america

Huffington Post…

The nation’s largest private prison corporation sued a South Florida town this week, arguing that city officials are trying to “disrupt and derail” plans to build one of nation’s largest immigrant-detention centers northwest of Miami. Corrections Corporation of America’s federal lawsuit claims that city officials in Pembroke Pines, Fla., are interfering with the company’s “advantageous business relationship” with federal immigration authorities. Corrections Corp. reached a tentative deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last summer to build a 1,500-bed detention facility in Southwest Ranches, a quiet suburban enclave near the Everglades. But residents and immigrant-rights groups have waged a battle against the company and elected officials who support construction of the jail. Money is on the line for both Corrections Corp. and the town of Southwest Ranches, which has an agreement to receive up to 4 percent of the compensation from the company’s potential deal with the federal government. Over the past decade, the federal government has embarked on an unprecedented campaign to round up and detain undocumented immigrants, leading to a major development of detention centers. Between 2005 and 2010, the amount of money appropriated for immigrant detention and removal more than doubled, from $1.2 billion to more than $2.5 billion. Private contractors like Corrections Corp. and GEO Group have benefited: Nearly half of all immigrants detained by the federal government were housed in private facilities, according to an analysis of data by advocacy group Detention Watch Network . Though the politics have been fierce in Southwest Ranches, the lawsuit hinges on a technical matter: how to get water and sewer services to the site of the proposed detention center. While the site is in the town of Southwest Ranches, Corrections Corp. was relying on an agreement with nearby Pembroke Pines to provide the hookup to water systems. After public opposition swelled in both communities over the past year, commissioners in Pembroke Pines began looking at ways to pull out of the agreement to provide services for the jail site. The City Commission nixed the deal earlier this week, which led Corrections Corp. to file lawsuit in federal court seeking damages and a reversal of the city’s decision. “It is not legal for a municipality to selectively provide … services … based on political considerations,” wrote Steve Owen, a spokesman for Corrections Corp., in an e-mail response. Residents near the site of the proposed detention center have been vocal opponents of the deal, which has brought unprecedented tension to the wealthy corner of South Florida known for expansive ranch homes and residents who ride horses. Homeowners in both towns have been flooded with robocalls from both Corrections Corp. and activists seeking to sway public opinion on the detention center. “They’re suing my city with the federal tax dollars they’ve gotten from my pocket,” said Ryann Greenberg, who lives less than a half mile from the proposed site and has organized hundreds of residents in opposition. “They’re trying to bully their way into this contract.” The city attorney for Pembroke Pines, Sam Goren, wrote in an e-mail that the city is reviewing the lawsuit and will be meeting with outside counsel to “prepare appropriate strategies in the future defense.” Although Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached a tentative deal with Corrections Corp. last summer on the Southwest Ranches site, a spokesman for the agency said there is “no set timeline” for a final decision.

See the original post here:
Private Prison Company Sues Florida Town For Thwarting Immigrant Jail

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Huffington Post…

NEW YORK — Protesters plan to “occupy” courthouses in more than 100 cities across the U.S. on Friday to protest a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that removed most limits on corporate and labor spending in federal elections. The grassroots coalition, called Move to Amend, said the protest will kick off petition drives to gain support for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United v. FEC, a 2010 court ruling that allowed private groups to spend huge amounts on political campaigns with few restrictions. Occupy Wall Street activists are joining the protest. “The courts created the idea that the corporation is a person with constitutional rights,” said David Cobb, an Occupy the Courts organizer. “It’s the justification for the whole corporate takeover of our government.” A last-minute court dispute left the status of the protest in New York City unclear. A judge on Thursday ruled that demonstrators do not have a First Amendment right to protest in front of a Manhattan federal courthouse. Protesters had filed a lawsuit asking the judge to overturn the government’s rejection of their permit application. The permit had been denied on grounds that the courthouse poses unique security concerns. In light of the ruling, protesters did not announce whether the event would be moved to another location.

See original here:
Protesters To Demonstrate Outside Courthouses

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Perry Challenges Romney To Release Tax Returns

January 17, 2012

Rick Perry on Monday joined Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in calling for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns quickly, so that voters can find out now if they have a “flawed candidate or not.” “We need for you to release your income tax,” Perry said at a GOP debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. “We cannot fire our nominee in September. We need to know now.” Romney, given a chance to respond, at first didn’t address the issue. When pressed later, however, he moved a step closer, saying he would “probably” do it around April if he becomes the nominee. “I looked at what has been done in campaigns in the past with Sen. McCain and President George W. Bush and others,” he said. “They have tended to release tax records in April or tax season. I hadn’t planned on releasing tax records, because the law requires us to release all of our assets — all of the things we own — that I’ve already released. It’s a pretty full disclosure.” “But you know, if that’s been the tradition, I’m not opposed to doing that,” he added. “Time will tell. But I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period and I’ll keep that open.” When asked again whether he was agreeing to release them, Romney replied, “I think I’ve heard enough from folks saying, ‘Look, let’s see your tax records.’ I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem, and I’m happy to do so. I sort of feel like we are showing a lot of exposure at this point. And if I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year and that’s probably what I would do.” Romney earns much of his income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than that for even the lowest military service member. He has so far refused to release his taxes.

