Federal Nonsense Round-Up: Week Ending Nov 25

Week in Review

Week in review compiled by:
​ Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer, Baltimore City, Laura H, RepMD Volunteer, St Michael's,
Lisa M, RepMD Volunteer, Baltimore City & Cristi D, RepMD Chair.

1)
​Congress’ sexual harassment system, decoded

ABOUT: 
​Recent revelations about sexual harassment and misconduct on the part of Congressmen have brought attention to the Office of Compliance, an obscure branch of Congress that acts as a kind of Human Resources for the institution. Over the past 20 years, 17 million dollars have been quietly paid out in settlements to complainants to the OOC, but not all of it was to sexual harassment settlements. In addition to sexual harassment claims against congressmen and aides, the OOC also handles complaints related to workplace safety and other issues.  Because the OOC does not release details of the cases, and because it has many confidentiality measures in place, there’s no way to know what percentage of the 17 million went to settling sexual harassment claims. 
The OOC is not the only way that congressional money is being used to settle sexual harassment claims, however.  A complainant against Representative John Conyers was paid a settlement through Conyers’ own office, out of the office budget. His office created a fake position for the complainant and paid her for 3 months through payroll to the amount of $27,000. If this has been common practice, there’s no telling how much money has gone to settling these complaints. 
Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) last week rallied against this state of affairs, saying that the OOC needs to have more transparency and that Congressmen should be legally liable for their behavior.  She pointed out that the issue of sexual harassment is bipartisan, with accusations against congress members of both parties.  In collaboration with Speier, Senator Kristen Gillibrand is sponsoring a bill that would require changes to the OOC. Meanwhile, both branches of government are instituting sexual harassment training , but some are concerned the current class, which is taken online, is not a strong enough measure to address the issue. 

EXCERPT:  
"The trappings of confidentiality, they permeate the process," said Alexis Ronickher, an attorney who has represented several clients pursuing harassment claims through the compliance office. "The law is written to create a system to disincentivize staffers from coming forward."

READ MORE:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/congress-sexual-harassment-slush-fund-255547

ADDITIONAL INFO:
The OOC, in addition to paying out settlements, also has procedures which keep victims quiet.  As may be expected facing the OOC’s process, 80% of accusers choose not to follow up on their complaints. 

OUR THOUGHTS (Laura H.):
If members of Congress are being shielded from the consequences of their own bad behavior using public money, this is a matter of public interest. Taxpayer money must cease to be used to provide cover for sexual harassers, whether through the OOC or through the Congressional offices. Most importantly, Congress should create a system where victims of misconduct are safe, and are able to get relief from their situations without being silenced.

2) 
​“Siding with Trump, judge rules Mick Mulvaney to remain interim CFPB head” 

ABOUT: 
A battle for control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took place this week, and exemplified the fight between Republicans and Democrats over how to regulate Wall Street following the 2007-2009 financial crisis that cost taxpayers $700 billion in bailouts.  Last Friday, Richard Cordray stepped down as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On his resignation, Cordray appointed an aide, Leandra English, to Acting Deputy Director of the CFPB. Upon hearing of Cordray’s resignation, President Trump appointed John Michael (Mick) Mulvaney to be Director of the CFPB. After a brief court battle, a judge ruled in Mulvaney’s favor, and he will be the acting director in the interim while President Trump decides on a permanent nominee for the role. By all accounts, Mulvaney is an arch fiscal conservative with an anti-regulation stance more extreme than most of his peers. Indeed, on his first day as Director, Mulvaney ordered a hiring freeze and ceased all cases in the pipeline. 
“Referring to Trump's view of the watchdog's mission, Mulvaney said: "He wants me to get it back to the point where it can protect people without trampling on capitalism, without choking off the access to financial services that are so critical to so many folks." 

READ MORE:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judge-rules-mick-mulvaney-remain-interim-headin-leadership-fight-consumer-financial-protection-burea/902173001/

ADDITIONAL INFO:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 1600-employee U.S. government agency that makes sure banks, lenders, and other financial companies treat consumers fairly.  Following the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the CFPB was created under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and began operation in June of 2011. The CFPB acts as a watchdog for lending practices that leave people vulnerable to financial catastrophe, such as payday loans, bad student and mortgage loans, and exploitative credit card contracts. The organization also has a complaint line and provides sound financial advice to users of banks and loans.  Since its inception, the CFPB has provided $11.9 billion dollars in relief from predatory practices to more than 29 million people, and handled more than 1.2 million complaints from individuals about predatory financial practices.  https://www.consumerfinance.gov/
Interim director of the CFNB Mick Mulvaney is extremely fiscally conservative and has gained the nickname “Mick the Knife” for his eagerness to cut spending in government.  In his previous role as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney has encouraged President Trump to slash the Medicaid and Medicare budgets, as well as Social Security disability benefits. In his role at the OMB, “[Mulvaney] has questioned whether government should fund Meals on Wheels or diabetes treatment for patients who “eat poorly,” called climate action “a waste of your money,” hinted that the Energy and Education departments might be unconstitutional, and suggested he would welcome another shutdown.” Mulvaney prioritizes the border wall and military spending.  (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/01/mick-mulvaney-omb-trump-budget-profile-feature-215546)

