$25 Billion Settlement: How Much Will Reach Your Community?
 

By Charles Lowery

News Analysis

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In February 2012, a joint state-federal settlement was reached with the country’s five largest loan servicers (Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo) to addresses a pattern of unfair and predatory mortgage servicing practices. The terms of the settlement indicated that as much as $25 billion in relief could be provided to distressed borrowers and direct payments to federal and state governments. While $25 billion is a significant number, the most important number is the amount that will reach your community.

The settlement funds are divided into two key parts – credits for affected homeowners and payments to the government entities. Twenty billion, the bulk of the settlement, is in the form of credits for victims of the predatory practices. These credits will be allocated by formulas that determine the amount of financial relief extended to borrowers as related to the costs of the activities provided by the servicers.

At least $10 billion of this amount will be directed towards reducing the principal on loans to qualified borrowers who are “underwater”. Underwater borrowers are those who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. It is estimated that one million current borrowers may benefit from this portion of the settlement. Another $3 billion is to be directed to help underwater borrowers refinance their mortgage loans. An additional $7 billion will go towards other programs to help unemployed borrowers, service members, transitional, and community programs.

The remaining $5 billion of the $25 billion settlement will be payments to government entities, including $2.5 billion to the state attorneys general, $1.5 billion to borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure,(approximately 750,000 persons will receive approximately $2,000 each), $912 million to the federal government, and $90 million to various state organizations.

According to Enterprise Community Partners, Inc, a national non-profit organization that provides expertise for affordable housing and sustainable communities, many states will spend the funds on needed activities such as foreclosure prevention or neighborhood stabilization activity, housing counseling, legal assistance to homeowners, marketing or outreach to educate citizens about foreclosure-prevention options, foreclosure mediation programs, loan modification programs, foreclosure prevention hotlines, and foreclosure scam rescue programs.

However, some states are considering redirecting these funds to programs not associated with the housing crisis. ProPublica, an independent, non-profit news organization, found that in Arizona and California, two of the states which were most severely impacted by the foreclosure crisis, the governors of these states have intervened in the state attorneys general’s proposals to use the funds on homeowner-related activities.

In Arizona, state lawmakers and the governor repurposed $50 million of the $98 million coming to the state. There will be no new spending of the monies even though the budget legislation stated that the money should be used to fund departments related to housing and law enforcement. Housing advocates are planning to file a lawsuit to stop the transfer of monies.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown recently released a proposed revised budget that uses the state’s $411 million from the settlement for existing housing programs and to help fill the state’s $16 billion budget deficit. Governor Brown’s actions came after Attorney General Kamala Harris had prepared a proposal to spend the money on counselors, lawyers, and other consumer-related efforts. Attorney General Harris opposes the Governor’s proposal which must be approved by the state legislature before it becomes law. Other states that plan to divert most or all of settlement monies into their states’ general fund include the State of Wisconsin, Texas, Georgia, Missouri and Virginia.

While the entire economy is struggling to remain on its feet, it is critical that these funds are targeted to restabilize the housing markets in communities around the country. Programs like foreclosure prevention, foreclosure assistance, housing counseling, legal assistance, criminal or civil investigations and enforcement activities, and programs to address community blight are essential components to rebuilding strong and safe neighborhoods for all Americans. That is why the NAACP is working with consumer advocacy organizations and others to ensure that the settlement monies are used to aid homeowners in need of assistance and prevent further predatory practices. Communities need to get the funding they so deeply need to restore their American dream.

Charles Lowery is director of Fair Lending, NAACP Economic Department. More information on the State Attorneys General Settlement can be found at www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com. Further information related to the monitoring of these funds can be found atwww.mortgageoversight.com. To learn more about the work of the NAACP Economic Department, visit our website atwww.naacp.com/econ.

August 12, 2012

SuperPAC Portrays Obama as Racist Against Whites
Uses Ad With Half-Truths, Race-Baiting as Weapon

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers

By Zenitha Prince

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - A new superPAC has launched an ad campaign that accuses President Obama of purporting racism against White people.