Read the full article →

No Steve Jobs Action Figure For You

January 16, 2012

SAN JOSE, Calif. – The company that began advertising for an incredibly lifelike Steve Jobs doll won’t sell the figurines after all because of pressure from family and Apple lawyers. In Icons had planned to offer the 1-foot (0.3-meter)-tall, lifelike figure dressed in Jobs’ trademark black mock turtleneck, rimless glasses and jeans. But the San Jose Mercury News reports (http://bit.ly/AoI1ZQ ) the company posted a statement on its website Sunday saying it had received “immense pressure” to drop the plan and made the decision out of its “heartfelt sensitivity to the feelings of the Jobs family.” The iconic Apple co-founder died Oct. 5 of complications from pancreatic cancer. In icons had intended to start shipping the doll in February. The company says any money received for pre-orders will be returned. ___ Online: http://inicons.com ___ Information from: San Jose Mercury News, http://www.sjmercury.com

Read the full article →

5 Ways A Renter Can Save On Wintertime Heating Bills

January 16, 2012

From Mother Nature Network’s Matt Hickman: Q: I rent a shared two-bedroom apartment in Boston that’s somewhat of an anomaly in this “heat and hot water included”-heavy town: My roommate and I are in control of, and pay for, our own gas heating. Last winter’s monthly heating bills were somewhat of a horror show (I guess that’s what we get for scoring a decent pad with relatively cheap rent) so we’ve decided to put our heads together to see how we can reduce the cost. Have any quick and easy ideas on how we should start? A: I’m in the exact same boat, my friend. My rental is quite lovely and affordable (at least by downtown Brooklyn standards), but when I signed away on that initial lease several years ago, I had no idea as to how financially draining those winter heating bills could be. To make things worse, I live on the top floor of an older building that directly faces the water, so when those January winds pick up, there’s no way I’m not cranking up the thermostat. Still, I’ve managed to pick up a few tips and tidbits that have helped me stay cozy and save a few bucks each month without having to resort to drastic measures like building a bonfire in the middle of the living room.

Read the full article →

Vladimir Putin’s Russia Gets A Warning

January 16, 2012

MOSCOW — The Fitch rating agency on Monday downgraded the outlook on Russia’s debt, citing political uncertainty. Fitch said in a statement Monday it had changed its outlook from positive to stable, meaning it was less likely to upgrade the country, which has been relatively unaffected by the European debt crisis and recently enjoyed profits from rising oil prices. The rating agency cited the potential impact of weakening global growth and domestic political uncertainty as key reasons for the move. Allegations for fraud surrounding recent parliamentary elections sparked popular protests across the country, including rallies of tens of thousands of people in Moscow that were the largest protests of Russia’s post-Soviet era. The agency said that, although there is little doubt Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would win March’s presidential election, it is unclear how he would respond to the protests. Fitch said recent events “highlighted the limitations and risks associated with Russia’s political model.” Russia’s gross domestic product rose by 4.2 percent last year and the country has been running budget surpluses for the past several years. But the country is likely to face growing budget deficits in the coming years after Putin has pledged hikes in military and social spending which analysts say could hurt the economy.

