a very real and grave problem. And I am in favor of policies that will protect students from sexual assault.

The sanctions against the final clubs are well-meaning, but an answer to a different question. It does not tackle the challenging and important problem of sexual assault on campus. Instead, the sanctions have been marketed as a way of embracing inclusivity. But it is an inclusivity by coercion and restriction of association and thoughts, which is no inclusivity at all. I do not want to punish people simply because they hang out with people I do not know or necessarily like. That’s not what the Core education taught me.

I hope you will help the administration abandon the current sanctions and draft new policies that tackle the problem directly: sexual violence on campus.

Will you support the motion next week?

Thanks for your time and your support of the House system.
All the best,
Josh

If you know someone on the Faculty, please send them a similar note to support the motion to protect students’ freedom of association.

I really cannot believe President Faust and Dean Khurana are making me defend final clubs. Really. Sheesh.

Merry Christmas! New law gives your home computer and phone to government

Posted on by

Has your computer ever been infected with malware or spyware? Well, if it has, a new law that will go into effect December 1, says that if you’re computer has been hacked into into, then the federal government can legally hack into it without your knowing about it, too!

That’s right! Anyone acting on behalf of the federal government can go to any judge in any district to get a warrant to search your computer just because some jerk on the Internet infected your computer with some bogus scamware.

That means those bank statements and other private documents you keep on your home computer are up for grabs. Pictures of your friends, of your family, of you—including that selfie stash of yours! they’re all fair game. Run a company with sensitive customer data? Well, if any of your computers gets hacked, KA-BOOM! The feds can legally hack it, too. They can peek around and copy all of your company records. Who cares if it’s confidential? Now it’s “evidence”.

Starting three years ago, the Department of Justice drafted changes to the Search and Seizure rules of Federal Criminal Procedure law. The DOJ sent its changes to the Federal Courts. The courts okayed the changes to hack into American computers and passed them on to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS approved the changes on April 28. Now Congress has them for review. If not blocked, they go into effect on December 1. Christmas comes early for the FBI!

I’ve highlighted the relevant parts of the proposed amendment to the Search and Seizure Rule 41 that give the feds license over your data if your computer has been infected by malware and is part of a botnet.

10 FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 41. Search and Seizure
***
(b) Authority to Issue a Warrant.
At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
* * *
(6) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:

(A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or
(B) in an investigation of a violation of U.S.C. §1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts

But there is hope! You are the hope. You can call Congress. Here’s what to say.

Congress can change the law. There is a bill in the House and one in the Senate to repeal this odious big government overreach of power and invasion of privacy.

Here’s what I said when I called Rep. Katherine Clark’s office earlier (district office: (617) 354-0292):

Hi, my name is Joshua Reyes and I live in Cambridge, MA. I’m calling to ask Representative Clark to cosponsor H.R.5321 Stopping Mass Hacking Act. Personal privacy is important to me. And I do not expect to give up my personal privacy just because my computer or phone is connected to the internet. Does Representative Clark agree with me?

Thank you and have a nice day.

And to my senators Warren (Boston office: (617) 565-3170) and Markey (Boston office: (617) 565-8519):

Hi, my name is Joshua Reyes and I live in Cambridge, MA. I’m calling to ask Senator Markey/Warren to cosponsor S.3475 Review the Rule Act of 2016. Personal privacy is important to me. And I do not expect to give up my personal privacy just because my computer or phone is connected to the internet. Does Senator Markey/Warren agree with me?

Thank you and have a nice day.

Many representatives and senators don’t know about this obscure amendment. So it’s important to call now and let them know how you feel! December 1 is just a day away. I believe in you!

Don’t live in Massachusetts? No problem! Look up your representative. Look up your senators.

Charity Spotlight: Massachusetts Bail Fund

Posted on by

I recently donated to the Massachusetts Bail Fund. I love them. Here’s why:

Would you like to go to jail without receiving a trial? Nope. Me, neither. But that’s how the justice system works.

When you are suspected of a crime and due in court, you usually have two options: wait for the trial in jail or fork over money as bail. If you don’t show up to court, you lose the money. If you do, you get it back once the case is closed.

When the type of justice you get depends on how much money you have, the wealthy always win out. If you can afford to drop $500, you get to go home, go to work the next day, and continue with your life.

But what if you couldn’t afford bail? We lock you up to wait for your turn in court. Taxpayers pay $125 each night we force you to stay there. You have no control over how long it’ll take for a date in court to open up. You could wait weeks, months, and sometimes years, for a trial. Those bills add up. Meanwhile, you don’t show up to work because you’re behind bars. You lose your job. You can’t pay your bills. Your life is ruined before you even make it to court, just because you couldn’t post as little as $50 for bail.

The Massachusetts Bail Fund fronts the bail for clients who can’t afford it themselves. When a case closes, the fund gets the money back. Last month, they posted bail for 382 people.

And it works: half of the cases were dismissed. That means the judges decided that it wasn’t worth the time to finish these cases. No harm, no foul. Without help from the bail fund, nearly two hundred people would have sat in jail just to wait in line to go back home. In October, they lost only 4 bails. That’s a 99% success rate. Imagine if everything worked 99% of the time. That’s a world I’d like to live in.

Since the money goes back to the bail fund after each case closes, your donation can be re-used to help more people. That’s good for the clients, that’s good for their families, that’s good for the community, that’s good for law enforcement, and that’s good for you, the taxpayers. What a smart investment!