FightBigotry, which was registered with the Federal Election Commission recently, alleges that Obama has been given a free pass on “his disturbing, yet crystal-clear pattern of tacitly defending black racism against white folks before and since being elected president.” The political action committee (PAC) makes the claims in an ad on its website.

The ad cites, in making its claim, the Justice Department’s decision to drop a case of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in 2009. It also splices in samples of then-candidate Obama’s famous speech on race that he gave during the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy. In that speech, the president said that his grandmother, despite her love for him, would often make unthinkingly racist comments.

But, the ad edits the video to make it appear as if Obama was writing off his grandmother as a “typical White person” and that he supported Wright’s bigoted rants though Obama firmly denounced those views.

"Mr. President, you ran as the candidate of change," the ad's narrator says. "But one thing has not changed—your tacit defense of racism against white folks, despite receiving nearly half the White vote to win the presidency."

In another example of reverse racism, the ad asserts, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly stated that the administration’s critics are motivated by race. “Implying Whites are too stupid to have honest disagreements with the presidents is in and of itself racist against Whites,” the narrator says.

The assertion is based on a December 2011 interview with The New York Times in which Holder accused “a few” of the president’s critics—the “more extreme segment”—of unfair smear campaigns against Holder that were motivated by “animus” against President Obama.

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder was quoted as saying, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

According to ThinkProgress, FightBigotry is the brainchild of Stephen Marks, an infamous Republican opposition researcher and media consultant, who authored the 2008 book Confessions of a Political Hitman. The organization said Marks ran similar attack-style ads against Al Gore and John Kerry.

Political analyst Lester Spence said he is not surprised by the injection of race in a negative ad aimed at the president.

“There’s always been this racial undertone in the attacks against the president,” said the associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. “But now with this ad this undertone has become more of an overtone.”

Jason Johnson, a political analyst who teaches at Hiram College in Ohio, agreed.

“[This ad] is reflective of where the Republican Party really is in terms of their view of the president. They still believe Barack Obama is this man of consummate evil who wants to destroy the world,” he said.

Spence and Johnson expressed skepticism in the superPAC’s ability to raise money and to garner support for Republican nominee Mitt Romney, however.

“It doesn’t strike me as something that would magically transform the voting public,” Johnson said. “It’s not going to make anybody like Romney over Obama, or make them decide to vote for Romney instead of Obama. Anyone who believes this ad was not going to vote for Obama anyway.”

August 12, 2012

Romney VP Choice Among Fs on NAACP Report Card
By Hazel Trice Edney

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - U. S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who has received consistent Fs on the NAACP Civil Rights report card, is Republican Mitt Romney’s pick for vice president.

Voting in agreement with NAACP civil rights issues only 10 percent of the time according to the Report Card for the first year of the 112^th Congress, Ryan opposed NAACP-supported issues, including funding support for the Special Supplemental Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children; continued funding to settle the “Pigford II” racial discrimination lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Black Farmers; and support for the Election Assistance Commission.

According to the Report Card, released in April, every Republican in Congress got an F, failing on what the NAACP calls "bread and butter issues" for African-Americans.

Billing themselves as “America’s Comeback Team”, Romney and Ryan first appeared together on Saturday, Aug. 11 in a Norfolk, Va. shipyard.

“His leadership begins with character and values. Paul is a man of tremendous character,” Romney told the cheering audience in front of the USS Wisconsin. “In a city that's far too often characterized by pettiness and personal attacks, Paul Ryan is a shining exception. He doesn't demonize his opponents. He understands that honorable people can have honest differences. He appeals to the better angels of our nature.”

Ryan, a seven-term congressman, is known as “an intellectual leader” in the Republican Party, largely due to his fiscal conservatism as chairman of the House Budget Committee and as a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy, Social Security, health care and trade laws.

In his initial speeches over the weekend, he mostly promoted Romney as “a leader with the skills, the background and the character that our country needs at this crucial time in its history” and criticized President Obama.

“Following four years of failed leadership, the hopes of our country, which have inspired the world, are growing dim. They need someone to revive them. Governor Romney is the man for this moment.”