OUR THOUGHTS (Laura H.): 
The CFPB acting as a watchdog and upholding the law against the banking industry is a necessary piece of government machinery.  The detractors of the CFPB argue that the organization has too much power, but what about the banks?  When an individual is defrauded through predatory practices, the CFPB might be their only recourse against a predatory lender.  When the lending industry was given free reign, without regulation and a way to enforce it, it resulted in the 2007-2009 financial crisis, and the banks needed a 700 billion dollar bailout.  Commercial banks have spent millions lobbying congress and millions in campaign contributions this year alone, the majority of them to republicans (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F03). They are likely happy with Mulvaney’s appointment; but we should not be. If Mulvaney follows the path of cutting and gutting the CFPB, there will be less protection for the individual against the powerful lending industry, and the economy will once again be at risk of catastrophe due to bad banking practices.

3) 
​Big Money Is Buying Up Puerto Rico’s Risky Real Estate

ABOUT: 
Standard "buy low, sell high" market forces are at work in Puerto Rico after the devastation by two major hurricanes this past Summer/Fall.  However, it appears not all (or even most) investors care about the local economy or its participants.  And Puerto Rico is not the average "fixer upper", either.  

EXCERPT:  
The gambit could certainly work out -- many of the homes, after all, have spectacular views of the Caribbean that could be pitched to well-heeled Americans -- but long-time Puerto Rico investors see trouble ahead. Chief among their concerns: bidding wars are breaking out for the loans at the same time that their quality is deteriorating. It’s a tell-tale sign that the market is getting frothy and that turning a profit could prove tricky on an island where the government is mired in default, the economy has been contracting for a decade and foreclosure is a long and cumbersome process.
[...]
Blanco, who ran OCIF until December, when he became a real estate investor himself, said he remembers a dozen funds investing in Puerto Rico mortgage pools during his tenure.  
“They did OK on some assets, and they didn’t do as well in others,” he said. “The foreclosure thing is one problem. Then there’s another problem, and it’s that Puerto Rico is still in financial straits. The economy here isn’t moving very well. So to dispose of assets is not easy.”  

READ MORE:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/puerto-rican-mortgages-deeply-distressed-and-suddenly-in-demand

OUR THOUGHTS (Shalin M.): 
​With many investment firms inexperienced with real-estate and/or Puerto Rico in the hunt for "diamonds in the rough", the potential for haunting echoes of the housing crash to sound over an American island in the Caribbean is uncomfortably high.  This is a situation that is made more difficult due to the island's financial situation.  Thus, organization that know how to provide great care where the invest should be in order - however the incentive/disincentive structure does not appear to be sufficiently robust to encourage investors toward a path of the greatest wins for both profit and (local) people.  And this is nothing to say of the legal battles after "bait & switch" tactics where property owners may become homeless.  The work for new kinds of opportunities in Puerto Rico should proceed with additional care.  

4) 
​Trump administration, in a gift to telecom firms, is pulling the plug on net neutrality  

ABOUT: 
Trump's pick for FCC chair, Ajit Pai, is leading the charge to rollback net neutrality rules enacted during the previous chair's term.  The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) say this the rules are onerous and limit their ability to serve their shareholders with healthy profits.  


EXCERPT:  
At its heart, net neutrality is about guaranteeing a level playing field for all online services and content providers. It ensures that broadband providers such as phone and cable companies can't give preferential treatment to anyone — their own streaming-video service, say, over Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.
[...]  
Now President Trump's appointee as FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is proposing to gut those rules, which he said have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation." 
[...]
Here's the catch: Along with giving phone companies the go-ahead to block calls, the FCC told them they can pass along to customers any costs incurred in stopping robocalls.
In other words, it's virtually guaranteed that if your phone company cracks down on robocalls, you'll see yet another fee on your bill. Or robocall filtering will be offered as an add-on service, like call waiting.
So the problem is being addressed.
But, like better broadband access, it'll cost you.

READ MORE:  http://beta.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-fcc-net-neutrality-20171124-story.html  

ADDITIONAL INFO: 
Debates on the pros/cons of regulation of the internet have been going on for several years.  This is primarily driven by nightmare scenarios of 1984's Big Brother using information of every man, woman, and child to enact an outsized influence on their lives through gentle or explicit coercion.  But also, that internet sites will have limited access to viewers and vice-versa based on the whims of the ISPs.  

OUR THOUGHTS (Shalin M.): 
​The idea of regulating the internet is a complicated endeavor as sometimes the "internet tollbooth operators" of which the ISPs would be are less dangerous than the "content captors" like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Alphabet (Google)!  The idea of limiting visibility to some sites because of their content that may be unfavorable to the ISP (or its interests) shows an obvious and inherent conflict of interest.  It is true there are issues to address on the "content captors" side as well, but rolling back net neutrality rules entirely would be dangerous and potentially a violation of the 1st Amendment.  The decision to repeal the net neutrality rules should not even be held by the 5 members of the FCC rule committee on 14 Dec 2017.  

Related, this is a worthwhile look:  Meet the People Building Their Own Internet in Detroit, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI