September 2010

Video: Ifo’s Nerb Doubts German Economic Upswing to `Level Off’

September 24, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Gernot Nerb, chief economist at the Ifo research institute, talks about the latest business confidence survey in Germany. German business confidence unexpectedly rose to the highest level in more than three years in September, suggesting companies can weather weaker demand from abroad as the global economic recovery slows. Nerb speaks from Munich with Andrea Catherwood on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse.”

Read the full article →

Video: Barclays’s Unnikrishnan Sees Higher Volatility in Grain

September 24, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Sudakshina Unnikrishnan, a commodities analyst at Barclays Capital, talks about food-commodity prices and prospects for increased volatility. She speaks with Maryam Nemazee on Bloomberg Television’s “On The Move.”

Read the full article →

Video: Bevan Says HSBC Has `Ample Array Of Quality Management’

September 24, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — James Bevan, chief investment officer at CCLA Investment Management, talks about the leadership shakeup at HSBC Holdings Plc. Bevan, speaking in London with Maryam Nemazee on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown,” also discusses U.S. restrictions on GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s Avandia and its withdrawal in Europe after a review of the diabetes drug’s heart risks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Juckes Says Euro May Rally Further After Spanish Budget

September 24, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Kit Juckes, head of foreign-exchange research at Societe Generale SA, talks about the announcement of Spain’s new budget and the outlook for the euro. He speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Video: Silva Says Lack of HSBC Succession Plan `Great Surprise’

September 24, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Ralph Silva of Silva Research Network talks about the outlook for regulatory changes in the U.K. banking industry and the leadership shakeup at HSBC Holdings Plc. HSBC Chairman Stephen Green’s Sept. 7 decision to resign and become trade minister was followed this week by the departure of Chief Executive Officer Michael Geoghegan. Silva speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

CoStar’s People of Note (Sept. 19-25)

September 23, 2010

This week’s People of Note includes the following markets: East Bay, Houston, Indianapolis, Philadelphia and San Francisco. EAST BAY, SAN FRANCISCO Cassidy Turley Names New Head of S.F. Office Cassidy Turley BT Commercial appointed Greg Moss as…

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Jobs Bill Could Harm Legitimate Small Businesses

September 23, 2010

This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives passed “jobs legislation” that will do little to create jobs or stimulate the nation’s economy. The American Small Business League (ASBL) maintains H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act, contains a loophole that may hurt small businesses by allowing large businesses to hijack small business programs without fear of prosecution. Section 1341 states that the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA), “shall promulgate regulations to provide adequate protections to individuals and business concerns from liability under this subsection in cases of unintentional errors, technical malfunctions, and other similar situations.” ( http://finance.senate.gov/legislation/details/?id=da799068-5056-a032-5229-92cebbd2b7a0 ) The ASBL believes that this language may create a loophole under which large prime contractors could be protected from prosecution for felony contracting fraud under the guise of, “unintentional errors, technical malfunctions, and other similar situations.” Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have uncovered billions of dollars in federal small business contracts actually flowing into the hands of corporate giants. Firms included in the Obama Administration’s small business data include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in South Korea, and Italian firm Finmeccanica SpA. ( http://www.asbl.com/documents/20090825TopSmallBusinessContractors2008.pdf ) In February of 2008, President Obama promised to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants. This bill creates a colossal loophole that will make it easier for large firms to avoid prosecution for contracting fraud. In my opinion, the net effect of this bill will be harmful to job growth. The potential for harm greatly outweighs any potential for benefit. In addition to concerns about Section 1341, the ASBL does not believe H.R. 5297′s lending provisions or tax cuts are likely to create new jobs. Research by the Economic Policy Institute and Princeton University’s Center for Economic Policy Studies indicates that tax cuts do not create jobs. Additionally, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) and the Congressional Oversight Panel have separately concluded that small businesses are in desperate need of demand as opposed to loans. The ASBL maintains that the most effective way to create jobs and stimulate the economy is to direct federal infrastructure spending to small businesses. This could be done by adopting H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act, which would stop the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Jobs Bill May Be Harmful For America’s 27 Million Small Businesses

September 23, 2010

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed “jobs legislation” that could be devastating for the nation’s small businesses. H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act contains a loophole that may allow large businesses to fraudulently masquerade as small businesses without fear of prosecution. I strongly believe that the net effect of this bill will be harmful to job growth, and the potential for harm greatly outweighs any potential for benefit. The American Small Business League (ASBL) and I are concerned about the following: 1. The tax provisions of H.R. 5297 are not likely to create jobs. Research by the Economic Policy Institute , and Princeton University’s Center for Economic Policy Studies indicates that tax cuts do not effectively create jobs or stimulate the economy. The tax cuts are so narrowly focused that they are unlikely to provide a significant benefit to most small businesses. A more effective way would be to give any firm with less than 100 employees a 5 percent cut in their federal taxes. 2. The lending provisions of H.R. 5297 are not likely to create jobs. Recently, the Congressional Oversight Panel , and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) released highly critical reports regarding the Obama Administration’s efforts to further bolster community bank lending to small businesses. Both reports indicated that small businesses across the country are in need of business opportunities and increased demand for their products and services as opposed to increased access to capital. 3. Language in H.R 5297 gives the SBA the ability to change size standards for small businesses. This language will almost certainly lead to an increase in the volume of contracts that are awarded to large businesses, and a decrease in the volume of federal contracts awarded to small businesses. New York venture capitalist Karen Mills is almost certain to change size standards in such a way that it will divert federal small business contracts to firms owned and controlled by some of the nation’s wealthiest venture capitalists. 4. H.R. 5297 contains an exemption from capital gains tax on investment in small businesses. This language was unquestionably a political payback to the venture capitalists that backed President Obama’s run for the White House. 5. The bill fails to stop the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants. The most straight forward, cost effective, efficient, and deficit neutral way to create jobs and stimulate the national economy is to stop the diversion of more than $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts to corporate giants and redirect those funds to small businesses. Anyone that knows anything about me, knows that I am a small business advocate through-and-through. I hate this bill, and I think it is going to hurt small businesses. I know that the Small Business Administration (SBA) is going to abuse the language in this bill to divert government small business contracts to large corporations and firms owned by venture capitalists. I am 100 percent sure that it is going to hurt small businesses.

Read the full article →

Video: Clinton Says Education of Women Boosts Economic Growth: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Former President Bill Clinton talks about the Clinton Global Initiative’s efforts to improve access to education, jobs and the political process for women and girls around the world. Clinton speaks in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” Bloomberg’s Matt Miller also speaks. (This report is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Arnold Recommends Nike Stock on `Superior Growth’: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Matt Arnold, an analyst at Edward Jones & Co., talks about Nike Inc.’s financial results and outlook. Nike, the world’s largest maker of athletic shoes, reported first-quarter profit that surpassed some analysts’ estimates as sales in North American continued to rebound on a growing apparel business. The rebound in sales from North America added to growth in China and emerging markets, where Chief Executive Officer Mark Parker is counting on most of the company’s growth over the next five years. Arnold talks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Comte Sees Further M&A in Technology, Health, Energy: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Jean-Francois Comte, lead portfolio manager at Lutetia Capital, talks about the outlook for mergers and acquisitions. Comte also discusses fund strategy. He talks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Clinton Bemoans Scant Hedge-Fund Support for Initiative: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Former President Bill Clinton talks about the role of women in business and government, financial regulation, U.S.-China relations and involvement by hedge funds in philanthropy. Clinton speaks in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” Bloomberg’s Matt Miller also speaks. (This report is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Malpass Says U.S. Duties on China Imports Will Hurt Both: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — David Malpass, president and founder of Encima Global, talks about the prospects for the U.S. Senate to pass legislation which allows manufacturers to increase duties on imports from China to compensate for the effects of a weak yuan. President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao pledged their countries to closer cooperation on economic issues to foster the global recovery. In remarks to reporters before a meeting at the United Nations in New York, the two leaders didn’t directly address the friction points between China and the U.S., including China’s currency valuation and trade. Malpass talks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Textainer’s Maccarone Says Container Demand Very Strong: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — John Maccarone, president and chief executive officer of Textainer Group Holdings Ltd., talks about the outlook for the container industry. Maccarone talks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Babacan Says Turkey’s Economy May Grow 5-8% This Year: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan talks about the outlook for the country’s economy. Babacan also discusses Turkey’s banks, fiscal policies and possible membership in the European Union. He talks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Stone Says Bank Chiefs Inspired `Money Never Sleeps’: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Oliver Stone talks about his new film “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” and the financial industry executives that inspired the characters in his movie. Stone talks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Wall Street: Hollywood Returns.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: BrasilAgro’s Piza Sees South America Exporting Water: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Julio Piza, chief executive officer BrasilAgro, Maurice Taylor, CEO of Titan International Inc., Larry De Maria, an analyst at Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc., Andrey Sizov, managing director at SovEcon, and Gabriel Blasi, CEO of Cresud SACIFYA, talk about emerging markets and agricultural commodities. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Thomas Hoenig, Federal Reserve Governor, Is Fed Up

September 23, 2010

Thomas M. Hoenig, dressed in a gray suit, white shirt with French cuffs, and baby-blue tie, faces an edgy crowd of 150 people in a hotel meeting room in suburban Lenexa, Kan. A large “Kansas City Tea Party” banner covers a table at the door. Attendees wear anti-tax stickers on their lapels. This is not an after-dinner speech for which most central bankers would volunteer. … Hoenig smiles at his audience and begins: “This is a support-the-Fed rally, right?” … And, by the way, if it were up to him (though it’s not, really) he would break up the biggest Wall Street banks.

Read the full article →

Robert E. Scott: Tide Turning on China Currency: Opponents Recycling Tired Arguments

September 23, 2010

Hearings held last week by the House Ways and Means and Senate Banking Committees marked a turning point in Congressional debate on China’s currency manipulation policies. There was widespread support for getting tough with China from members of both houses, and only token opposition from a few business witnesses. Fred Bergsten, head of the Peterson Institute for International Economics , came out in favor of a limited form of the Ryan-Murphy currency bill (HR 2378), which would allow the Commerce Department to treat currency manipulation as a subsidy in some countervailing duty investigations. He also called on the Treasury to name China a currency manipulator, and for the United States to mobilize allies in the G-20 to file a complaint against China at the WTO, requesting authority to impose restrictions on Chinese imports unless its currency rises significantly. Yesterday, Ways and Means Committee Chair Sandy Levin announced that the committee will meet on Friday, September 23 to mark up a version of the Ryan-Murphy currency legislation. Levin noted that he had received a letter signed by 101 House members, including 30 Republicans, urging the Committee to consider and pass the Ryan-Murphy bill. Meanwhile, opponents of getting tough with China have been reduced to recycling widely discredited claims. In a recent posting on his blog, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (who also helped found EPI and is currently a board member), claimed China might retaliate by selling off some of their $843 billion in Treasury bill holdings. We should be so lucky: the dollar would fall, making U.S. exports more competitive. And it would have no impact on U.S. interest rates (contrary to Reich’s assertions). As Paul Krugman has pointed out , “this fear is completely misplaced: in a world awash in excess savings, we don’t need China’s money – especially because the Federal Reserve could and should buy up any bonds the Chinese sell.” Some U.S. businesses could suffer in the unlikely event that the U.S. and China do enter into a trade war. Companies like Boeing that sell lots of aircraft to China and foreign investors in that country could be penalized. However, China’s imports from the United States exceed U.S. exports to China by more than four-to-one. Exports make up approximately one third of China’s GDP, while U.S. exports to China are less than 0.7% of U.S. GDP. Countries like China with large trade surpluses always have more to lose in a trade conflict. This also illustrates why it’s important to persuade other major governments such as the European Union (E.U.), Brazil and India to join us in threatening China with sanctions for its illegal currency manipulation. If the U.S. and E.U. both impose tariffs on Chinese imports, China would be unable to play Boeing off against Airbus. Reich also claims (as do many others) that revaluation would not create jobs in the U.S. because other lower wage countries would just take their place, and because other countries would rush in to compete in China and other markets. But this claim ignores many studies showing that if the dollar falls, relative to the yuan and other currencies, the U.S. trade balance will ultimately improve. The most recent study, by Bill Cline of the Peterson Institute, showed that for every 1 percentage point rise in China’s real effective exchange rate, its global current account surplus (the broadest measure of its trade balance) will fall by $17 to $25 billion. The corresponding improvement in the U.S. current account would be $2.2 to $6.3 billion. Thus, a 25% appreciation in the yuan would reduce China’s current account surplus by $425 to $580 billion, and reduce the U.S. trade deficit by $55 to $157.5 billion. Cline’s conservative estimates imply that only one-eighth to one-quarter of any reduction in China’s current account would be reflected as an improvement in the U.S. trade balance. Nonetheless his study shows the U.S. trade balance would improve significantly if Chinese currency manipulation were reduced or eliminated. Reich’s claim about substitutes from other low wage countries primarily relates to the effect of currency manipulation on U.S. imports. But currency manipulation also acts like a tax on U.S. exports. This reduces U.S. export to China and every country around the world where we compete with Chinese exports. According to data from the Federal Reserve China is our most important competitor in world export markets, more important even than the EU or Japan. Eliminating currency manipulation will stimulate U.S. exports to China and the rest of the world, creating new jobs in the United States, especially in manufacturing, which produces most traded goods. It is also important to remember that China is not the only country that manipulates its currency–other countries also need to revalue. Cline and Williamson (2010) have also identified Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia as currency manipulators, and other countries such as Japan, Sweden and Switzerland need to revalue as well. A global currency realignment along these lines would result in further improvements in the U.S. trade balance. Reich also argues that China’s export policy doubles as a social policy that is needed to absorb the millions of workers flooding into the cities from the countryside, and that China risks riots and other upheaval if they don’t continue to manipulate their currency. This claim ignores the fact that revaluation would be good for China’s workers in several ways. It would raise real wages, allowing them to purchase more imports and enjoy the fruits of their labors. It would put downward pressure on Chinese inflation. It would also force China to invest more in infrastructure and the social safety net. This would create the domestically-oriented growth needed to sustain China’s development while providing its citizens with the public and social services (e.g., housing, transportation, safe water and waste disposal) that they need and deserve. It will also reduce pollution and China’s growing demand for energy and other materials needed to fuel its export engines. Finally, Reich argues that the U.S. needs twenty million jobs and ending currency manipulation by China and other countries alone will not solve that problem. Most analysts agree that eliminating Chinese currency manipulation alone will generate between 300,000 and 1 million U.S. jobs. However, there’s no reason to leave those jobs on the table while we search for bigger answers to the unemployment problem. In fact, eliminating the overall U.S. trade deficit could provide the foundation for rebuilding manufacturing and the U.S. economy and to generating massive employment growth. Eliminating the overall U.S. trade deficit, including most or all of our oil imports, could support three to six million new jobs , or more. But it won’t be cheap, and it will not happen overnight. We need massive new investments in clean energy technologies, infrastructure and R&D, to develop new clean energy industries and to rebuild U.S. infrastructure and manufacturing industries. We also need new tools for fighting unfair trade policies such as China’s illegal subsidies to its steel, glass, paper and clean energy industries. Taken as a whole, these strategies could eliminate U.S. trade deficits and generate most of the jobs needed to get unemployment down to five percent. But it won’t be cheap, or easy. Attacks from the right Proposals to punish China for currency manipulation have also been attacked from the right, most recently by Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute . Perry recently summarized a blog posting by Scott Grannis, former chief economist for a private investment management firm in California, and an acolyte of Arthur Laffer and other supply siders. Grannis begins by claiming that the yuan is not too weak because it has appreciated 23 percent since 1994, and because inflation has been low in China for some time. Neither of these statements says anything about the appropriate level of the yuan or renminbi (RMB–the official name of China’s currency). China maintains closed capital markets and does not allow its citizens to invest abroad. It maintains complete control of the domestic money supply, which is the primary determinate of domestic inflation. Regardless of what has happened to the value of the nominal value of the RMB since 1994, the fact is that China is egregiously violating every accepted standard of currency manipulation ( Scott and Bivens, 2006 ). It has maintained a large, bilateral trade surplus with the United States for more than a decade, both in dollar terms and as a share of its GDP. China has maintained large global current account surpluses (the broadest measure of all trade in goods, service and income flows). And it has massively intervened in currency markets. China has purchased $1 billion or more per day in foreign exchange reserves for many years. This is prima facie evidence of currency manipulation. They have acquired $2.5 trillion dollars in reserves , equal to 22 months of import purchases, and far in excess of ratios held by other countries named by the United States as currency manipulators in the past (Taiwan, South Korea, and China itself on two occasions in the early 1990s). Next, Grannis asks “if the yuan were chronically ‘too weak,’ what’s the problem anyway? …some manufacturers might go out of business but all consumers would benefit.” Perry goes on to claim that if China is forced to appreciate the yuan only a small group of American producers will benefit, but it will harm “all consumers and many businesses.” This is sadly confused logic. Unfair trade with China (and other countries) affects the United States in at least three ways–all must be considered to determine whether currency policy will help or hurt most or all Americans. First, it is critical to remember that consumers are workers, too, for the most part. If imports are cheaper but workers have less to spend because imports and offshoring have depressed their wages, then the ultimate impact of imports on consumers can be negative. And trade with low wage countries like China does affect wages. This is a well known result in trade theory, but one that rarely makes its way into introductory economics textbooks. Josh Bivens has shown that the rise of import competition from low-wage countries has depressed the wages of manufacturing production workers, and all other workers with similar skills by approximately $1,400 per year for the typical median wage earner. Most manufacturing production workers do not have college degrees, and the group of comparable workers in the economy is composed of all non-college educated production and non-supervisory workers. There are about 100 million such workers and they make up about 70% of the labor force. As shown in the Figure below, the real wages of production workers fell significantly between 1973 and 2009. The trend line in the figure shows the tendency of real wages to decline in this period. (Note: The uptick in production worker wages in 2009 was an anomaly due to the sharp fall in energy prices during the recession. Real Wages are falling in 2010 on a monthly basis, and will likely fall more in the future as long as unemployment remains well in excess of five percent. ) If import prices were falling fast enough to provide a net benefit to production workers, then their real wages would have increased in the past three decades. In fact, they have fallen, as shown in the figure. The bottom line is that globalization and especially unfair trade with China have eliminated millions of U.S. jobs, especially in the past decade, and have contributed to the prolonged decline in the real wages of working Americans. Ending currency manipulation will reduce the downward pressure of globalization on U.S. wages. The real beneficiaries of cheap goods from China are workers with college degrees, and especially professionals, managers, executives and stockholders. Those in the top 1 percent of all wage earners, who derive most of their incomes from profits, have benefited most of all from globalization. Between 1979 and 2007, before the start of the recession, this group captured 38.7 % of all the income growth in this period ( Mishel 2010 ). Nearly two-thirds (63.7%) of all income gains went to the top 10%, and an additional 11.5% went to the next 10% of all households. Thus, the bottom 80% of the labor force captured only 26.3% of all the gains in income over this three-decade period. The most important effect of globalization, and especially unfair competition with China, has been to redistribute income from working families to those at the very top of the income distribution. It was a battle between Main Street and Wall Street, and multinational corporations captured the lion’s share of the spoils in this fight. The most direct effect of unfair trade is that it causes trade deficits to rise. A new EPI report shows that rising trade deficits with China will cost one-half million U.S. jobs in 2010 alone. Since China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the United States has lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs and more than 26,000 (net) manufacturing plants. China is responsible for at least 2.4 million of those lost jobs. These are concentrated loses, but the costs of unfair trade do not end there. The Ryan-Murphy currency legislation being considered by Congress is a first step in the fight against currency manipulation. If passed, it would send an important message to China and the administration that Congress will no longer tolerate illegal currency manipulation. However, the legislation would apply to only a small share of total U.S.-China trade–only products subject to countervailing duties might be penalized ( fewer than 60 products from China are now subject to antidumping or countervailing duties ). It would not necessarily impose duties in particular specific cases–it would merely authorize the Commerce Department to treat currency manipulation as an illegal export subsidy in countervailing duty Investigations. There is growing support for much more aggressive action against Chinese currency manipulation, such as a 25% across the board tariff. If the Ryan-Murphy bill is passed and China does not get the message, then it will soon be time to consider much broader restrictions on Chinese imports. EPI is a non-profit think tank that receives the majority of its funding from foundation grants but also receives support from U.S. labor unions and industrial associations.

Read the full article →

10 Worst Celebrity Business Owners

September 23, 2010

Maybe it’s the inflated ego or the itch to do something with those millions of dollars just laying around, but some celebrities have a knack for making some pretty bad business decisions. Somehow, they convince themselves that they can branch out beyond their talents — only to discover that their business savvy isn’t anywhere near their acting or athletic abilities.

Read the full article →

Katy Welter: Put Your Money With a Boring Bank

September 23, 2010

Banking is not meant to be exciting. Interest rates, financial statements, title work, and, ugh, regulations won’t raise your pulse. When my dad started working for Indiana National Bank in the early 1970′s, as he tells it, it was painfully boring. In those days, banks were so highly regulated that bankers were administrators of established practices, not financial innovators. Banks weren’t allowed to branch outside of their counties, offer creative products, or, frankly, compete with one another. Credit scores didn’t dictate interest rates and securitized subprime mortgages were but a gleam in Wall Street’s eye. Banks — in those days, much more similar to one another in size — were stable employers, offering moderate pay, rich insurance benefits, and a conservative corporate culture emphasizing loyalty. The bank I grew up with almost never had a lay-off, but it also awarded only modest bonuses, if at all. This was a small bank in the heart of the steel industry, where a fair number of the bank’s employees sought stable pay and health and retire benefits in order to supplement or safety net their spouse’s increasingly unsteady work. It was good work, if not terribly exciting. Even the large banks were once conservative. In the latest journalistic stab at Wall Street, the New York Magazine article, ” The Wail of the 1% ,” reveals, among other things, the transformation of the corporate banking industry. What once was seen as a well-paid, respectable career choice for well-educated individuals — on par with practicing medicine or law — Wall Street banking devolved into a “casino culture operating in the financial-services industry.” This new high-risk, cortisol-infused industry was spurred by the lure of massive profits, made possible by deregulation of the 1990′s. Meanwhile, many community banks remained, well, boring. Walk into a community bank and ask some employee, anyone at all, why he got into banking. You can bet he won’t mention anything about retiring at 40. And if you ask why he stays — you can expect some kind of response about the security, decent benefits, and good people. Community banking is a straightforward business populated by risk-averse people. This is not to say that small banks always toe the line. Small bank loan officers, many of whom worked at least partially on commission, made loans straining borrower credibility, and the booming real estate market swept up their tracks. But community bankers — sensitive to software and compliance costs, but also loyal to old habits — are typically slow to jump on board with new, often risky, trends. My dad recalls without fondness when home equity loans and second mortgages became more popular. More and more banks had begun to offer these products, and customers began to insist upon them, eager to use home equity to purchase cars, pay their kids’ tuition, and deduct the interest from their taxes. But extending the life of a loan tempts life’s uncertainties — recession, illness, and job loss — and the practice can be a bad bet for both parties. Particularly bad for the borrower: if you’ve never looked at an amortization schedule, the bank takes in interest more than 50% of your monthly payment for the first half of the loan term, making it very difficult to earn equity in even a stable real estate market. And each time you increase your debt, that equity is further from reach. As Paul Krugman pointed out last April, we’ve been here before. Banking’s original heyday preceded the Great Depression, fueling massive personal debt and huge profits for the financial sector (yes, our great-grandparents liked their version of the cash-out refi, too). The federal government then took away the bankers’ toys and made banking boring–for the first time. This period of increased regulation didn’t see the downfall of the American economy; rather, it saw an economy growing steadily with far less dependence upon Wall Street. The stock market is up these days, even if employment isn’t, and it’s easy to forget that, just two years ago, the world was gripped by the fear of America’s total economic collapse. Now that was exciting. You don’t have to depend upon — or even want — Congress to take the fun out of banking again. You can promote a sane, stable, and yet still profitable economy, by moving your money to a local bank. Let the big banks spin the casino wheel with someone else’s chips.

Read the full article →

Video: Sargen Sees `Muddle-Through Scenario’ in U.S. Markets: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Nicholas Sargen, chief investment officer at Fort Washington Investment Advisors, and Larry Shover of Efficient Capital Management talk about the outlook for the U.S. and Chinese economies, market sentiment and investment strategy. Sargen and Shover speak with Matt Miller, Carol Massar, Dominic Chu and Adam Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Wendy N. Powell: An Unscientific, but Remarkable Explanation of the Wage Gender Gap

September 23, 2010

Women in the workplace from Baby Boomers to Generation Y, a think tank of respected opinions, a five-state search for truth When we hear the wage gap — 77 cents to the dollar — we all gasp, suck in the air, and respond with some quick opinions. We all have a unique take on the salary issue from “Men just want to keep women down,” to the common response, “It’s just the way it is.” Many of us don’t know how this figure was derived. This 77.9 cent/dollar figure was calculated by the U.S. Census using the American Community Survey Report from 2008. This data considers all employees working 36 hours per week or more year-round. It is raw data. It’s not adjusted for working parents who take time off for school breaks, family obligations, etc. It doesn’t include statistics about how many hours a week in overtime the person works or what type of profession, hard or soft sciences. It leaves a lot to individual interpretation. Twenty years ago, I thought being in the human resources field meant I could explain the gap. In 1990, it was 71.6 cents/dollar , not much different from where we are today. Of course, I evaluated salaries based upon a sum of education and experience related to the job. Because many women did not possess the breadth of experience of their male counterparts at that time, the wage disparity made sense. Yes, I thought, it will take many years to remedy the gap but it will correct itself. But now I know there is much more to this issue than the raw data at hand. Being on the quest for the answer, I looked to my smart, experienced family, colleagues, and friends to get answers. My informal “think tank” included women of all generations and a couple of wise men. My question to them was simply, “Why does this salary gap exist?” One incredibly talented young professional, Kelly, had an intuitive response that spans the generations. Our current economic strife creates an additional hurdle for those of us trying to secure well-paying jobs. “It seems that women in the workforce are in a catch 22. We are not happy with the salaries we receive, however we are not in a position to turn them down.” This may fuel the ”settling” and ”accepting” epidemic plaguing women’s careers; we can’t shop for the highest bidder. Are women hired at lesser salaries because employers can get away with it in this economy? “I will accept whatever they offer me to get my foot in the door.” Some in my think tank thought that if a woman stops her career to raise children, attend to an aging parent, and other such events, her return to the active workforce has a negative effect on her salary. It’s always been that way, right? Men are the providers, and women are the nurturers. When a need arises, you can count on the women of the family to “do the right thing” and take care of the problem. In fact, women experience absences covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act at the rate of 16 percent higher than men . And of course, since the women make less money in many cases, they will be the ones to take the time off so the family doesn’t take as much of a “hit” in wages. “You don’t need a raise; you have a husband.” Do women want to work the demanding and long working hours to get ahead? Many women tend to gravitate to the “softer” professions, social work, nursing, teaching, human resources where earning potential is not as substantial as litigators or surgeons. I recall one talented administrative assistant who would be next in line for a promotion. When I suggested that she take a couple of accounting classes to get ready for the next level, she said, “I don’t want to. I am where I want to be and don’t pressure me about that promotion.” She did not possess the drive to get ahead in the workplace; her priorities were different. “I can’t give you the promotion because you’re too good at what you do.” What about appearance? Oh yes, beauty matters for women at work. A polished and attractive woman who is not overweight yields a job offer with a better salary. One study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in 2007 revealed that attractive people earn five percent more and obese women earn 17 percent less than their slimmer colleagues. Women of the workplace, I conclude that we become resolved to our own opinions and choices. Of course, there is a dose of traditional values, some discriminatory practices, some personal preferences, our natural preponderance to care giving and nurturing. They all exist in the business world. They just don’t apply to all of us, at the same time, and in the same way. I see young girls wearing glittery shirts that say, “Girl Power” and, “I’m a princess, just get used to it,” and I’m hopeful that the next generation of young women will speak their piece. What do you do if you have a discrimination claim concerning your salary? Visit: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm . You will find a process to file a claim and possible remedies including mediation. Keep your eye on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for salary trends. The Department of Labor publishes the median usual weekly earnings by occupation and sex. Special thanks: Dr. Gail Ali, Florida; Kelly Jansen, Illinois; Rachel Kapur, New York; Bridget O’Connor, Florida; Marsha Grimm, Florida; Judie Steele, Michigan; Suzanne Mueller, Michigan; Lynne LeFebvre, Michigan; Suzanne Kaplan, Michigan; Sherry Pedigo, Florida; Lora Bruder, Michigan; Tammy Grimm, Florida; Diane Savko, Pennsylvania; Terry Powell, Florida; Ryan Powell, Florida; Barry Grimm, Florida; George Savko, Pennsylvania