Preparing to fire back, President Obama, Saturday, quieted a Chicago crowd that booed his first mention of Ryan as Romney’s vice presidential candidate. Obama congratulated Ryan and described him as “a decent man” and “a family man” who will serve as an “articulate spokesman for Governor Romney's vision.”

But, Obama - who, as a U. S. senator, made straight As on the NAACP Report Card - contrasted his record, explaining to the audience, “It's a vision that I fundamentally disagree with. My opponent and Congressman Ryan and their allies in Congress, they all believe that if we just get rid of more regulations on big corporations and we give more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, it will lead to jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's what they're proposing. That's where they'll take us if they win.”

Obama continued, “The centerpiece of Governor Romney's entire economic plan is a new $5 trillion tax cut, a lot of it going to the wealthiest Americans. This is on top of the Bush tax cuts. Last week we found out that to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut, not only would we see them gut education investments; gut investments in science and research, gut investments in things like rebuilding our roads and our bridges, but it turns out that Governor Romney's tax plan would also raise taxes on middle-class families by an average of $2,000 each.”

The introduction of Ryan is widely viewed as the firing shot for the last 80 days before the Nov. 6 election in which voters will choose between the Romney-Ryan or the Obama-Biden ticket. Though many African-Americans are disgruntled due to high unemployment rates, President Obama has offset much dissatisfaction with the success of his Affordable Health Care Act, which Romney still vows to repeal despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of it.

The historicity of his first Black presidency will likely also play a role in the Black vote. This is coupled with the fact that activists are aggressively arguing that despite economic woes that remain, the conservative fiscal policies of a Romney-Ryan administration would make life worse for African-Americans.

Obama is running slightly ahead of Romney in most polls. But, Democrats are pulling out all stops, including the announcement that former President Bill Clinton, still extremely popular among Blacks, will introduce President Obama at the Democratic National Convention.

Meanwhile, as Ryan’s introduction has apparently revved up the Romney campaign and his conservative Republican base, President Obama is strategically hammering his successes in contrast with Romney's views:

“And when we saved the auto industry, Mr. Romney said, let’s ‘let Detroit go bankrupt.’ I said let’s bet on American workers. And now the American auto industry has come roaring back. And I believe that manufacturing can come roaring back here in America if we make good choices,” the President said in a private campaign event in Chicago on Sunday, Aug. 12.

Obama continued, “Mr. Romney says, ‘my top priority - the first thing I’ll do is kill Obamacare.’ Well, let me say this. We’ve got 6.5 million young people already who have got health insurance on their parent’s plan because of Obamacare. Seniors are paying lower prescription drug costs now because of Obamacare. Children with preexisting conditions can’t be refused insurance because of Obamacare. And soon, all adults will be able to get health insurance even if they’ve got a preexisting condition, because of Obamacare. We’ve got preventive care for everybody. Insurances can’t drop you. And women are having more control over their health care choices. That was the right thing to do. We’re not going backwards. We’re going forward.”

Worrying about My Black Boy’s Future in America
By Allison R. Brown

News Analysis

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire America’s Wire Writers Group

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - My husband and I fuss and fret over our Black boy.

Like other parents, we worry about a lot. We want him to use his smarts for good. Do we coddle him too much? We want him to be tough and kind, but assertive and gentle, and not mean. His boundaries of independent exploration are radiating outward, concentric circles growing farther and farther from us.

We wring our hands and pretend to look away in acknowledgment that he’s ready to claim his freedom, even as we cast furtive glances his way. We’re beginners in the worry department. He’s only 9 years old.

Our angst certainly isn’t unique among parents of Black boys. What’s unique for us and for other such parents is that when we peek inside the matrix, we panic. Agents out there are bearing down on our son — bloodthirsty for his dignity, his humanity — as if he were the one. We feel outnumbered, but we hunker down for battle.

This is not a paranoid conspiracy rant. Recent data from the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education reveals that black boys are the most likely group of students to be suspended or expelled from school. Black men and boys are more likely than any demographic group to be targeted — hunted, really — and arrested by police.

Meanwhile, the number of Black males taking advanced courses in elementary, middle and high schools and entering college remains disproportionately low. Suicide among black boys is increasing. Media imagery and indifference have locked Black boys in their sights. Prisons have become corporate behemoths with insatiable appetites for Black and brown boys and men.