I love this fund because I’m cheap. Instead of shelling out $4,000 a month to lock someone up just to hang out, I’d rather the state spend it on something that I use, like the MBTA. I’m just selfish like that. Charlie Baker, fix the T.

Look up bail funds in your state! Or donate to the Massachusetts Bail Fund.

Please tell Mary Fallin not torture, experiment on human subjects

Posted on by

Oklahoma has secrecy laws that makes it virtually impossible to find out where it gets the drugs executioners use to kill prisoners sentenced to death.

The drugs that executioners used for years are not available because manufacturers (in Europe) refuse to sell them in American markets. As a result, state executioners use drugs made in small batches, which may not be pure or even what they purport to be. State legislatures create protocols to administer drugs in untested doses and untested combinations. They are very literally experimenting on human subjects.

Last night, the state of Oklahoma experimented Clayton Lockett. And the experiment went terribly wrong. For forty-three minutes, the state of Oklahoma tortured Clayton Lockett. From James Downnie at the Washington Post:

Tuesday night, Oklahoma tortured a man to death. At 6:23 local time, a doctor began to inject Clayton Lockett with a sedative. Seven minutes later, convinced Lockett was sedated, the doctor then began to inject the second and third drugs in the lethal cocktail that were supposed to end Lockett’s life. But Lockett “began to twitch and gasp” after having been declared unconscious. He called out “man” and “something’s wrong.” He then “struggled violently, groaned and writhed, lifting his shoulders and head from the gurney before the blinds to the [execution] room were lowered 16 minutes after the execution began.” The doctor “intervened and discovered that ‘the line had blown,’ said the director of corrections, Robert Patton, meaning that drugs were no longer flowing into his vein.”

A fuller account can be found at the New York Times.

Being outraged, I wrote a letter to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, who demanded the execution take place despite a stay by the Oklahoma State Supreme court, to show compassion and stop executions in her state until it can be done responsibly.

Here is what I wrote:

Dear Governor Fallin,

Please show true Christian love and a confirmed faith in the American democratic process by stay executions in Oklahoma an independent third party has determined a proven medically safe way to kill prisoners.

An independent third party cannot include anyone on your staff or who reports to someone in the state legislature.

(1) Will you agree to form an honest, independent party to review your state’s execution protocols?

(2) Will you agree to stay executions until a proven, safe, humane protocol to kill prisoners has been established?

A concerned American,
Joshua A. Reyes

Please write to her, too. You can email her here.

Business sense

Posted on by

At the behest of a friend of mine, I’ve decided to pick up a copy of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report. Weighing in at 690 pages and 2.2 pounds, this bad boy is a behemoth of economic reporting. For those of you who prefer free, electronic copies of books, swing by FCIC website to get a full version in stunning PDF.

I’m only a few pages in, but already I’m impressed by those massively irresponsible rogue investment houses. For example,

[A]t the end of 2007, Bear Stearns had $11.8 billion in equity and $383.6 billion in liabilities and was borrowing as much as $70 billion in the overnight market. [pp. ix-xx]

Those are big numbers, and it’s hard for me to really wrap my ahead around whether $383.6 billion in liabilities is offset by the equity the company held. Being a lay person (who’s trying to learn more) in big financial matters, I’m not sure whether that sort of thing is common, sustainable, reasonable or downright foolish. So let’s do what scientists like to do with things they don’t understand: translate them into equivalent systems that they do understand. The borrowing habits of Bear Stearns were equivalent to

a small business with $50,000 in equity borrowing $1.6 million, with $296,750 of that due each and every day. [pp. xx]

Whoa. That doesn’t sound all prudent to me. How about to you?

So when Illinois congressperson Joe Walsh starts screaming at his constituents (here and follow-up here) at an Uno’s in a Chicago suburb that

it’s not the private marketplace that created this mess. What created this mess was your government, which has demanded for years that everybody be in a home…And we’ve made it easy as possible for people to be in homes

you’ve got to wonder whether he’s right. Or at least watch his rants on Youtube. But to Joe’s point, was it a misguided government conspiracy to make sure Americans have roofs over their heads that sent the economy spiraling out of control? According to the Financial Crisis Report, the answer is no.

True, for decades the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has listed affordable housing as one of its goals. Based on textual evidence and interviews, the behavior of government supported entities like the now infamous Freddie and Fannie were only marginally effected by the goals for affordable housing. In fact, a lot of the people buying up property already had homes! By the June of 2005, one out of ten home sales went to an investor, speculator, or individuals buying a second home [p. 5].

My friend’s grandparents have pointed to legislation that banned banks from black-listing whole communities from loans, a practice known as redlining, as a major cause for the collapse of the housing market. They’re talking about the Community Reinvestment Act which set expressly to combat redlining. Banks commonly denied individuals and businesses, primarily in substantially non-white neighborhoods, without regard to the creditworthiness of the applications because the entire neighborhood was deemed too risky. Chances are if you lived in a black community, the banks simply said no even if you could pay. The Community Reinvestment Act tried to make sure banks and savings and loans would lend, invest, and provide services to communities that deposited money in the banks—a sort of, you put in, we’ll put out sort of arrangement. So how much did these government policies contribute to the financial crisis?

Well, according to the report, not significantly.

Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law. [p. xxvii]

In other words, the policies seemed to offer some protection, consistent with financial soundness! Anti-redline loans were better loans. Looks like level-headed, carefully crafted regulation can actually help stabilize markets.

I’m willing to believe Joe, but, Joe, help me out. Give me some facts I can check.