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Why Some Corporate Interests Oppose China Currency Bill

September 23, 2010

As President Obama meets with Chinese Premier Wen, the House Ways and Means Committee announces it will vote tomorrow on a bill to take action if China does not bring its currency to market rates. This sends a loud and clear signal to China that action is coming, one way or another, and they are going to have to make adjustments. This has every appearance of a smart, coordinated strategy between the administration and the leadership of the Congress. WaPo: Bill combating China currency to advance , House leaders are moving forward with legislation to combat China’s currency policies, adding to pressure from the Obama administration and giving lawmakers an election-year chance to vote on a sensitive trade matter. The House Ways and Means Committee plans to vote Friday on a bill that would expand the Commerce Department’s power to impose duties on Chinese imports in response to that country’s currency being undervalued on world markets. But there is opposition from inside our own country. Some business groups oppose the bill, arguing that it could backfire if it raises trade tensions with China and prompts the Chinese government to use the many tools at its disposal to interfere with American companies. China is a major destination for U.S. exports – about $70 billion a year – although the United States runs a trade deficit of about $200 billion a year with that country. Duties on Chinese imports might also raise prices for U.S. consumers. There are competing interests at work. Robert Reich wrote about this a week ago in The Two Categories of American Corporation — And Their Politics and Harold Meyerson picks up the theme today in The real un-Americans . Reich points out that some giant companies sell to Americans, and therefore want us strong and prosperous, and want policies that stimulate our economy, provide jobs with good pay and generally boost the middle class. Others, not so much. The first group includes national telecoms like Verizon and AT&T that need a prosperous America because most of their sales are here. Same with finance companies like Bank of America and Travelers Insurance whose business strategy has been built around U.S. consumers. Ditto certain giant chains like Home Depot. Naturally, all these companies were especially hard hit by the Great Depression and its devastating impact on American consumers. The second group includes companies like Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and McDonalds, that get substantial revenues from their overseas operations. Increasingly this means China, India, and Brazil. Ford and GM are still largely dependent on US sales but becoming less so. … What does this mean for Main Street? Reich says, Large American corporations are going global as fast as they can. That’s good for their shareholders. But in a Washington ever more susceptible to their money and influence, that’s not necessarily good for most Americans. Meyerson picks up on this today , Consider the debate in Congress about whether to impose tariffs on Chinese imports if China continues to depress the value of its currency. … Unions and some domestic manufacturers support the bill. But a large number of American businesses, in a campaign coordinated by the U.S.-China Business Council, oppose it. … The question here is whether the 220 corporations that belong to the council … are already so deeply invested in China as manufacturers, marketers or retailers that buy goods there to sell them here that their interests are more closely aligned with China’s than with America’s . [emphasis added] It is important to understand that some of the country’s most powerful entrenched, wealthy interests no longer depend on the success of America’s economy and the prosperity of our people. They have a lot of power and money, and use it to influence our country’s politics to increase their own wealth and power. But their interests are not our interests. They want low taxes and don’t care whether we have good jobs, good schools, modern infrastructure and an economy that works for We, the People. They just don’t care about that. And they are willing to say and spend what it takes to set us against each other, poison our politics, and anything else they need to do to get us to act in their interests not ours. “Globalization” and “free trade’ policies work for them , because they enable them to evade the protections that our democracy gives us. But allowing them to just move factories and jobs out of the country and then bring the goods back here with no penalty does not work for the rest of us. Keep this in mind when you hear the different arguments over taxes, infrastructure, education and government in general. This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Video: Stocks Fall as S&P 500 Posts Longest Decline in a Month: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Courtney Donohoe reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks fell, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to its longest drop in a month, as a deteriorating profit outlook for banks and an increase in jobless claims overshadowed a rally in technology shares. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Stocks Fall as S&P 500 Posts Longest Decline in a Month: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Courtney Donohoe reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks fell, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to its longest drop in a month, as a deteriorating profit outlook for banks and an increase in jobless claims overshadowed a rally in technology shares. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Small Business Bill To Be Sent By Congress To Obama’s Desk

September 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Congress on Thursday sent President Barack Obama a long-delayed bill to help struggling small businesses with easier credit and other incentives to expand and hire new workers. The $40 billion-plus bill is the last vestige of the heralded jobs agenda that Obama and Democrats promoted early this year. They ended up delivering only a fraction of what they promised after emboldened Senate Republicans blocked most of the agenda with filibusters. The Senate passed the measure last week. The 237-187 House vote Thursday that sent the bill to the president split along party lines as Democrats praised the measure for creating a $30 billion federal fund to help smaller banks issue loans to small businesses and for cutting taxes by $12 billion over the coming decade. “It combines … tax relief with increased access to critical financing so that our nation’s small businesses can move forward on new or delayed expansion plans,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.”Small-business growth means job creation.” Republicans, poised for big gains in midterm elections just six weeks away, said the new loan fund is just a smaller version of the unpopular 2008 bailout of the financial system. “What we have today before us is junior TARP,” said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. While community bankers enthusiastically support the measure, it’s getting only tepid support from GOP-leaning small-business groups, which are more focused on expiring tax cuts. “There’s some OK stuff in it, but the impact’s going to be minimal,” said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. The vote gives Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill a much-needed, but minor, victory as midterm elections approach. “The small business jobs bill passed today will help provide loans and cut taxes for millions of small business owners,” Obama said in a statement. “After months of partisan obstruction and needless delay, I’m grateful that Democrats and a few Republicans came together to support this commonsense plan to put Americans back to work.” Earlier this year, Democrats had ambitious designs to boost “green jobs,” provide new funding for roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects, pay for a summer jobs program for disadvantaged young people and renew health insurance subsidies for the jobless. What was actually enacted was far smaller: more unemployment checks for the jobless; relief from payroll taxes for companies that hire new workers; and billions of dollars in aid for states and local schools. The new loan fund would be available to community banks to encourage lending to small businesses. Supporters say banks should be able to use the fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans. Republicans said that banks have plenty of money to lend but that loan demand is way down. “It won’t do any good. Business doesn’t need credit – business needs customers,” said Jade West, a lobbyist for the GOP-leaning National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. “If they don’t have a customer base because demand is down, they’re not going to borrow because there is nothing for them to borrow for.” Democrats counter that it’s undeniable that small businesses are confronted with a credit crunch that worsened dramatically after the financial crisis two years ago. “More capital for business means they can expand and create new jobs,” said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa. “Helping businesses grow is essential to our economic recovery and getting people back to work.” The legislation would also aid lending by lowering Small Business Administration loan program fees and raising loan guarantee and lending limits. Loan caps under the Small Business Administration’s chief lending program would be significantly raised. The small business tax cuts in the bill include breaks for restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones. Long-term investors in some small business startups would be exempt from paying capital gains taxes. But much of the tax relief would actually go to larger businesses for write-offs of facilities and equipment such as computers, trucks and machinery. The measure also would allow small business owners to deduct the costs of health insurance for themselves and their families from self-employment taxes, but only for the 2010 tax year. And, for the first time, tens of thousands of businesses who pay the alternative minimum tax will be eligible to claim the research and development tax credit and other write-offs such as a credit for hiring the disadvantaged. “It’s going to mean another $100,000 or $200,000 to some of our key small and medium-sized businesses,” said Dean Zerbe of alliantgroup, a tax consulting firm.

Read the full article →

Small Business Bill To Be Sent By Congress To Obama’s Desk

September 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Congress on Thursday sent President Barack Obama a long-delayed bill to help struggling small businesses with easier credit and other incentives to expand and hire new workers. The $40 billion-plus bill is the last vestige of the heralded jobs agenda that Obama and Democrats promoted early this year. They ended up delivering only a fraction of what they promised after emboldened Senate Republicans blocked most of the agenda with filibusters. The Senate passed the measure last week. The 237-187 House vote Thursday that sent the bill to the president split along party lines as Democrats praised the measure for creating a $30 billion federal fund to help smaller banks issue loans to small businesses and for cutting taxes by $12 billion over the coming decade. “It combines … tax relief with increased access to critical financing so that our nation’s small businesses can move forward on new or delayed expansion plans,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.”Small-business growth means job creation.” Republicans, poised for big gains in midterm elections just six weeks away, said the new loan fund is just a smaller version of the unpopular 2008 bailout of the financial system. “What we have today before us is junior TARP,” said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. While community bankers enthusiastically support the measure, it’s getting only tepid support from GOP-leaning small-business groups, which are more focused on expiring tax cuts. “There’s some OK stuff in it, but the impact’s going to be minimal,” said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. The vote gives Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill a much-needed, but minor, victory as midterm elections approach. “The small business jobs bill passed today will help provide loans and cut taxes for millions of small business owners,” Obama said in a statement. “After months of partisan obstruction and needless delay, I’m grateful that Democrats and a few Republicans came together to support this commonsense plan to put Americans back to work.” Earlier this year, Democrats had ambitious designs to boost “green jobs,” provide new funding for roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects, pay for a summer jobs program for disadvantaged young people and renew health insurance subsidies for the jobless. What was actually enacted was far smaller: more unemployment checks for the jobless; relief from payroll taxes for companies that hire new workers; and billions of dollars in aid for states and local schools. The new loan fund would be available to community banks to encourage lending to small businesses. Supporters say banks should be able to use the fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans. Republicans said that banks have plenty of money to lend but that loan demand is way down. “It won’t do any good. Business doesn’t need credit – business needs customers,” said Jade West, a lobbyist for the GOP-leaning National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. “If they don’t have a customer base because demand is down, they’re not going to borrow because there is nothing for them to borrow for.” Democrats counter that it’s undeniable that small businesses are confronted with a credit crunch that worsened dramatically after the financial crisis two years ago. “More capital for business means they can expand and create new jobs,” said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa. “Helping businesses grow is essential to our economic recovery and getting people back to work.” The legislation would also aid lending by lowering Small Business Administration loan program fees and raising loan guarantee and lending limits. Loan caps under the Small Business Administration’s chief lending program would be significantly raised. The small business tax cuts in the bill include breaks for restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones. Long-term investors in some small business startups would be exempt from paying capital gains taxes. But much of the tax relief would actually go to larger businesses for write-offs of facilities and equipment such as computers, trucks and machinery. The measure also would allow small business owners to deduct the costs of health insurance for themselves and their families from self-employment taxes, but only for the 2010 tax year. And, for the first time, tens of thousands of businesses who pay the alternative minimum tax will be eligible to claim the research and development tax credit and other write-offs such as a credit for hiring the disadvantaged. “It’s going to mean another $100,000 or $200,000 to some of our key small and medium-sized businesses,” said Dean Zerbe of alliantgroup, a tax consulting firm.

Read the full article →

Small Business Bill To Be Sent By Congress To Obama’s Desk

September 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Congress on Thursday sent President Barack Obama a long-delayed bill to help struggling small businesses with easier credit and other incentives to expand and hire new workers. The $40 billion-plus bill is the last vestige of the heralded jobs agenda that Obama and Democrats promoted early this year. They ended up delivering only a fraction of what they promised after emboldened Senate Republicans blocked most of the agenda with filibusters. The Senate passed the measure last week. The 237-187 House vote Thursday that sent the bill to the president split along party lines as Democrats praised the measure for creating a $30 billion federal fund to help smaller banks issue loans to small businesses and for cutting taxes by $12 billion over the coming decade. “It combines … tax relief with increased access to critical financing so that our nation’s small businesses can move forward on new or delayed expansion plans,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.”Small-business growth means job creation.” Republicans, poised for big gains in midterm elections just six weeks away, said the new loan fund is just a smaller version of the unpopular 2008 bailout of the financial system. “What we have today before us is junior TARP,” said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. While community bankers enthusiastically support the measure, it’s getting only tepid support from GOP-leaning small-business groups, which are more focused on expiring tax cuts. “There’s some OK stuff in it, but the impact’s going to be minimal,” said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. The vote gives Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill a much-needed, but minor, victory as midterm elections approach. “The small business jobs bill passed today will help provide loans and cut taxes for millions of small business owners,” Obama said in a statement. “After months of partisan obstruction and needless delay, I’m grateful that Democrats and a few Republicans came together to support this commonsense plan to put Americans back to work.” Earlier this year, Democrats had ambitious designs to boost “green jobs,” provide new funding for roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects, pay for a summer jobs program for disadvantaged young people and renew health insurance subsidies for the jobless. What was actually enacted was far smaller: more unemployment checks for the jobless; relief from payroll taxes for companies that hire new workers; and billions of dollars in aid for states and local schools. The new loan fund would be available to community banks to encourage lending to small businesses. Supporters say banks should be able to use the fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans. Republicans said that banks have plenty of money to lend but that loan demand is way down. “It won’t do any good. Business doesn’t need credit – business needs customers,” said Jade West, a lobbyist for the GOP-leaning National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. “If they don’t have a customer base because demand is down, they’re not going to borrow because there is nothing for them to borrow for.” Democrats counter that it’s undeniable that small businesses are confronted with a credit crunch that worsened dramatically after the financial crisis two years ago. “More capital for business means they can expand and create new jobs,” said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa. “Helping businesses grow is essential to our economic recovery and getting people back to work.” The legislation would also aid lending by lowering Small Business Administration loan program fees and raising loan guarantee and lending limits. Loan caps under the Small Business Administration’s chief lending program would be significantly raised. The small business tax cuts in the bill include breaks for restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones. Long-term investors in some small business startups would be exempt from paying capital gains taxes. But much of the tax relief would actually go to larger businesses for write-offs of facilities and equipment such as computers, trucks and machinery. The measure also would allow small business owners to deduct the costs of health insurance for themselves and their families from self-employment taxes, but only for the 2010 tax year. And, for the first time, tens of thousands of businesses who pay the alternative minimum tax will be eligible to claim the research and development tax credit and other write-offs such as a credit for hiring the disadvantaged. “It’s going to mean another $100,000 or $200,000 to some of our key small and medium-sized businesses,” said Dean Zerbe of alliantgroup, a tax consulting firm.