My husband and I rightfully agonize about our boy. We agonize alongside many who are working to help, including the federal government. I know firsthand the work that the federal government has done and is doing to improve circumstances for Black boys. This includes internal memos and meetings, interagency planning sessions, public conferences, community meetings and listening sessions, and now a White House initiative.

I also know that the federal government is accountable to numerous constituencies that sometimes have conflicting needs. Federal government workers must walk a fine line among varying public interests, which occasionally has meant unintended consequences for black boys.

For instance, in 1994, the federal priority of “zero tolerance” for anyone bringing a weapon to school was signed into law as the Gun-Free Schools Act. That priority reached fever pitch after the Columbine school massacre in 1999 and subsequent copycat slayings and attempts to kill. Federal requirements were overshadowed by local authorities and school administrators who stretched the parameters of “zero tolerance” in schools beyond logical measure to include, for instance, spoons as weapons and Tylenol as an illegal drug, and to suspend and expel students as a result.

“Zero tolerance” has entered the realm of the ridiculous. Many schools have removed teacher and administrator discretion and meted out harsh punishment for school uniform violations, schoolyard fights without injury and various undefined and indefinable categories of offense such as “defiance” and “disrespect.”

Students are suspended, expelled and even arrested for such conduct without investigation or inquiry. There is no evidence to support use of exclusionary discipline practices as tools for prevention, and they have no educational benefit. The brunt of this insanity has fallen on Black boys.

Recent federal priorities have targeted harassment and bullying in school to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students from peer-on-peer discrimination dismissed by, and in many cases encouraged by, school administration. Again, understandable.

The goal is praiseworthy — to protect, finally, a population of students and segment of society that has long been a whipping post for every political party, ignored in political discussions except to condemn. While my husband and I have ardently supported federal protections for LGBT students, practically speaking, we continue to lose sleep over our Black boy.

Another peek inside the matrix tells me that the fever pitch around this latest federal agenda item will mean a significant cost to Black boys when new categories of offense are created, new ways to characterize them as criminals unworthy of participating in mainstream education or society.

It’s one thing for educators to guide student conduct and educate students about how to care for and respect one another, which is a primary focus of the federal move against harassment and bullying. It’s quite another to change mindsets of adults who run the system, too many of whom believe and speak negatively about Black boys and what they cannot accomplish or should not do.

To speak and think affirmatively, to affirm behavior and black boys as people, is to relish the silly jokes they tell within their context, to compliment them on their haircuts or groomed and styled dreadlocks and cornrows, to adopt lingo they create and add it to classroom repertoire, and to invite their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins to participate in the educational experience.

To support Black boys is to celebrate their physical playfulness and the unique ways in which they may support and affirm one another. As with any other children, we must teach Black boys through instruction and by example how to read and write, and how to conduct themselves without erasing their identity and attempting to substitute another. We must hone their instincts, whims and knowledge base so they can be empowered to exhibit all the good in themselves. We must be willing to show them our human frailties so they know how to get up and carry on after falling down. Yes, these things can benefit all children, but many children receive them by default. Black boys do not.

To love Black boys is to refuse to be an agent of forces clamoring for their souls and instead to be their Morpheus, their god of dreams, to help them believe in their power to save all of us and to train them to step into their greatness. Those agents in the matrix are real. If everyone combines forces and uses common sense, we can declare victory for Black boys and eventually all of us.

But without a change in mindset, federal initiatives, no matter their good intentions or the incredible talents that give them life, will continue to leave Black boys by the wayside as collateral damage.

My husband and I will continue to fret, knowing the formidable challenges our son faces. We hope that if he has a son, that boy can be just a boy.

Brown is a former trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section. She is president of Allison Brown Consulting, which works with educators, students, families and other key stakeholders to improve the quality of education, especially for black boys. America’s Wire is an independent, nonprofit news service run by the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education and funded by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Our stories can be republished free of charge by newspapers, websites and other media sources. For more information, visit www.americaswire.org or contact Michael K. Frisby at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..