Read the full article →

Wajahat Ali: Fighting Wells Fargo and Foreclosure

September 23, 2010

Could it be that the best chance to save a young family from foreclosure is a 28-year-old Pakistani American playwright/attorney who learned bankruptcy law on the internet? I was late when I first met my clients, the Lipkin family, outside my office. I was very late. I couldn’t believe I was late. I felt like an imposter. Maybe I was an imposter. I had dressed as professionally as I could: a sophisticated sports jacket, slicked-back gelled hair, elegant briefcase. My straightened posture exuded the charismatic confidence of a seasoned attorney. In my mind, at least. I extended a hand and introduced myself to a family that was about to have their home foreclosed upon. Carl and Natalie, the husband and wife (I’ve changed their names), were both in their early thirties. Their three young daughters were with them, wilting in the heat of the parking lot. They met me with open smiles, even though they had just driven ninety minutes from Sacramento on a scorching summer day. I invited them in. I was hoping they would never guess that despite being a licensed attorney two years out of law school, I was utterly paralyzed with fear–and earnestly praying to Allah that my potential clients were not about to call me out as an incompetent charlatan, punch me in the face, storm out of the office, and call the state bar seeking to disqualify me. I was the guy who was going to save these people from being evicted from their own home? Who was I kidding? In reality, “my law office” was actually my friend’s office, which he’d lent to me so that I could meet these clients. The classy jacket had been purchased at a clearance sale in an outlet store at the Great Mall in Milpitas. The gel was the last remnant of a decaying and potentially expired bottle I’d probably had since college but never found the opportunity to use. The suitcase was a gift from my relatives in Pakistan–who, much like the rest of my family, were thoroughly shocked that I had passed the bar exam and become a licensed attorney. My business cards had been printed for free by Vistaprint, and despite having a professional front side featuring my name in bold letters and the words ATTORNEY AT LAW, the back side glared BUSINESS CARDS ARE FREE AT WWW.VISTAPRINT.COM! Game over. I was doomed. – - – - It wasn’t supposed to be this way. In 2007 I graduated from UC Davis School of Law, a reputable institution that ranks in the top forty of the inexplicably influential U.S. News &World Report annual school ranking. According to my Property professor, students who graduate from top-forty law schools are bred to “find a comfortable desk job, most likely in a corporation, and make a nice income without really having to get their hands dirty.” The old saying goes that the A students become the professors, the B students find jobs in government or corporate law, and the C students end up making all the money. But given the economy, this conventional wisdom was out the window. Instead of being employed at all, like thousands of others who were unlucky enough to graduate law school in 2007, I ended up in my old bedroom, sharing the family home with my parents and my grandmother. Despite being thoroughly emasculating for a twenty-eight-year-old, living at home certainly has its benefits. You never have to cook, given that your mother, a culinary Jedi Knight, makes fresh Pakistani food every night. You avoid doing the laundry and the dishes, because your father has a “specific system” that only he has mastered. Also, you have your own personal “prayer factory” in the form of a very pious grandmother, who constantly sends duaas and blessings your way–and reminds you nonstop that the only reason she’s still living is to see you married and with kids. And for a solo attorney without any money, home can also serve as a convenient and rent-free law office. After passing the bar, I immediately started scouring the internet for any job even tangentially related to law. I applied for legal-secretary positions, legal-assistant jobs designed for nineteen-year-old college students, unpaid internships at shady start-ups, even senior legal-counsel positions at corporations requiring a minimum of ten years’ experience. I shamelessly claimed, as one of my qualifications, “worldly wisdom that compensates for lack of actual legal experience.” I was denied by every recruiting center. Dejected, I lapsed into my innate South Asian melodrama. I made the following declarations: “My life is shameful. I’m a grown-ass man, thoroughly qualified, who just got denied a menial job at a small law firm. If I was a samurai in feudal Japan, I would have to harakiri myself out of dishonor and shame.” “Well, you’re no samurai,” replied my mother, “and you’re not in feudal Japan. You’re Pakistani and you’re living at home. So be quiet, eat your daal and naan, and afterward go get some hara dhaniya, pyaaz, tamatar, and Lactaid milk from Food 4 Less.” My mother is the world’s second-bluntest instrument, preceded only by my father. Tired of being rejected, I decided to venture forth and learn the law on my own. It didn’t take a genius to figure out we were heading toward a full-blown recession; a South Asian attorney, who’d cornered the niche market of “the Pakistani American attorney” years ago, told me to learn how to file Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies, which were the bread and butter of solo attorneys trying to survive. And so off I went to Google. I typed in “Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy guides” and found the trusted and respected Nolo legal guides for less than thirty dollars apiece. These guides are manna from heaven for aspiring attorneys; they ostensibly teach the layman all the fundamentals of how to “do it yourself ” so you won’t have to spend money on people like me, but it turns out they’re just as useful to law school graduates living with their parents. I devoured every bankruptcy book I could find, and then turned to my associate legal counsel, Google, for more (free) information on bankruptcy law. Somewhere along the way I read an article predicting a rise in foreclosures due to the disastrous economy, and realized the rate of Chapter 13 bankruptcies was going to increase exponentially as people desperately tried to save their homes. I also discovered that agents and brokers who’d made hundreds of thousands in the once booming but now hemorrhaging “loan refinancing market” had magically transformed into “loan-modification consultants.” So the subprime-mortgage brokers who had actively preyed on unsophisticated people by convincing them to sign “too good to be true” loans–which later defaulted, thereby capsizing the housing market–were now demanding more money from these same clients in order to modify their loans and allow them to avoid pending foreclosures. Despite being equipped with some–some–knowledge, I shared the quintessential trait of all young attorneys: unrelenting, paralyzing fear. It overwhelms everything we do and contaminates the first two to three years of our law jobs. The thought process goes something like this: “I know nothing. How the hell did I get this degree? How the hell did I pass the bar? Law school didn’t teach me anything. Do my employers know I’m incompetent? How long can I fake this before they figure it out? Are my peers like this? How come everyone else knows what they’re doing? What if I never learn? What happens if I get fired or fail? Will I get disbarred? I bet I’ll get disbarred! Damn, I’m getting disbarred! Please, God, don’t let me get disbarred.” I had all these thoughts as the Lipkin family sat on my friend’s office couch and told me that they were about to lose their home. These people trusted me more than I trusted myself. God help us both. – - – - THE LIPKINS: FORECLOSING THE AMERICAN DREAM Man, if you can keep me from getting foreclosed, I will personally pimp out your pretty ride over there,” promised Carl, pointing out the window to a sleek BMW that did not belong to me. “My car is that broken-down 1997 Camry next to the Beemer,” I admitted. “Get out! A guy like you? A fancy lawyer? You’re riding in that? You probably have a sweet cherry hidden in your garage, huh?” I just nodded my head to satiate his fantasy, knowing full well the only thing in my garage was my comic-book collection from fifth grade. Carl has been infatuated with cars since childhood. He loves the way they look, the way they feel, the way they move. Miserable as a stockbroker, Carl quit eight years ago and used all his savings to invest in his first business, a luxury-car detailing service. “He’s obsessed with cars,” Natalie said. “He wants to make them fast and pretty.” Although not technically married, Carl and Nancy refer to one another as husband and wife, having been together for nearly fifteen years–ever since Natalie was in high school. They’re now raising three adorable daughters–two from Carl’s previous relationship, and their own eighteen-month-old. Ironically, Natalie’s previous job, before she began managing Carl’s two businesses (they expanded three years ago), was as a mortgage processor for a division of Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest independent mortgage lender and a key actor in our current financial mess. “Mortgage processing was my passion,” she said. “Really, my passion. When I worked for Countrywide, it wasn’t anything like what we’re witnessing now. I was really good at my job. My bosses loved me. I processed twenty to twenty-five loans a month. But right when the mortgage business was hitting its peak, the economy started to slow down, and then everything started falling. They let me go when I had to move.” Despite Natalie losing her job, the move to Sacramento was auspicious for the family–Carl opened a second branch of his detailing shop, and they finally purchased their first home. “Before this, we were living in the Bay,” Natalie said, “Carl had bought a house with his dad and sister. All of us stayed in that house. My family, his sister’s family. It was a four-bedroom home. Think about it: two families, four kids, sixteen hundred square feet? We had to buy our own place.” So they did. Moved to Sacramento and into a house that, as we all now know, was far beyond their means. But it’s hard to blame them; the economy was booming, and Wells Fargo–not some fly-by-night operation–was offering them incredible terms. “It felt great to get the home,” Natalie said. “Our own home, our own pool. My own master bedroom. My kids finally had their own room instead of sharing it with others. I even had a spare room for once. I was happy. It was starting something new–something completely our own.” Like many Americans suckered by mortgage deals, the Lipkins were given a “stated-income loan” with an “adjustable interest rate.” This nifty trick allowed brokers and their agents to encourage borrowers to essentially make up any income for themselves. Carl was given a loan he would be unable to afford on his actual salary. Adjustable interest rates were initially low, thereby enticing borrowers with a promise of low monthly payments. When asked what would happen if the rate “adjusted” and the payments increased, borrowers like the Lipkins were told, “Oh, don’t worry, by that time your property will have significantly appreciated. You can always refinance the loan and take money from the growing equity.” “We just did what the bank said to do,” explained Natalie. “Our broker said, ‘Here, sign this paper and you’ll get the loan.’ So we did. We wouldn’t have qualified otherwise.” That same broker was the one who referred them to me to save their home from foreclosure. On the stated-income loan, the bank claimed Carl was making $25,000 a month. In reality, Carl was netting a salary of $26,000–a year. “But you knew it was a lie, right?” I asked. “So why do it?” “You’re right,” Carl admitted. “I mean, I knew I wasn’t making that much, but the broker said it would be no problem, that it was what everyone was doing. And they said it was the only way the bank would approve it, so I just trusted him and signed the paper. He said everything would be okay.” “I partially blame ourselves for this,” Natalie added. “But then again, I also blame the economy. And I also blame the banks. Ever since we got in trouble, we’ve been trying to work with them! I want to keep my home. I want to stay in my home. I’ve tried to keep my home! I want to raise my children in my home.” The courts have held that the onus is on the bank to make at least a reasonable effort to ensure their loans are not oppressive, fraudulent, or liable to default. This is why so many of these “stated-income loans” are in violation of federal and state lending laws, and courts generally find the lenders to be breaching their duty to their clients. Many times, the court rescinds the original contract in its entirety. But like most homeowners, the Lipkins didn’t know the subtleties of the law. They were simply told they could sign a paper and state a mythical income to push the loan documents forward. In other words, they relied on their broker–in this case, a member of their own Filipino community. In my neck of the woods, it was mostly Vietnamese Americans, South Asians, and Afghan Americans coordinating loans for their fellow minorities–all groups, regardless of race or religion, participated in the fraud. In return, borrowers got a home and a piece of the American dream. Until the rude awakening. “In 2008–that’s when things went bad,” Natalie said. “The market for cars started going down, and almost overnight we lost 50 percent of our income. At the same time, the interest rate adjusted, and we were paying nearly $4,100 a month on our loans.” Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. “We didn’t know what to do,” Natalie said. “We couldn’t make the payments. The banks would call us all the time, asking ‘Have you been able to make your payments? Why not? When will you make the payments?’ We wanted to keep our home! We really tried to do everything. But the banks, oh my goodness, you get the runaround!” After they realized they couldn’t make the payments, Carl and Natalie first tried for a loan told them to try the HOPE for Homeowners program. They applied, and were denied. The bank told the Lipkins they should have done a manual entry for the loan modification through the loss-mitigation department. “You never get the same person twice,” Natalie said. “It’s never the same person when you call back. Then someone calculates the numbers wrong. Someone else gets their information wrong. They’re not on the ball on their side–that’s what makes it so frustrating. I’ll fax them something, and I won’t know they didn’t receive it even though I got an ‘okay’ from my fax. They don’t even bother telling you–ever. So then they close my file, and I start all over again.” That’s when they hired their first attorney. On the radio, Natalie heard about a law group that did loan modification. She Googled the law group and didn’t find any complaints. They hired them. “This frickin’ guy!” Carl exploded. “I gave him sixty-five hundred dollars! And you know what he did? You know what I got for sixty-five hundred dollars? He foreclosed my home! He did nothing. He wouldn’t even return my calls! Not one call!” By this time, Carl began eyeballing me with suspicion. “Hey… do you know what you’re doing?” he asked. “I mean, are you just going to take our money and do nothing?” My paranoid and terrified mind went into fight-or-flight mode. I pictured Carl lunging for my jugular, his mind clouded by berserker rage as he imagined me as the attorney who had defrauded him. I scanned my friend’s office for a weapon I could use to defend myself, but noticed only a bowl of wasabi peas. I thought perhaps I could quickly fling a pea into his eye, temporarily blinding him, if he took the offensive. Thankfully, his wife calmed him down, and the pea ended up in my mouth. Sadly, though, the Lipkins’ tale of being thoroughly screwed by unethical attorneys preying on desperate clients is all too common. The State Bar of California has released several “ethics alerts” reminding attorneys of their professional responsibilities and of the appropriate way to deal with clients in default. The Recorder, a legal newspaper, had a cover feature on the most notorious offenders, who bilked clients out of millions and did nothing as their homes went into default, were foreclosed, and then sold on the steps of their local courthouse. If you recall, young attorneys are some of the most terrified, neurotic specimens on Earth–paralyzed by the fear of being disbarred at a moment’s notice for their rank incompetence. Anticipating such severe penalties, I had read every single ethics alert, researched the California Civil Code, talked to seasoned attorneys, and called the State Bar Ethics Hotline three times, asking them every hypothetical question I could imagine. After the third call, the patient research assistant said, “I think you can relax.” And so I exhaled, looked Carl in the eye, and in my most professional “adult voice” launched my rehearsed–but very sincere–spiel, which I reiterated at least twelve times throughout the one-hour-forty-five-minute interview. I assured him that I was not a sleazy attorney solely after their money. That I was not corrupt or unethical. I told him I wanted my name to mean something. Ethically, I could not guarantee them results. No attorney, I said, can guarantee a result–that would be against the California Rules of Professional Conduct. But I assured them that I would try my utmost–that I would fight to save their home. I was not a scrooge, I told them; you can see how affordable my rate is for this service. I am not just after your money. I want to help you and your family keep your home. Okay? There was a lengthy pause. “Okay, I believe you,” replied Carl, after that uncomfortable eternity. “I’m sorry about earlier. I just, you know, it’s stressful. But let’s get started. You want the check now? Do I need to sign an agreement?” Whenever a client signs an attorney client retainer agreement and hands a young attorney a check, it always feels like the first time a pretty girl told you that you were actually not hideous. It shocks the senses. It is absolutely awesome and unbelievable. We were officially in the business of saving the Lipkins’ home. They brought over all their financial information, their pay stubs and monthly mortgage statements, but they were missing key loan documents and tax returns reflecting the fraudulent stated income. The foreclosure was scheduled for Friday. It was now Tuesday, 5:46 p.m. I had two days to prepare a legal-demand letter, review their finances, guide them in writing a hardship letter, create a loan-modification package, and get them to a paralegal who would prepare an emergency bankruptcy petition just in case the bank didn’t flinch. A family about to lose their home. A legitimate check in my hand. Actual clients who had voluntarily agreed to let me represent them. And a trustee sale in two days. I closed my eyes. I said a prayer. I exhaled. I opened my eyes. And in front of me there stood a shit-covered bear waiting to wrestle. This was what a battle with a billion-dollar bank would be: a fight with a creature far bigger than I, and covered in feces. – - – - “ON MY SIGNAL, UNLEASH HELL!”: THE FIRST DAY OF BATTLE From the pompous bravado exhibited by most young hotshot attorneys, the layman might assume that we go to sleep at night having orgasms thinking about our awesomeness. The brutal reality is that most of us bathe ourselves in ulcer-inducing anxiety as we curl up under our blankets, staring at the ceiling. It was Wednesday morning, and I had two days to save a family from losing their home. There was no Rocky music playing in the background, no self-assuring voice of confidence, no verbal fellatio–nothing. There was only the overwhelming sense of dread. Dealing with the banks to suspend your foreclosure date and secure a proper loan modification is akin to repeatedly ramming your head into a brick wall in the hopes that it will eventually break. Before coming to me in utter desperation, the Lipkins, like so many Americans, tried in vain to negotiate with their bank directly. They were told that a “negotiator” had been assigned to their file and was “reviewing it.” Trying to reach this mythical negotiator by phone proved more difficult than finding Bigfoot. On call after call, the Lipkins were told that the negotiator would be in touch by July 21–the date, coincidentally, of their foreclosure sale. I informed the Lipkins that the bank was simply using a delay tactic: no negotiator was assigned, and no one would ever call. They were flabbergasted that Wells Fargo would lie to them. But Wells Fargo is a real piece of work. The Obama administration recently blasted the bank by name as being one of the major lenders lagging behind on their promise to help homeowners keep their properties. After receiving billions of dollars from the government to help struggling homeowners, Wells Fargo turned around and offered loan modifications to a whopping 6 percent of their borrowers. At least the executives of the bank were enjoying the fruits of foreclosure. The L.A. Times broke the news that one of Wells Fargo’s senior vice presidents responsible for overseeing foreclosed commercial properties kept a swanky $12 million foreclosed Malibu home off the market so that he could use it as a weekend getaway. The previous owners, who lost their fortune to Bernie Madoff, saw their family home turned into a beach-party house. Wells Fargo fired the vice president and issued a public apology. But the Lipkins, like so many families in America, were denied the courtesy of a phone call. My law degree and license to practice, however, gave me considerable leverage. Banks rarely deal with customers in a straightforward manner, but their ears do perk up when an attorney threatens a lawsuit or an emergency bankruptcy filing. In order to get anywhere, you first have to make a call to the bank. And because there is no special direct line for lawyers threatening lawsuits–that would make it too easy–this means dialing the customer-service number. “Thank you for calling customer service. We appreciate your business. Due to unexpectedly heavy call volume, we are experiencing a delay. Please stay on the line and a customer-service representative will assist you shortly.” After thirty-five minutes of elevator music a human voice came on the line and asked me about my business. I mentioned “loss-mitigation department” and was transferred. I waited for another ten minutes. A robotic voice calmly asked me to enter the loan number and press pound. I obliged. Upon arriving at the desired destination and hearing the first sign of sentient human life on the other side, I started in. “Good morning, my name is Wajahat Ali, from the Law Office of Wajahat Ali, authorized representative of Carl Lipkin. I would like to inquire–” “Loan number, please.” “Excuse me?” “What’s the loan number, please?” “Oh, sorry. Here it is. I thought I just gave it to you. Anyway, as I was saying, we have to extend the foreclosure date. I would like to submit a loan-modification package– “Name, please?” “Oh, Carl Lipkin. So, as I was saying–” “Address of the property?” “Here’s the address.” I paused after relaying it, anticipating another question. I heard nothing. So once more I introduced myself and repeated my query, only to be hit with– “Last four of social, please?” “Here’s the last four again. I already inputted those. How about the address? Here it is.” I mentioned the address. There was a pause. I begin speaking again. “So, as I was saying–” “And can I verify the address, sir?” An inner voice filled my head with obscenities. “I just gave you the address–” “Yes, but can you please verify it again?” I obliged. There is nothing more she can ask, I thought to myself. Just to be safe, I paused and let the dead air anticipate any other question. Nothing. Time to move ahead. “So, as I was saying, we need to discuss a loan modification here–” “And you are?” “As I mentioned, I’m the representative of Mr. Lipkin–attorney Wajahat Ali, hired by Mr. Lipkin–” “Who?” “Wajahat Ali–” “Warbalot?” “No. Wajahat Ali. I sent you my authorization yesterday. It was faxed. You should have received it. Mr. Lipkin signed it, dated it, and authorized me to represent him.” “Oh, it doesn’t show up in our computers. I can’t talk to you unless you are authorized.” “No, but I am authorized. I sent it yesterday.” “I’m sorry, but it takes three business days for information to be uploaded to our computers.” “Okay, but I don’t have three days. You realize my client is facing a sale date in two days.” “Yes, but you are not authorized. I’m sorry.” – - – - It was noon, and I was losing hours. The bank had refused to acknowledge my existence, let alone talk to me. Out of desperation and naiveté, I tried calling the trustee agent, whom the bank had hired to process the foreclosure sale. I learned a valuable lesson: trustee agents are useless in extending sale dates. They merely do what the banks tell them to, so calling them is a waste of time. I had to think. I called Carl. “Carl, do me a favor. Call up the bank. Here’s the number. Tell them you verbally authorize me to speak on your behalf as your representative. Do it now. I’ll wait on the cell with you; pick up another phone and call.” Carl obliged, and we waited another half an hour before he finally reached a human being. The rep asked us to hold. She spoke to a supervisor. She came back. And then we had a one-day get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of a twenty-four hour verbal authorization. We were off the bench and ready to play ball. – - – - Taking the absurdly high $4,300 mortgage into account, the Lipkins were falling into a monthly deficit. If the bank would simply reduce the monthly payments to a fair reflection of the property’s current value and the Lipkins’ current financial situation, the family would easily be able to make the monthly payments, keep the home, and continue giving the bank substantial amounts of money. One would think a financial institution would consider this a viable and wise short term solution, considering the country is mired in one of the worst recessions in recent memory. However, wishful thinking is not one of the options on the bank’s automated phone service. One might also assume the banks operate purely out of greed and avarice–but if that were the case, they would simply take the short-term money from the clients instead of wasting resources on foreclosure costs, appraisals, and reselling a house that had been brutally reduced in value. In fact, shockingly, the banks are mostly apathetic, confused, poorly informed, and poorly managed. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. I imagine a giant warehouse where underlings paid minimum wage simply parrot a written script, crunching numbers in a giant database in which a thousand tubes and wires cross and intersect one another but ultimately lead nowhere. I called the loss-mitigation number again only to be informed that they could not help me, and that I needed to talk to the bankruptcy department instead. I talked to bankruptcy, who told me to go back to loss mitigation, who then told me to call the trustee agent because they were not authorized to extend the sale date. The trustee agent gave me a random number of some realtor in Arizona who was shocked that I had been given her number. I went back to the loss-mitigation department and asked for the number of their legal counsel, so that I could fax my legal-demand letter. I learned that no bank ever gives you their legal-department phone or fax number; they simply give you an address and ask you to mail your legal complaint. I finally received a number for what I assumed was corporate counsel, who then called me and asked why I was calling her. I told her about the foreclosure; she was sympathetic. But she said “I have no idea why they would give you my number–that is odd. Try this number instead, and best of luck to you and your clients.” I wrote down the number she gave me. Then I realized it was the number for the loss-mitigation department. I looked at my notebook and saw a dozen numbers written down over the span of three hours. There were arrows pointing from one number to another, including the numerical options I had to punch into the automated message system in order to reach the appropriate department. My notepad resembled a Cy Twombly painting. The loss-mitigation department finally talked to me after I used my “adult voice” and expressed some mock anger. Having gotten them to agree to review the file, I expected them to give me the proper fax number to send over the loan-modification package. Instead, they came back and said, “There are two loans on this file.” “Of course,” I replied. “They’ve been there the whole time. Both are from your bank. We’re dealing with the primary loan, which is currently under foreclosure.” “Oh, we’re not the right department for this. You have to call the dual-lien department. I’m sorry about that. Someone should have told you.” “Yeah, you should have told me that three hours ago, you stupid, incompetent, apathetic son of a goat-herder!” I didn’t say this out loud, but the outburst would have been well earned. I expanded my Twombly painting and added another number. I called the dual-lien department only to discover that they had left for the day. I called the loss-mitigation department again and prepared an angry speech filled with bile and witty barbs. I was ready to unleash it on the poor, unsuspecting customer-service representative when a kind, all-American, Midwestern-motherly voice picked up the phone and started endearingly referring to me as “Dear.” After two minutes of talking to her, it was abundantly clear that this was her first day on the job. My brilliant anger was reduced to mush, like country applesauce. It took her several minutes to load the file; she had just begun learning the computer system. Exasperated, I finally asked–in a soothing and respectful voice–”Ma’am, can you simply ask a supervisor for the dual lien department’s fax number, and the number I should try for an escalated sale date?” She said she would, and returned after what seemed like ages with both. I finally had my key to the elusive gates. When I thanked her she responded with a few more “dears,” “sweethearts,” and “honeys,” before adding a “best of luck.” I looked over my legal-demand letter, which used some subtle but heavy-duty “we mean business” language. Then I recited some verses from the Quran, blew on the paper, prayed for the best, and faxed the package. It was nearly 5 p.m., and I felt like a battered warrior who had honorably survived the first day. I called Carl to give him the update and ask him if he’d filled out an emergency bankruptcy petition, as I’d instructed. A little fact that most people don’t know is that if you file an emergency bankruptcy petition, you receive an automatic fifteen-day stay on your foreclosure. It’s a borrower’s Hail Mary. For fifteen days, the bank cannot foreclose your house, and you have those two weeks to either withdraw your application or complete your bankruptcy. But timing is key. If your foreclosure is scheduled for 9 a.m. and you file the petition at 9:05, you are officially out of luck. If you file at 8:59, then you are saved. Just in case the bank continued acting like unresponsive jerks, though, I wanted Carl to have the option to file for bankruptcy. I’d told him the night before to call a paralegal and have the paperwork signed and ready to go, and he’d promised me he would. “Nah, man, I didn’t do that,” he told me. “Was I supposed to?” “Yes, Carl,” I said, trying not to choke him through the phone, “you were supposed to do it several hours ago. You need to do this. Listen to your attorney, please. Have you found a paralegal nearby?” I knew full well the answer would be no. I hung up, raced to the computer, and Googled paralegals near Carl’s county. I found a number, called it up, and heard an exhausted woman on the other end. I used old-school ethnic-salesman tricks to convince her to stay late at her office and wait for Carl, who would drive over in the evening after picking up his kids. I promised her I would give her “good business” and use her services repeatedly. I would recommend her to my “clientele.” She grudgingly obliged, grumbled, and told me Carl had to be there by 7 p.m. or she was leaving. I waited at the office for Carl to call and confirm he’d made it. One hour passed. I waited. And then a phone call. “Got it, Waj! We’re good to go.” I exhaled. Day 1 was over. Neither a victory nor a loss–a stalemate for sure. The package was faxed off to every single number I’d written down on my yellow canvas. The young attorney and the shit-covered bear retired to their respective corners. – - – - The next morning, I jumped out of bed yelling “What the hell!?” I looked at the alarm with bloodshot eyes. It was 10 a.m. Day 2. Another sleepless night. This time the dual-lien department would not escape my wrath. I called them first thing, and, like a biblical prophet, unleashed a righteous fury at the underpaid underling. “Just listen to me, because I don’t want to waste my time. My name is Wajahat Ali, retained counsel for Carl Lipkin. I sent my authorization two days ago and you should have uploaded it into your system. If you haven’t then that’s your fault, but you’re going to listen to what I have to say. My client has a trustee sale date tomorrow and he has tried in good faith to negotiate with your bank for weeks, only to be consistently mistreated. Thankfully he has retained me, and I know what I’m doing. “Your supervisors and their supervisors will not appreciate me filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy that will halt and frustrate your foreclosure proceedings. Furthermore, they will not be happy to discover the pending results of a forensic audit being done on the loan, which will reveal a stated-income loan approved by your bank in direct violation of federal and state lending laws–a total breach of a fiduciary duty owed to your clients. As several recent cases have held, the damages and penalty for such egregious behavior is generally a rescission of the entire loan. “So, you all have a choice: either foreclose on a worthless property which has no equity and has lost more than fifty percent of its original value, or in good faith negotiate with me and my client for more equitable payment terms and receive some money instead of no money. If you want to play hardball, then don’t waste my time. I’m filing a bankruptcy. Now get me your supervisor.” The service agent didn’t speak for a moment. “Uh–um. Just… hold on. I’ll get a supervisor.” Two minutes later, a supervisor came on the line. Before he could get a word off I unleashed my next can of verbal whoop-ass, reiterating nearly word for word what I had just told the underling. The supervisor didn’t speak for a moment. “Uh–um. Okay. Just… don’t file bankruptcy, please. Just… here–call this number.” For the first time I received a phone number with an actual area code. He gave me the name of a human being, too: “Brian the Supervisor.” “I’ll definitely call him, sir. But I want to know who I’m speaking with so I can verify that this conversation occurred.” I sounded like a paranoid ethnic uncle. “Sure. My ID number is John X1Z.” “Thank you very much, John X1Z. I appreciate it. You’ll be hearing from me soon.” I called Brian the Supervisor expecting to reach a wrong number or a random factory in Chile. Instead, I discovered an answering machine. With the scant two minutes I had before the machine decided to stop taping, I unleashed my verbal fury yet again, this time at a machine-gun clip. I rattled off the loan number, repeating it twice, then added the last four digits of the social and even threw in the address for good measure. Then I recited my biblical-prophet speech, said thank you, hung up, and exhaled. One hour passed. Nothing. Another half hour. Nothing. And then a phone call on my cell, which was on its last battery bar for the day. “Um, sir, yes, this is Brian. Uh, please do not file bankruptcy. We, um, do not want to foreclose on this property. Please just, uh, be patient with us.” “All I need to know is whether there is an extension on the sale date.” “Yes, sir. We have extended it.” “Wow, really?” Okay, so I didn’t say that out loud, but I was genuinely shocked. They actually extended the sale date! The big, bad, mean bank, which had assured me nearly a dozen times that things were hopeless, that nothing could be done, that the Lipkins should prepare to move out, had just told me the foreclosure would be delayed for a month. “Well, thank you. I would like confirmation of this. I look forward to talking to you soon,” I said in my serious, sober adult voice, barely containing my schoolgirl glee. I hung up and sat down. I couldn’t believe it. Those bastards had flinched, and the family would get to stay in their home and fight for another day. I called up Carl to tell him the good news. He replied with the longest “Oh thank God!” I have ever heard. I could hear Natalie screaming for joy in the background. For a moment, the cloud of desperation had lifted. A besieged family could breathe for the first time in months. An incompetent and callous bank would actually review a viable loan modification package. And I would not get disbarred. At least for a month. However, out of the corner of my eye I spotted the bear. He was still smiling. He had plenty of fight left in him. – - – - On the following Monday, three days after the original sale date, I received a fax from the bank. Confirmation of loan-modification package received July 22. 2:32 p.m. Thank you. Then I received another fax. The loan-modification package has been denied. July 22. 2:34 p.m. Reason: not enough income. Thank you. New Sale Date: August 21. Essentially, some underling had merely inputted the income and expense numbers into the computer, pressed enter, and waited for the result. The computer recognized that the family was making less money than its expenses–which is utterly predictable and logical, considering they were asking for a loan modification because they were unable to pay their currently exorbitant monthly mortgage–and mechanically turned them down. And the shit-covered bear flashed a devilish grin. – - – - “Right, I’d like to move on it now so we don’t waste time, and so the family doesn’t feel unnecessary pressure from the bank. We would like to operate in good faith.” “Yeah, but it’s four weeks from now, why are you calling us?” “So we can get this over with now and move on.” “Oh, well, let me tell you–they don’t do anything this early. I mean, the only time I’ve seen them extend the sale date is within three days of the sale. I’ve never seen it happen earlier.” I was shocked. I literally couldn’t come up with anything to say in response. Here was a customer-service representative admitting to me that the bank deliberately stalled on approving loan-modification packages. They were keeping borrowers hanging underneath a guillotine until the very last minute. “So, wait, you’re telling me they won’t do anything before the three-day mark? They intentionally just ignore the situation and their clients instead of helping them or working toward a negotiation?” “Yeah, um, well, I mean… I really can’t say for sure, but, um, you know, I haven’t seen them do it, like, ever. They’ll always wait until the last day, if possible. So, I mean, I know you’re trying to help, but I’d recommend waiting a few weeks.” Apparently the early bird loses both the worm and its nest when dealing with banks and foreclosures. My friend’s girlfriend, who conveniently works in a bank’s corporate department, told him her bank had issued an internal policy notice explaining that they would only delay foreclosures if an attorney threatened to file a lawsuit or a bankruptcy petition. This information was not meant for mass consumption. When I heard it, I thought of all the well-intentioned, hard-working moms and pops who lost their jobs, their revenues, and their assets, and who couldn’t afford an attorney to negotiate on their behalf. Who could they turn to, after the customer service agents denied them for weeks on end? Who could they pay to represent them, after a supervisor told them a “negotiator” would call them back, and no one did? I summoned the image of the gladiator Maximus. And in my melodramatic fashion, I promised, I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next. In the meantime, I concentrated on obtaining all the signed loan documents from the bank. Carl had made a fax request and a phone request for them two weeks ago; I needed these documents to verify that his loan was indeed a stated-income loan, and that he’d written $26,000 as his monthly income even though his actual salary was only $26,000 a year. I also wanted Carl to get a forensic audit of his loan from a financial-services company. An audit costs around three hundred dollars, and it helps us attorneys get a financial snapshot of what actually went wrong with the loan, from origination to completion. When I called the bank to demand the loan documents, though, they gave me a number for a RE/MAX title company located in Arizona. Like me, the RE/MAX office was confused about why I was calling and how the bank had gotten their number. I spent another hour waiting for the right customer-service agent to direct me to the appropriate department, where I was promised that the loan documents would be both faxed and mailed within the next forty-eight hours. To this day, I have yet to receive them. Thankfully, a week later, the bank sent Carl a package containing everything I needed. We sent the documents over to the financial-services company, received an audit, and found considerable violations of federal and state lending laws. Furthermore, some exquisitely tasty case law supported our arguments. We were in business. It was time to write a firm and potent legal-demand letter. Carl was receiving five hundred dollars a month in extra income thanks to his wife’s sister renting a room in his home. One of his family members had taken over a debt, thereby decreasing his expenses. And his legal duty to pay alimony had expired, thereby freeing up another three hundred dollars monthly. According to the new numbers, he was just barely making more than his monthly expenses. Knowing full well that the computer gods would simply see this as a net positive, I updated my legal-demand letter with the new financial information and faxed it off. I called a week later; Judgment Day was about three days away. Unsurprisingly, they had yet to move forward on the loan modification. The foreclosure date was still in place. I called Brian the Supervisor and learned that he was away on business. I was told to talk to Lisa the Supervisor in his stead. Calling Lisa, I realized that she would never answer the phone–I would always be greeted by a mechanical voice. As I stood pumping gas, I dialed her again on my cell phone, which again had only one bar of energy left. I declared that I was calling from “the law offices of Wajahat Ali” as expensive unleaded gasoline filled my barely living 1997 Toyota Camry. I reiterated my hall-of-fame speech and prayed to Allah that someone would eventually hear it. I threatened severe legal consequences if I did not receive a response within two days. The robotic lady informed me that I had thirty seconds left on the answering machine. I blurted out all the necessary information, said thank you, left my number, and hung up. About ten minutes later, I received a call from Lisa. She informed me that the bank had decided to extend the sale date for another month. I exhaled, and kissed my California State Bar card. I called up Carl to give him the good news as I sat outside of a local Starbucks, relishing my victory with a venti caramel frappuccino with extra caramel sauce. “Wajahat, I love you!” Carl shouted. “If I had a million dollars, I would buy you a Lamborghini. Really, I would. A Lamborghini!” And I slurped my frappuccino with a big, sloppy grin plastered on my face. As I looked in the rearview mirror, I spotted the bear behind me drinking a latte with honey. He looked a little worn out. Before disappearing, however, he flipped me a middle finger to remind me the battle had not ended. – - – - ROUND 3: THE LAST STAND OF THE FECES-COVERED BEAR I hate to throw in yet another analogy, but I will anyway: Being a young attorney taking on a corporate bank is kind of like Rocky IV, but without the talking robot, the American jingoism, Apollo Creed, and Mikhail Gorbachev suddenly appearing at the end to cheer you on. The bank is Ivan Drago, Rocky’s nearly indestructible and relentless nemesis, who is nurtured and supported by a massive collection of trainers, helpers, and multimillion-dollar equipment. Us lowly solo practitioners find our avatar in the aging and decrepit Rocky Balboa, who trains with limited materials, eats raw eggs, drags logs through snow-covered forests, and endures persistent belittling by the cantankerous, mildly racist hype-man Paulie (or, in my case, my parents and former law professors). Although life is not scripted like a formulaic, feel-good movie, I secretly hoped that I could earn Wells Fargo’s respect through my sheer stubborn resilience. I wanted to inspire fear and trepidation in their fickle hearts. I yearned for them to be shocked and awed by my tenacity, much like Drago was when Balboa withstood fifteen rounds of punishment, thus prompting the now-famous utterance (preferably in a Russian accent): “He’s not human. He’s like a piece of iron.” For me, it was the beginning of the fifteenth round. The bear was spitting out blood, sweat, and a few teeth. He drank his honey-flavored water from his water bottle one last time, disrobed, and wearily stood up from his stool. The tenacious bugger still had legs, even as his knees had finally begun to buckle. The bell rang. I waited a week before calling the bank’s loss-mitigation department again, anticipating another spectacle of mind-numbing, head-scratching inanity and countless runarounds. Surprisingly, the underling I reached was uncharacteristically engaging. “Oh, we were just waiting for your profit-and-loss statements for the past three months and updated financials.” “Really? No one informed me or my clients. What exactly do you need for their profit and loss? And didn’t we just send you all of the financials a week ago?” “Well, since they’re self-employed, we need some proof of income and expenses for their business. And please send us their latest pay stubs and bank-account statements.” This news was both welcoming and frustrating. Apparently Wells Fargo either really hates trees or really adores fax machines, because in my experience they repeatedly ask you for the same materials you’ve already sent. It was encouraging, though, because the bank was now also asking for new information, and seemed intent on actually reviewing the financial statements instead of callously feeding them to their computer god, which would instantly condemn the family to foreclosure perdition. Unfortunately, Natalie had not compiled a reliable profit-and-loss statement in months. Over the course of the week, though, we assembled an accurate three-month snapshot of the Lipkin family business. The family had–just barely–made a small profit, which would ensure they could afford reduced monthly payments to the bank. I lined up the numbers properly in the Excel sheets and bolded the key information, placing everything in a strong Times New Roman, size 12 font so that even an elementary- school student would be able to find the “income,” “expenses,” and “profit” totals. I topped off the package with a lengthy legal-demand letter outlining all the potential violations the bank had perpetrated with their “stated income” loan to the family, and reminded them that the house was continuing to depreciate in value and that the family would seek legal options if they were not afforded a good-faith payment plan. Standing before the fax machine, I held in my hands what I hoped was the final loan-modification package I would have to prepare for the Lipkins. I engaged in my customary ritual: I recited a small prayer, blew it over the papers, double-checked the fax number, punched it in the machine, and sent it twice to appease my OCD. The bear reeled against the ropes after I hit him with two uppercuts and the final knockout hook. His eyes rolled, his knees weakened, he desperately flailed against the ropes, and finally he went down, leaving a stain on the boxing ring. The referee started the final count. 1… 2… 3… 4… 5… 6– And, out of nowhere, unexpectedly, a week later, I received a fax from the bank. We regret to inform you that the borrower’s application was denied on August 14, 2009 because his expenses were more than his income. DAMN!! And the bear rose to his feet, smiling recklessly. I swear I heard him say, in a Russian accent: “I must break you.” The bank’s lethal jab of incompetence made it painfully clear that billions of dollars in bailout money apparently cannot be used to purchase a five-dollar calculator. Wells Fargo had somehow not only misread the information, but apparently created fictitious numbers out of thin air. The bank had pulled a Merlin, magically conjuring up an extra $3,000 worth of expenses for the Lipkins and inexplicably reducing their verified income, thus inaccurately showing a loss instead of a profit. I was no longer angry, depressed, upset, irritated, or frustrated. I was just confused. How was this possible? I’d clearly highlighted the total income and expenses in both the financial worksheet and the business’s profit-and-loss statements. I just sat there and shook my head, convinced a team of supernatural ne’er-do-well jinns were intentionally screwing with my absolutely solid loan-modification package. Alas, this was yet another humiliating scene from the reviled, unending soap opera entitled As the Bank Turns… And Screws You–Again. Well, I was tired of being messed with by the banks, and so were my long-suffering clients. I used my last remaining morsel of strength to shift my biblical prophet anger to D-5. I laced up my gloves again and stared at the Bear. We ran toward one another at full speed. We would meet at the center of the ring and exchange our final death blows. This would be the clash of the titans. The end game. All or nothing. The winner goes home–literally. I sat and furiously wrote my final legal demand letter: There is a trustee sale date scheduled for August 25, 2009. The borrower has already submitted a viable loan-modification package that was confirmed as received. The borrower was informed that his loan modification application was denied on August 14, 2009 because his expenses exceeded his income. This conclusion is blatantly incorrect based on the information provided, which shows the client–with the financial assistance of his domestic partner–made an income that is above his current expenses. This denial, based on an inaccurate assessment of the documents, represents either gross incompetence on the part of the Wells Fargo loan-modification department or a fraudulent misrepresentation in order to deny a viable client a suitable loan modification. The borrower is now re-sending a loan modification package with all the appropriate information requested. I sent off the new letter along with the same financial documents and waited. The foreclosure sale was only a week away. A day before the foreclosure date, I called the bank. Would they relent and extend the foreclosure date again? Was this the end of the road for the Lipkin family? Had I been able to score a Slumdog triumph? I waited. The robotic voice came on the line. I waited. The atrocious elevator music soothed me. I waited. A female underling took the call and asked the monotonous, routine questions. I answered them. I paused. I closed my eyes. I hoped for the best. I exhaled. And then I asked about my clients’ status. “Oh, your clients have been accepted into the HAMP. The material was sent out yesterday.” “Uh, what? Excuse me? What about the foreclosure tomorrow?” “Oh, no, the foreclosure sale has been lifted. There’s no foreclosure date anymore. Your clients have been approved for a temporary program. As long as they can make payments of two thousand dollars for three months, they can stay in their home. And the bank will be willing to negotiate after that.” “Wait… are you serious?” I asked, losing my professional composure. “Yes, sir.” “So, uh, there is no foreclosure?” “No.” “Okay, thank–thank you.” I hung up. I couldn’t believe it. In fact, I didn’t believe it, so I called twice more and endured nearly thirty more minutes of excruciating elevator music and two more underlings, who both confirmed the news: the Lipkins’ house would not be foreclosed. President Obama’s newly minted Home Affordable Modification Program had allowed their loan to be modified at last. I called the Lipkins up to tell them the good news. “Okay, Carl. You want the good news or the bad news?” “Oh, man. Bad news first. Just hit me with it.” “Bad news: there is no foreclosure sale.” “Wait–isn’t that the good news?” “No. The good news is that you’ve been accepted into the HAMP for three months. As long as you make the payments, you can stay in the house. Eventually they’ll work out a long-term arrangement with you, but for now we’re safe.” “Wajahat, I love you! I love you! Oh, man, this is great news! Thank you! This is the best news I could have gotten! Thank you!” I told him to enjoy himself. To tell his family to relax. “Will do, Chief!” I turned off my ailing BlackBerry and sat back on my chair–exhausted, bewildered, relieved, and fulfilled. A family that had been repeatedly ignored by the bank and told that nothing could be done to stop their foreclosure had just been accepted into HAMP. A family that a few months ago only had three days left before their foreclosure could now sleep peacefully in their home for a few more months, without fear of a trustee sale creeping around the corner. The Lipkins sent their second payment in this week, thus ensuring that they’re making good on their new temporary contract with the bank. Yesterday the bank informed me that after having originally denied the loan-modification package on the Lipkins’ second loan, they had entered them into a two-year forbearance program. The family will now pay half of the original amount per month. On the principal loan, they are now paying less than 40 percent of their original amount. Overall, their monthly mortgage payment has been reduced by nearly $1,600. The bank’s pattern of behavior signals a desire to enter into a binding long-term agreement with the Lipkins, thereby ensuring lowered monthly payments and an ability to accommodate their financial situation. Everyone wins. The bank saves tremendous costs in not having to foreclose and ensures that it will receive regular monthly payments. The family no longer lives under the specter of impending eviction, the children are not uprooted from their schools and friends, and the Lipkins are finally on a path to reclaiming their home as their own. And the terrified, inexperienced, snot-nosed, Pakistani-American lawyer who wears white high-tops with his clearance-rack Banana Republic sports jacket and has eight dollars in his savings account? Who survives on his mother’s food? His five-o’clock-shadowed face is plastered with a twelve-year-old boy’s smile as he sticks out his chest and rests his foot on the belly of a shit-covered bear, temporarily defeated. And his white high tops shine without a stain. – - – - UPDATE (9/20/10) After an epic, brutal and exhausting 14 month fight, the shit-covered bear known as Wells Fargo has relented and agreed to a long term loan modification for the Lipkin family. A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction–very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays–they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract. THE LIPKIN FAMILY’S STORY WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WELLS FARGO FORECLOSED TODAY. On October 13, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 94, coauthored by the chairman of the California Senate banking committee, Senator Ron Calderon, and Senator Lou Correa of Anaheim. The bill prohibits anyone from accepting advance fees for working on loan modifications–meaning the Lipkins could not have legally hired Ali unless he was willing to work months without pay. The legislation is intended to prevent predatory loan modification scams from taking advantage of homeowners. But the language lumps lawyers with brokers, meaning lawyers will be unable to charge retainers. The bill is likely to reduce the supply of lawyers working on loan modifications, and thus decrease the actual number of modified loans, because lawyers can now ask for money only after their job is finished–successfully or not. This could mean months of work in the hope that at the end, a client who is by definition a credit risk will find the money to pay. SB 94 will, though, impede certain types of fraud. The law would have prevented the Lipkins’ trouble with Rodis Law Group, the lawyers the family retained before they found Wajahat. Ron Rodis was disbarred October 15, and Rodis Law Group is under Federal Trade Commission investigation. – - – - Originally published in McSweeney’s SF Panorama

Read the full article →

Senate Republicans Block Debate On Campaign Finance Bill

September 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday stood fast in blocking legislation requiring special interest groups running campaign ads to identify their donors. Mirroring a Senate vote on the bill last July, all 39 Republicans who voted stopped Democrats from bringing the campaign disclosure bill to the Senate floor. The 59-39 vote fell one short of the 60 needed to advance the legislation. Two Republicans didn’t vote. Republicans dismissed Democratic efforts to revive the bill as an attempt to win political points before the midterm elections. The White House-backed measure is a response to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision last January overturning a decades-old law that barred corporations, unions and other organizations from spending on advertising, mass mailings and other forms of political activity. Democrats warned that the ruling would lead to a deluge of ads from shadowy special interest groups financed by corporate millions. “It’s no longer a premonition, it’s a reality,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a main sponsor of the legislation, pointing to special interest ads already running in states such as Ohio and California with hotly contested political races. “We have these nameless, faceless individuals spending huge amounts of money, corporate money and other money. There is certainly no transparency whatsoever,” Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. President Barack Obama said in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed by the unanimous Republican blockade.” He said the vote was a “victory for special interests and U.S. corporations including foreign-controlled ones who are now allowed to spend unlimited money to fill our airwaves, mailboxes and phone lines right up until Election Day.” But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats were playing “pure politics” in trying to stop opponents from criticizing Democratic policies. “They’re trying to rig the system to their advantage. That’s it. It’s quite simple.” Schumer said Democrats were prepared to move the effective date of the bill to next January so it would not influence the November elections, but that offer failed to win any Republican support. Republicans also accused Democrats of playing pre-election politics earlier this week when they united to block action on a defense policy bill that would have allowed votes on opening a path to legal status for the children of illegal immigrants and on ending the military’s don’t ask-don’t tell policy for gays. The campaign finance bill, which narrowly passed the House on a largely partisan vote, would have required nearly all organizations airing political ads independently of candidates or the political parties to disclose their top donors and the amounts they paid. It would have banned a variety of political activity by entities holding a government contract worth more than $10 million and corporations where foreigners own more than a majority of voting shares. The rejection of the disclosure bill came as the the House Administration Committee approved legislation that would make candidates for federal office eligible for public funding if they rely solely on private contributions of $100 or less. Sponsors of the bill that passed in committee, led by Reps. John Larson, D-Conn., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., said it would reduce the role of special interest money in campaigns. ___ The disclosure bill is S. 3628. Online: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Read the full article →

Senate Republicans Block Debate On Campaign Finance Bill

September 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday stood fast in blocking legislation requiring special interest groups running campaign ads to identify their donors. Mirroring a Senate vote on the bill last July, all 39 Republicans who voted stopped Democrats from bringing the campaign disclosure bill to the Senate floor. The 59-39 vote fell one short of the 60 needed to advance the legislation. Two Republicans didn’t vote. Republicans dismissed Democratic efforts to revive the bill as an attempt to win political points before the midterm elections. The White House-backed measure is a response to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision last January overturning a decades-old law that barred corporations, unions and other organizations from spending on advertising, mass mailings and other forms of political activity. Democrats warned that the ruling would lead to a deluge of ads from shadowy special interest groups financed by corporate millions. “It’s no longer a premonition, it’s a reality,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a main sponsor of the legislation, pointing to special interest ads already running in states such as Ohio and California with hotly contested political races. “We have these nameless, faceless individuals spending huge amounts of money, corporate money and other money. There is certainly no transparency whatsoever,” Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. President Barack Obama said in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed by the unanimous Republican blockade.” He said the vote was a “victory for special interests and U.S. corporations including foreign-controlled ones who are now allowed to spend unlimited money to fill our airwaves, mailboxes and phone lines right up until Election Day.” But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats were playing “pure politics” in trying to stop opponents from criticizing Democratic policies. “They’re trying to rig the system to their advantage. That’s it. It’s quite simple.” Schumer said Democrats were prepared to move the effective date of the bill to next January so it would not influence the November elections, but that offer failed to win any Republican support. Republicans also accused Democrats of playing pre-election politics earlier this week when they united to block action on a defense policy bill that would have allowed votes on opening a path to legal status for the children of illegal immigrants and on ending the military’s don’t ask-don’t tell policy for gays. The campaign finance bill, which narrowly passed the House on a largely partisan vote, would have required nearly all organizations airing political ads independently of candidates or the political parties to disclose their top donors and the amounts they paid. It would have banned a variety of political activity by entities holding a government contract worth more than $10 million and corporations where foreigners own more than a majority of voting shares. The rejection of the disclosure bill came as the the House Administration Committee approved legislation that would make candidates for federal office eligible for public funding if they rely solely on private contributions of $100 or less. Sponsors of the bill that passed in committee, led by Reps. John Larson, D-Conn., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., said it would reduce the role of special interest money in campaigns. ___ The disclosure bill is S. 3628. Online: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Read the full article →

Senate Republicans Block Debate On Campaign Finance Bill

September 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday stood fast in blocking legislation requiring special interest groups running campaign ads to identify their donors. Mirroring a Senate vote on the bill last July, all 39 Republicans who voted stopped Democrats from bringing the campaign disclosure bill to the Senate floor. The 59-39 vote fell one short of the 60 needed to advance the legislation. Two Republicans didn’t vote. Republicans dismissed Democratic efforts to revive the bill as an attempt to win political points before the midterm elections. The White House-backed measure is a response to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision last January overturning a decades-old law that barred corporations, unions and other organizations from spending on advertising, mass mailings and other forms of political activity. Democrats warned that the ruling would lead to a deluge of ads from shadowy special interest groups financed by corporate millions. “It’s no longer a premonition, it’s a reality,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a main sponsor of the legislation, pointing to special interest ads already running in states such as Ohio and California with hotly contested political races. “We have these nameless, faceless individuals spending huge amounts of money, corporate money and other money. There is certainly no transparency whatsoever,” Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. President Barack Obama said in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed by the unanimous Republican blockade.” He said the vote was a “victory for special interests and U.S. corporations including foreign-controlled ones who are now allowed to spend unlimited money to fill our airwaves, mailboxes and phone lines right up until Election Day.” But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats were playing “pure politics” in trying to stop opponents from criticizing Democratic policies. “They’re trying to rig the system to their advantage. That’s it. It’s quite simple.” Schumer said Democrats were prepared to move the effective date of the bill to next January so it would not influence the November elections, but that offer failed to win any Republican support. Republicans also accused Democrats of playing pre-election politics earlier this week when they united to block action on a defense policy bill that would have allowed votes on opening a path to legal status for the children of illegal immigrants and on ending the military’s don’t ask-don’t tell policy for gays. The campaign finance bill, which narrowly passed the House on a largely partisan vote, would have required nearly all organizations airing political ads independently of candidates or the political parties to disclose their top donors and the amounts they paid. It would have banned a variety of political activity by entities holding a government contract worth more than $10 million and corporations where foreigners own more than a majority of voting shares. The rejection of the disclosure bill came as the the House Administration Committee approved legislation that would make candidates for federal office eligible for public funding if they rely solely on private contributions of $100 or less. Sponsors of the bill that passed in committee, led by Reps. John Larson, D-Conn., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., said it would reduce the role of special interest money in campaigns. ___ The disclosure bill is S. 3628. Online: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Read the full article →

Bob Barr: Extending Ethanol Tax Credit Makes Sense

September 23, 2010

The ethanol tax credit, known commonly by its congressionally-bestowed acronym, “VEETC” (the “Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit” for those who delight in impressing cocktail-party acquaintances with their knowledge of trivia), is the tax credit many conservatives and liberals alike love to hate. Both sides, however, would be well-advised to push aside ideologically-based peeves for the time being, and support extension of the credit beyond its scheduled December 31st expiration. Outside those states boasting heavy corn production, which is the most common product source for the biofuel ethanol, few Americans — including the millions of motorists who daily benefit from inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline that fuels their vehicles — VEETC is essentially unknown. This understandable lack of public awareness accounts for much of the trouble proponents of the tax credit are encountering in their efforts to convince Congress to include an extension in some piece of legislation that will make its way to President Obama’s desk in the final weeks of this 111

Read the full article →

Andrew Fieldhouse: How to Lose Over a Million Jobs

September 23, 2010

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner recently proposed a two-step job creation plan consisting of a full extension of Bush-era tax changes and cuts to domestic spending. His plan calls on Congress to cut non-security related spending back to fiscal year 2008 levels and to enact a two-year freeze on all current tax rates. Rep. Boehner claims these two policies will drive job growth more than any proposal of President Obama’s. However, we find that this proposal would have a devastating impact on the struggling U.S. labor market while negligibly improving the fiscal outlook. Specifically, we find: Relative to the president’s budget request, the plan would reduce funding for domestic programs–which include investments in infrastructure, education, and research–by 22.7%, while extending the Bush tax cuts for top earners. The Boehner plan would reduce the deficit by less than 5.5% in 2011. Because reductions in spending are larger than the tax cuts, and because tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers are poor stimulus, the net job impact of the Boehner plan would be an estimated employment reduction of over 1 million jobs. The Boehner plan, step 1: Cutting funding by 22.7% The Boehner plan calls on Congress to cut non-security related spending back to 2008 levels. This would require a spending reduction in this category of $105 billion in 2011. Maintaining Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Homeland Security at the funding levels requested in the president’s budget would exempt $673 billion from these cuts. Thus, to achieve the overall reductions, non-security funding would have to be cut to $356 billion — an across the board cut of 22.7% relative to the president’s budget request and 6.9% lower than 2010 levels, adjusted for inflation . Proposed savings on the scale of $100 billion suggest fiscal responsibility, however limiting reductions to a very narrow portion of the budget would result in drastic and politically unrealistic cuts to many human needs and investment programs. Savings of $105 billion would only close 7.8% of the projected 2011 deficit, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of the president’s budget, and the reduction does not take into consideration the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy (CBO 2010b). The Boehner plan, step 2: Tax cuts for the richest Americans The next segment of Rep. Boehner’s plan would freeze all current tax rates, meaning that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts would be extended for all taxpayers, regardless of income.6 The proposal would also freeze the estate tax at its current rate of zero percent. President Obama has proposed to permanently cut taxes for 97% of Americans and allow rates to rise for joint filers making over $250,000 annually (TPC 2010). If the two-year tax freeze were made a permanent tax cut for high-income individuals — as Rep. Boehner has advocated — it would cost $629 billion more than President Obama’s proposal over the next decade. In 2011 alone, Rep. Boehner’s proposed individual income tax cuts would cost $30 billion more than the Obama approach (OMB 2010b). Impact on deficits and jobs Rep. Boehner’s proposal would save $105 billion by cutting non-security discretionary programs; however, it would simultaneously increase the deficit by $30 billion to extend tax cuts for the 3% of the population with the highest incomes. Combining these two policies, his proposal saves on net $74 billion in 2011, which would reduce the defi cit by only 5.5%. The individual income tax cuts for the rich and the cuts to spending will have different impacts on overall employment, both because of their overall size and their per dollar effect on near-term spending. Using fiscal multipliers from the CBO to measure the separate impacts of the tax cuts and the spending cuts on gross domestic product (GDP), we found that GDP would shrink by 1.1% — or about $171 billion — due to this proposal (CBO 2010c). The tax cuts themselves would modestly expand GDP, but permanent tax cuts demonstrate one of the lowest bang-for-the-buck options of any stimulus policies. The adverse impact of the spending cuts, meanwhile, would overwhelm the limited growth impact associated with the tax cuts, substantially decreasing output on net. Using a rule of thumb for the impact of government spending on employment, we estimate that this loss of GDP will correspond to a loss of roughly 1.1 million jobs, relative to a fiscal path that maintains spending at the president’s proposed 2011 levels and a tax policy that did not extend tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers. Plan slashes investments in education, research, and infrastructure Besides costing the economy jobs today, the Boehner economic plan would be detrimental to our investment deficit and longer-term growth. The nation’s schools, roads, railroads, sewers, and energy grid need repair, not funding cuts. If the 22.7% non-security discretionary cut were enacted across the board, it would undermine opportunities for our children and hurt American competitiveness in the 21st century. For example, spending on education would drop nearly $10 billion in one year alone. Funding for research at the National Institutes of Health would fall more than $7 billion. And spending on ground transportation and infrastructure investments would decrease nearly $8 billion–all in one year. It is these cuts to investment that would account for much of the expected job losses and decrease in output. Rep. Boehner’s plan to drive job growth would actually slow economic growth for years to come. A confused rationale for cutting spending Contrary to the misguided economics of Rep. Boehner, the expansion of the deficit serves a purpose: intentional deficit financed spending has driven economic growth and brought our country out of a severe economic downturn. In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rep. Boehner told Bob Schieffer: “If we cut spending, we will help our economy. We will send signals to the markets, to the business community that Washington’s attempting to get its fiscal house in order.” This talking point is not supported by market data, and is misleading. There is no evidence in the bond market that government deficit spending is crowding out private investment and raising interest rates; the Federal Reserve continues to hold short-term interest rates at record lows (and expects that resource underutilization will warrant exceptionally low rates for an extended period). Fears of a double-dip recession have recently sent the yield on 10-year Treasury notes to relatively low levels and the two-year Treasury note is trading well below its level at the peak of the financial crisis; if anything, the bond market is signaling that it wants more fiscal stimulus. Finally, it should be noted that because interest rates are so low, it is a very cheap time for the federal government to borrow, and because private firms and households are deleveraging from high debt loads, it makes sense for the government to boost aggregate demand. As Paul Krugman (2010) has repeatedly pointed out, we are in a liquidity trap and many normal rules of macroeconomics — including the investment crowd-out mechanism — are not applicable. Given that the economic recovery is faltering and the economy remains more than 6% below potential, cutting federal investments would hurt job creation and slow the return to full employment. By putting more than a million Americans out of work and risking a double-dip recession, the Boehner economic plan would also reduce the tax base and increase federal spending on unemployment insurance, exacerbating the pressure on the deficit. There is a better path to economic opportunity Speaking in Ohio, President Obama rightly declared that he refuses to “cut back on those investments that will grow our economy in the future–investments in areas like education and clean energy and technology.” These pro-growth investments largely come from the non-security discretionary budget–the same funds Rep. Boehner is trying to cut. Rep. Boehner’s plan would tilt the tax code even more in favor of the wealthiest Americans while cutting support to the American middle class. Sacrificing investment in favor of tax cuts for the rich would undermine the economic recovery and cost roughly a million jobs, all while weakening the potential for American economic growth. A real path to fiscal responsibility would prioritize job creation (actual job creation policies, not supply-side talking points masquerading as economics) and would delay tightening spending until the economy has recovered and unemployment has returned below 6% (Irons 2010). Tackling spiraling health care cost growth (an economic problem with budgetary implications, not vice versa) and modernizing a tax code that currently raises insufficient revenues would be the prudent way to address our long-term fiscal challenges. Rep. Boehner offers simplistic solutions to the wrong problems; cutting taxes for the rich is not an economic cure-all–indeed, it is among the least effective ways to stimulate economic activity (Zandi and Blinder 2010). The way to reduce the deficit in the longer term and to rebuild the middle class is to put Americans back to work and invest in our future, not to cut targeted investments that are desperately needed, particularly in this time of economic weakness. By creating jobs and investing in infrastructure, research, education, and new energy sources, we can rebalance the economy and build a better America for the next generation. This post originally appears as a Policy Memo at the Economic Policy Institute .

Read the full article →

Video: Whitman Says Nuclear Power Is One of Safest Industries: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey’s Republican ex-governor and former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, talks about the outlook for nuclear power in the U.S. Whitman, who is co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, speaks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Oil And Gas Industry May Sue OSHA Over Flame-Resistant Clothing Requirement

September 23, 2010

Oil and gas drilling groups are so upset over a new federal policy requiring workers to wear flame-resistant clothing on well-drilling rigs that they may sue the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Association of Energy Service Companies, a large industry group that includes Halliburton and Key Energy, is weighing all its options — including legal and political steps — to fight OSHA on the issue, the group’s executive director told The Huffington Post, arguing that the new requirement could cost the industry up to $50 million to implement and then $100 million annually after that. “We’re not going to rule anything out at this point,” said Kenny Jordan, adding that AESC and other major oil industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the International Association of Drilling Contractors, sent a letter to OSHA on September 2 to express their concerns about the enforcement memorandum. Jordan said that he plans to give OSHA on Thursday or Friday a deadline by which to respond to his group’s concerns. (h/t BNA’s Occupational Safety and Health Reporter ) The

Read the full article →

Oil And Gas Industry May Sue OSHA Over Flame-Resistant Clothing Requirement

September 23, 2010

Oil and gas drilling groups are so upset over a new federal policy requiring workers to wear flame-resistant clothing on well-drilling rigs that they may sue the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Association of Energy Service Companies, a large industry group that includes Halliburton and Key Energy, is weighing all its options — including legal and political steps — to fight OSHA on the issue, the group’s executive director told The Huffington Post, arguing that the new requirement could cost the industry up to $50 million to implement and then $100 million annually after that. “We’re not going to rule anything out at this point,” said Kenny Jordan, adding that AESC and other major oil industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the International Association of Drilling Contractors, sent a letter to OSHA on September 2 to express their concerns about the enforcement memorandum. Jordan said that he plans to give OSHA on Thursday or Friday a deadline by which to respond to his group’s concerns. (h/t BNA’s Occupational Safety and Health Reporter ) The

Read the full article →

Oil And Gas Industry May Sue OSHA Over Flame-Resistant Clothing Requirement

September 23, 2010

Oil and gas drilling groups are so upset over a new federal policy requiring workers to wear flame-resistant clothing on well-drilling rigs that they may sue the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Association of Energy Service Companies, a large industry group that includes Halliburton and Key Energy, is weighing all its options — including legal and political steps — to fight OSHA on the issue, the group’s executive director told The Huffington Post, arguing that the new requirement could cost the industry up to $50 million to implement and then $100 million annually after that. “We’re not going to rule anything out at this point,” said Kenny Jordan, adding that AESC and other major oil industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the International Association of Drilling Contractors, sent a letter to OSHA on September 2 to express their concerns about the enforcement memorandum. Jordan said that he plans to give OSHA on Thursday or Friday a deadline by which to respond to his group’s concerns. (h/t BNA’s Occupational Safety and Health Reporter ) The

Read the full article →