Read the full article →

Robert K. Lifton: Mitt Romney and Bain Capital: Understanding the Reality

January 13, 2012

In support of his run for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney has cited his experience at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded and led for many years. He has argued that that experience in which he “created 100,000 jobs” demonstrates his capabilities at job creation for the nation and is a qualification for the position of president. Some Romney supporters have gone further. Thus, Utah Governor Gary Herbert, appearing on CNBC’s Squawk Box, argued that Romney’s experience at Bain in “turning around” companies demonstrates that he can “turn around” the United States. Romney’s claims of job creation opened the door to attacks from other Republican candidates. Newt Gingrich and a “super PAC” supporting him, financed by Las Vegas mogul Sheldon Adelson, are claiming in emotion laden ads that Romney’s activities at Bain actually reduced jobs and harmed employees. And Texas Governor Rick Perry has characterized private equity companies like Bain as “vultures” that destroy worker’s lives. Now, Republican leaders of all stripes, including former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are rushing to the defense of Romney, arguing that attacks on his business record are antithetical to the Republican party’s support of business and free market capitalism. The reality is both more simple and more complex than all those allegations would have one believe. It is simple because the function of Bain and other private equity funds has no planned relation to job creation or job losses. It is more complex, because the activities of Bain do tell us something about Mitt Romney — having nothing to do with jobs. Let’s look at how Bain and other private equity companies actually operate. The business goal of private equity companies is to make profits for investors in the equity funds they manage. The greater the profits for the investors, the larger the take of the fund managers, who typically receive a base management fee of about 2 percent plus a portion of the fund profits, generally around 20 percent. If the fund manager is very successful then the manager’s participation in profits may run as high as 30 percent, which investors may be prepared to accept just to be able to invest with that manager. We’re told that Bain was very successful in creating very high returns on investment for its investors, said to be an astounding 88 percent per year, to the point where it could get 30 percent participation in profits. One tax advantage of the fund mangers is that although their business is to get paid by creating values, unlike other payment for services, which is taxed as ordinary income, their return for their services is treated as capital gain and taxed at the lower capital gains rate. What the private equity firms do to earn those returns is to seek out opportunities to acquire companies where by adding their efforts and talents they will be able to increase the value of the company to the point where they can realize the increased value by selling the company or its assets. A sale can be made to another company, frequently a much larger one in a related field, to another private equity fund which believes it can create even more value for its own investors, or in a public offering to a broad group of shareholders. Most often, in order to increase the return on capital invested by the fund, the fund will borrow a significant portion of the purchase price of the business. And sometimes, if it can, the fund will take back as a distribution immediately upon closing the purchase of the business, a portion of its investment in the purchase price, reducing its own investment and enhancing its return on the investment left in the business. This distribution may come from the company’s existing cashable assets or from money that the company is caused to borrow. This additional leverage also creates additional risk; if things don’t go right the business will not be able to pay the carrying costs of the debt, the lender will take over the business and the fund will lose its investment. Sometimes, that results in the acquired company placed in bankruptcy proceedings either to liquidate its assets to pay off the debt or to restructure, a process Bain also experienced. It should be evident in understanding the function of Bain and other equity funds that job creation or job loss is ancillary to the investment goals and activities. To increase the profits of the acquired company, the fund may reduce the number of employees, reduce pay levels or curtail work time. In that case the fund could face worker anger and union pressure. If the company happens to become very successful, as Staples did after Bain acquired it, it may expand its business requiring that it increase hiring and work time. So what does all of that tell us about Mitt Romney? Certainly, his success in founding the Bain equity fund and operating it very successfully for a number of years speaks to his initiative and intelligence, his commitment to hard work, his ability to pull together a team of talented people and work closely with them. It also tells us that he is willing to take risks and to take action required to achieve his goals irrespective of whether that action helps or hurts people affected by it — in this case employees of the acquired companies. It also tells us that he is flexible — he could not accomplish what he did without being adaptable, willing to “go with the flow” and accommodate his views to his business interests and those of his investors and lenders. We have already seen much of that flexibility in his willingness as a candidate to change his political positions to accommodate the demands of the constituency whose support he is seeking. It also tells us that what he says now on the stump is not necessarily what he will do if he is elected president to accomplish his goals. It also should be evident that “turning around” a business has little relationship with trying to change the direction of a country. The objectives of Bain were clear-cut: increase the profits from the business at whatever cost to employees or suppliers. The objectives of a nation are rarely clear-cut and reflect the balancing of interests of different constituencies with different, often conflicting, desires and aims. The ability to change an acquired company’s direction lay within the power of Bain management. By contrast, the power of a president is diffuse and depends on political circumstances beyond the president’s control, like which party is in power in which branch of government. Leading a nation in a particular direction in those circumstances is very difficult if not impossible, and requires political talents of the highest order to bring the nation with him. And therein lies the rub. Mitt Romney of Bain Capital was a good businessman. The selection process of choosing the Republican candidate and later the president calls for a different valuation based on other criteria: choosing a political leader whose values conform to those of the voter making the choice. A person whose emotional make-up allows him to handle the crushing burdens of office and gut wrenching decisions such as sending troops off to war. Mitt Romney’s business activities at Bain tell us very little about those important values and what he would seek to do as president. And unfortunately, Mitt Romney’s career as a politician and now as a candidate tell us little more than that he can be all things to all people. We have to look elsewhere than Bain Capital to make a well-reasoned decision about Romney’s qualifications for the job of president. Mr. Lifton, a businessman and political activist is writing a book entitled “Life’s Lessons and Stories From a Member of the “Greatest Generation.”

Read the full article →

Jeff Greene: Downgrading the Big Three

January 13, 2012

Since August, when Standard and Poor’s cut its ratings for America’s debt, stock markets have swung wildly on news that one country or another faced a similar downgrade. Many investors cowered on the sidelines as rating agencies issued warnings. But while ominous news reports spooked traders, the rates paid on U.S. Treasury bonds actually declined when a ratings downgrade should have forced them upward. The public may be puzzled to see that countries on the downgrade watch-list may actually pay less to borrow. However, experienced investors know that the market has adopted a new attitude about the once venerable ratings agencies that grade debt issued by corporations and governments. Indeed, Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch — also known as The Big Three — lost much of their credibility as they failed to act as reliable brokers of information and played a big part in creating the economic crisis that began in 2007. In effect, the market has downgraded them. I first discovered the flaws in the ratings system in the spring of 2006, when I began examining the pools of mortgages offered to investors by many major banks. The Big Three had judged these instruments to be safe, investment grade bonds and given them their approval. But anyone who took the time to review the underlying loans could see they were full of problems. In many of the pools, which were rated investment grade by all three agencies, 70 percent of the mortgages were interest-only notes that would require a doubling of payments in just two years. A homeowner who could barely afford a $1,000 a month- – and wouldn’t qualify if forced to show his true financial condition — would suddenly be required to pay $2,000. Anyone could see that securities backed by these kinds of loans would fail when their teaser interest rates went up three percent and the principal and the interest-only feature was eliminated at the same time. The mortgages that were about to re-set ticked like a time bomb inside a real estate bubble that had been growing since the year 2000. In that time investors had poured hundreds of billions of dollars into these mortgage loan pools, mainly on the basis of the high ratings they received from The Big Three. All this money made it easy for lenders to keep offering loans to borrowers who weren’t required to prove their income or assets. The easy money, which significantly lowered the monthly cost of buying a home, helped further inflate real estate values as millions of people who were not genuinely qualified, became proud but over-extended homeowners. The bubble was there for all to see. Indeed, many individuals and institutions examined the mortgage market and concluded, as I did, that The Big Three, who were supposed to act like the cop on the beat, had failed. The securities underlying the housing bubble were fatally flawed. When it finally burst, the small number of us who called the market correctly, profited. Those who had trusted the rating agencies suffered enormous losses. Worse still, the collapse in real estate brought down the rest of the economy, giving us the worst crisis since the Great Depression. In the aftermath of the meltdown, it’s plain to see that most of the individual players acted as they were supposed to act in a free market. Renters became owners when offered cheap mortgages. Lenders kept issuing loans because investors kept funding securitized mortgages. Investors acted on the basis on the high grades granted to these mortgage securities because they didn’t understand that the rules of rating had changed. To understand how, you have to go back to when the longstanding relationship between The Big Three and the market was radically reformed. In the early 1970s a variety of reasons led the big rating agencies to stop charging investors for their services and begin billing those who wanted their stamp of approval. Since Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P charged roughly the same price, they competed mainly on the basis of providing good service. Good service meant maintaining good relations with the corporations and public debtors they reviewed. At the same time everyone issuing debt was essentially “paying to play” as they wrote checks to agencies certifying their quality. Once debtors began paying the bills, ratings underwent a gradual kind of grade inflation as AAA, and AA, became the equivalent of “gentleman’s Cs” in the Ivy League of old. I think most investors failed to take this change into account and continued to rely on The Big Three as if they had maintained their independence. They got one wake-up call in the 1990s when Orange County, California was rated AA on the eve of going bankrupt. Another came in 2001 as Standard and Poor’s judged Enron to be “stable” until about a month before it filed for Chapter 11. Now, after the catastrophe of 2007, we should all see that the ratings system is fatally flawed. I won’t say that the individuals working in it are corrupt. But we shouldn’t deny that over time, the competition for clients and dependency on their payments invariably bred a familiarity that clouded the process of analysis. If Orange Country and Enron didn’t teach us this lesson, surely the great recession has. Today, as the ratings agencies eyeball sovereign debt, they seem determined to make up for their past mistakes by erring in the opposite direction. In downgrading the United States last August, S&P had to ignore America’s standing as the world’s leading national economy with an unbroken, centuries-old record of honoring its debt. While we may have big trade deficits and debt right now, nothing fundamental has changed in a way that justified the August downgrade. This is why S&P’s action did not lead to a flight from U.S. Treasury issues but a decline in the rating agency’s reputation, as investors questioned the motivation behind the downgrade. Going forward, investors must be less dependent on ratings and The Big Three and rely more on their own due diligence. Fortunately, the abundance of public data available makes it possible for us to conduct this research and make our decisions independently. A rating from Fitch, Moody’s, or S&P may be factored into our ultimate buy-or-sell choices, but the days when those grades are the main determining factor are over.

Read the full article →

America’s Backward Recovery Picks Up Steam

January 13, 2012

The U.S. recession may have ended in June 2009, according to the official arbiter of the business cycle. But by all signs, the recovery is just beginning.

Read the full article →

Carl Gibson: "Job Creators" Aren’t Doing Their Job

January 12, 2012

If you put long hours and hard work into a job, would you be upset with a boss who paid you with a handful of nickels, especially if hundred-dollar bills spilled out of your boss’ pockets while he dug around for the coins? As taxpayers, Americans expect to get what they pay for — safe infrastructure, prompt emergency response, good schools and a strong social safety net. As shareholders in profitable companies, investors expect to get what they pay for — dividends. And as job seekers in a troubled economy, America’s unemployed are trying to find work wherever they can; but corporate greed is depriving taxpayers, shareholders and job seekers of what they need and deserve. With $2 trillion at home and $1.4 trillion abroad, corporations are sitting on record-high piles of cash. For example, Apple holds $76 billion by itself, more than the U.S. Treasury . Yet, these hoards of cash remain untaxed. A 35 percent tax on corporate America’s cash reserves in the United States alone would generate $700 billion in revenue. That amount would reverse every budget cut in every state , rejuvenating America’s schools and infrastructure by recreating 400,000 public sector jobs lost since the recession. If corporations simply invested their American stash of cash reserves in creating good jobs for America’s unemployed, they could put 3.5 million new people to work in the private sector each year for five years, at an annual salary of $40,000. If corporations just used their cash reserves to pay dividends to their shareholders, investors like the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System wouldn’t have to cut benefits for their retirees. Corporate executives blame the “uncertainty” of the economy as an excuse to sit on piles of cash, yet the economic boost of 17.5 million jobs created in five years would dramatically lower the unemployment rate and increase GDP, bolstering local economies by creating a surge of new demand for struggling small business owners. Using cash reserves to pay dividends to shareholders would restore confidence in the market and strengthen the investments millions are counting on for their retirement. It is both greedy and irresponsible for American corporations to allow untaxed cash to pile up on their balance sheets while American infrastructure crumbles, public education suffers, the unemployed struggle to survive and shareholders lose their investments. It’s time for America’s “job creators” to do their job.

Read the full article →

Republicans Finally Rally Around Romney

January 12, 2012

GREER, S.C. — An array of Republicans and conservatives – including some of Mitt Romney’s sharpest critics – rushed to the GOP presidential front-runner’s defense Thursday to counter efforts to paint the former venture capitalist as a job-killer. Under fire, Romney rivals Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry backed off from directly attacking Romney’s tenure at the helm of Bain Capital. “We’re disappointed” with the line of criticism, said Thomas Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business group doesn’t endorse in presidential campaigns, but Donohue said: “We think Romney has had a pretty good track record. Perfect? Hell no, but damn good.” Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who ran against Romney four years ago, wrote in an online letter: “It’s surprising to see so many Republicans embrace that left-wing argument against capitalism.” And another 2008 foe, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News Channel: “I’m shocked at what they are doing. I’m going to say it’s ignorant. Dumb. It’s building something we should be fighting – ignorance of the American economic system.” Romney’s new defenders – many of whom have long histories of disagreeing with the former Massachusetts governor – argued that the attacks on his business record undermined the GOP’s identity and weakened the party’s chief argument against Democratic President Barack Obama, that federal intrusion has stymied the economy’s recovery. And while the latest comments were more a rejection of attacks on Romney’s record at Bain than an endorsement of Romney as a candidate, they signaled a warming toward Romney by a cross-section of the GOP as his party struggles to settle on a more conservative alternative. They also signaled that attempts by Gingrich, a former House speaker, and Perry, the Texas governor, to cast Romney as a cold-blooded predator in the business world appeared to be backfiring badly – and playing right into the Romney campaign’s hands. A prominent fundraiser in South Carolina – Barry Wynn – shifted his support from Perry to Romney in light of those attacks, which he said had crossed the line in a political party that values free-market capitalism. “I’ve been fighting for this cause most of my life,” Wynn said. “It’s like fingernails on the chalkboard. It just kind of irritated you to hear those kind of attacks.” The controversy over Romney’s Bain tenure began last weekend when Gingrich, seeking a rebound for his candidacy if not revenge for attack ads that crippled his campaign in Iowa, sought to undercut the central rationale of his chief rival’s candidacy – that Romney’s business background made him the strongest Republican to take on Obama. Perry, whose campaign also is in trouble, joined in. Both are accusing Romney of being a fat-cat venture capitalist during his days running Bain, laying off workers as he restructured companies and filled his own pockets. But the criticism of both Gingrich and Perry has been swift, with opponents Rick Santorum and Ron Paul refusing to attack Romney’s time at Bain, and others fearful about bloodying the Republican most likely to become the party’s nominee. “If you believe what the Obama administration is doing is a direct assault on the private sector and as Republicans we believe that’s the wrong approach, you can’t turn around and say what is going on in the private sector is wrong,” said Jim Dyke, a GOP strategist in South Carolina who is uncommitted to a candidate in the Jan. 21 primary. The backlash against Gingrich and Perry snowballed Thursday when the U.S. Chamber, one of the nation’s most prominent pro-business lobbying groups, weighed in. Earlier in the week, conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, often a Romney critic, called Gingrich’s comments “out of bounds for those who value the free market.” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola labeled the attacks “disgusting.” And South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who endorsed Romney in 2008 but is unaligned this year, suggested that Romney critics don’t understand “the principles of our party.” “To have a few Republicans in this race beginning to talk about how bad it is to fire people…it really gives the Democrats a lot of fodder,” DeMint, arguably South Carolina’s most popular Republican, told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. Although presidential contender Jon Huntsman had criticized Romney for a comment he made about firing people, Huntsman said on Wednesday: “If you have creative destruction in capitalism, which has always been part of capitalism, it becomes a little disingenuous to take on Bain Capital.” Gingrich and Perry seem to have gotten the message – to a point. While Gingrich said “I’m not going to back down” during a campaign stop in Columbia on Thursday, he made no mention of Romney nor did he repeat his criticism of Romney’s record as a venture capitalist. Instead, Gingrich tried to shift blame, saying that it was his calls to audit the 2008 federal banking bailout that had “rattled a number of so-called conservatives.” “When you have crony capitalism and politicians taking care of their friends, that’s not free enterprise, that’s back-door socialism,” said Gingrich, who is airing a TV ad describing Romney’s economic plans as timid. An outside group supporting Gingrich – called Winning Our Future – pressed ahead with plans to launch an advertising attack on Romney’s time at Bain, complete with a bruising ad and longer-form video in South Carolina assailing Romney as a vicious corporate raider. Perry, who had likened companies like Bain to vultures, avoided attacking Romney for his role at Bain during two stops in South Carolina on Thursday. Yet, he defended the approach later, arguing Republicans were better off airing concerns now than letting Democrats exploit it this fall. “I don’t want to be out there defending practices that put people out of work,” Perry told The Associated Press in Walterboro. “My point is if we’re going to be the party of positive job growth, we need to be really careful about creating these types of situations.” Romney, for his part, has tried in recent days to explain the private equity business. He told reporters in Greer as the day began that in the private sector, some businesses grow and thrive while others have to be cut back in order to survive and become stronger. “Sometimes you’re successful at that and sometimes you’re not,” Romney said. Meanwhile, his team was working behind the scenes to blunt the force of the criticism, distributing talking points to surrogates warning against attacking the free-market economy. On Wednesday night, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, chided Gingrich and Perry indirectly in introducing Romney, whom she has endorsed, during a campaign event in Columbia. “We have a real problem when we have Republicans talking like dang Democrats against the free market,” Haley said. “We believe in free markets.” ___ Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Brian Bakst in South Carolina, and Jim Kuhnhenn in Washington contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Rahm Says Chief Of Staff Gig Is ‘Toughest Job In America’

January 10, 2012

CHICAGO — Mayor Rahm Emanuel weighed in on the departure of White House chief of staff Bill Daley Tuesday, saying the fellow Chicagoan can leave the “toughest job in America” with his “head held high,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports. Emanuel, who left the chief of staff position to run for mayor, made the comments during a news conference Tuesday, where he defended Daley’s decision to head home and spend more time with his family. Administration officials told The Huffington Post that Obama was caught off guard by Daley’s decision , and that he tried to persuade him not to go. Emanuel called the chief of staff position “grinding” and explained that people don’t last long in the role these days. From the Sun-Times : Emanuel noted that the average life span of the modern-day White House chief of staff is 18 months. “It is a grinding job. It’s exciting. But basically every problem before it gets to the Oval Office sits at that desk. … It’s all incoming — constantly. … I lasted past the 18 months. Bill didn’t. … I don’t think it’s a judgment on Bill [that he didn’t last]. Bill did a good job for the president because he served him loyally and had his back. That is the ultimate test,” he said. Emanuel told NBC Chicago that he will have dinner with Daley when he returns to Chicago in late January. Daley, the brother of longtime Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, will co-chair Obama’s 2012 campaign , NBC reported Monday. “I made a commitment to the president through his re-election,” Daley told the station, “which I’m confident he will do, and then my wife and I will be back in Chicago.”

Read the full article →

Al Checchi: Occupy America

January 8, 2012

Centered in the systemic abuse of the housing markets, the 2008 financial crisis was the culmination of the greatest financial swindle in human history. Yet three years later, little has been done to punish the offenders or prevent a reoccurrence. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, sponsored by two of the financial industry’s greatest apologists, accomplished little other than diversion. Most of the major institutional participants in the financial debacle continue to operate — many bolstered by hundreds of billions of dollars of federal financial support. Few of the individual perpetrators have been prosecuted. Some have quietly retired (including Dodd and Frank) or moved on to lesser profile positions. An extraordinary number continue to occupy high elected and appointed public office as well as prominent private sector board, advisory, and executive positions. That so many have gone unpunished or unrecognized and continue to hold positions of public and private trust is a sad commentary on our current state of justice and public morality. In 1990, financier Michael Milken was convicted of “parking” violations (aiding clients in hiding the amount of their ownership of public securities). He was sentenced to ten years in prison, banned for life from the securities industry, and fined $600 million. His firm Drexel Burnham Lambert was fined an additional $500 million and forced into liquidation. The government calculated the cost to the public of Milken’s crimes at $685,000. The 2008 housing meltdown produced multi-trillion dollar world-wide financial losses, devastated the retirement and savings accounts of tens of millions of families, and dimmed the economic prospects of a generation of young Americans. It involved dereliction of fiduciary responsibility, fraud, and corruption on an unprecedented scale. Yet, only a handful of people were prosecuted or even fired among those responsible — the legions of brokers, mortgage originators, investment and commercial banks, rating agencies, accounting and legal firms, federal and state regulators, elected and appointed federal, state, and local officials, and quasi public institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2010 the Tea Party had success mobilizing Americans unhappy with the state of the country but specifically concerned about the unsupportable expansion of federal government spending. Identifying elected officials in general as the principal cause and Democrats in particular as “the party of government,” the movement catalyzed an unprecedented congressional turnover (96 new Republicans against 10 new Democrats). While the country may benefit from clearing out some of this elected dead wood and more responsible budgeting may result, the acknowledged growth in government spending had precious little to do with creating the financial crisis that is the principal source of our national discontent. During the past year, the Occupy Wall Street movement hit closer to the mark by identifying the causal relationship between the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting financial and job losses, and diminished prospects for individual economic opportunity. Democrats were quick to embrace the movement presuming that Republicans as “the party of business” would be principally disadvantaged. However, Democrats have scrupulously avoided making more specific connections between the actions of the political class and the 2008 debacle. Having benefitted at least as much as Republicans from the patronage provided by the perpetrators of the crisis, Democrats as the principal advocates for increasing home ownership and lower community based lending standards could be vulnerable to charges of having instigated the crisis in the first place. Since both parties are equally culpable for failing to avoid the excesses that led to the 2008 meltdown, it appears that the 2012 election will be fought on safer ground. Democrats will shift the conversation away from the actions of the political class and the culpability of Wall Street and its enablers to the more traditionally hospitable terrain of class division. Issues of “income inequality” and “tax fairness” may or may not be political winners but will leave unaddressed the implications of our growing and unsupportable government deficits and do little to address the damage done by the financial crisis or our vulnerability to another one. Similarly Republicans will complain about the level of government spending and the need for less job killing regulation while avoiding the calamitous results produced by past unrestrained financial manipulation in the private sector. Washington has at last reached bipartisan agreement: neither party sees benefit from further investigating the causes of the crisis or making the substantive changes necessary to prevent a reoccurrence. The institutional structures that led to the 2008 crisis remain largely in place and many of the people most responsible maintain positions of power. After suffering multi trillion dollar financial losses in pensions and housing values, three years of multi-trillion dollar federal government deficits and the resulting loss of its AAA credit rating, the country is in far worse position to weather another crisis or honor its rising future benefit obligations. Unless we address the causes of our last crisis, root out the enablers and profiteers in both the private and public sectors who perpetrated it, and correct the imbalance in a government that spends close to twice what it collects, we won’t have much left worth occupying.

Read the full article →

Ex-MF Global CEO Reportedly Shopped For French Mansion During Firm’s Collapse

January 5, 2012

As MF Global inched towards collapse, CEO Jon Corzine pre-occupied himself with a few other things — namely securing a chateaux for him and his wife in the ritzy south of France. At a party in Paris on October 15 — just two weeks before MF Global filed for bankruptcy, costing more than 1,000 workers their jobs — Corzine and his wife, Sharon Elghanayan, were discussing a house they planned to purchase in the south of France , according to an upcoming report in Vanity Fair . “It’s not in Cap Ferrat,” one person at the party told Vanity Fair they recall Elghanayan saying in an effort to tone down the extravagance. Cap Ferrat is a coastal town in the south of France known for its lavish lifestyle. Though Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs CEO, governor of New Jersey and Senator , was able to scrounge up the money for a possible chateaux purchase, he’s having a little bit more trouble tracking down MF Global clients’ money , much of which is still missing . Shortly after the company filed for bankruptcy on October 31 over risky bets on European debt that went disastrously wrong, hundreds of millions worth of customers’ money was discovered missing. Corzine, who resigned in early November after the firm’s collapse, told Congress of the lost client funds: “I simply do not know where the money is.” The missing funds have attracted the attention of the FBI and federal prosecutors, according to Reuters. Though shopping for a house presumably worth millions in France while your company is on the verge of bankruptcy may seem uniquely ridiculous, Corzine is not the first executive of a failing firm to spend lavishly. Indeed, it’s happened multiple times in the new millenium. Ken Lay, the former CEO of Enron, sold the company’s shares back to Enron to pay for luxuries like renting a private yacht , even as the energy giant was on the verge of collapse, according to a 2006 Reuters report. During the financial crisis, executives at bailed-out American International Group reportedly spent $86,000 on a hunting trip even as they asked for billions more in bailout funds from the Federal Reserve, according to CBS News. And Morgan Stanley spent tens of thousands of dollars on a send off for the company’s departing chairman John Mack, even as the market has hammered the bank’s stock price and some officials warned employees that they may not be getting bonuses this year, Fox Business reports.

Read the full article →

Jeff Reeves: Jobs Numbers Rise, but Big Businesses Still Make Big Layoffs

January 5, 2012

Wall Street seemed upbeat this week thanks to a number of headlines, include positive jobs numbers in a private-sector payroll report from ADP. Specifically, jobs increased 325,000 in December, led by the service sector and small businesses. Additionally, November’s employment numbers were revised slightly higher. But lest you think everything is coming up roses, keep in mind that many big corporations in America still are reluctant to hire. In fact, they are continuing to cut back, based on recent news. For starters, PepsiCo is considering cutting about 4,000 jobs, according to a New York Post report. Citing inside sources , the paper also said Pepsi might be reducing pension contributions to boost its earnings, too. Also Thursday, we learned that Kansas-based employees of Boeing will be looking for work soon . The iconic aircraft maker will be out of Wichita entirely by 2013, leaving more than 2,160 workers in the lurch. Boeing has called Kansas home since the 1920s but decided the facility no longer would allow the company to produce planes “competitively” in the current market. While the ADP improvement is mildly encouraging and the drop in unemployment from above 9 percent to the mid-8 percent levels is nice, these mass layoffs show that the labor market still has a long way to go. What’s more, these cuts signal what likely is a disturbing trend in big corner offices beyond just Pepsi and Boeing. Aerospace workers nationwide are bracing for protracted cuts in Pentagon spending as federal budget cuts take center stage in this election year. The Boeing headline is worrying to workers at competitors like Lockheed Martin, but perhaps of greater concern is that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is reviewing plans to trim $450 billion from the military budget over the next 10 years. Military contractors already have begun to consolidate manufacturing facilities and eliminate thousands of jobs from coast to coast in anticipation of this plan. This is just the latest chapter from Congress in a long story of killing jobs, not creating them . As for Pepsi, the company employs about 300,000 workers globally, so the layoff might seem small-time. But the move to cut back on benefits is very telling. Eliminating a 401(k) match would save Pepsi $75 million, according to the Post , but don’t think for a second that cash is needed to keep the lights on. Pepsi is sitting on eight consecutive quarters of year-over-year revenue gains — and is on track to see its fiscal 2011 earnings jump about 37 percent from 2008 numbers. Pepsi isn’t in dire straits. It’s just squeezing employees to impress Wall Street. I wrote recently on The Huffington Post that the ONLY thing that will fix this economy is more confidence . Folks mostly laughed me out of the room — but these layoff announcements continue to show a defensive posturing from corporate America that simply must stop for us to make meaningful progress. Like it or lump it, businesses cannot accept falling profits. And if they don’t have confidence in their growth prospects, the only way to achieve that is to cut costs. Some might argue these recent layoffs are just more money-grubbing tactics from the wealthiest 1 percent to boost corporate profits. Maybe, in part, they are. But let’s stop being naive for a second and admit that businesses are out to make as much money as they can — not employ as many people as they can. This is capitalism, not charity. Pleasant jobs reports like the one from ADP this morning are nice, but workers need to read between the lines. The sad reality is that while small businesses might be hiring and more jobs in the service industry might be available, blue-chip corporations continue to slash costs and benefits to improve their profits. Simultaneously, these big corporations are buying back their own stock at a breakneck pace to inflate numbers. In a nutshell, businesses won’t hire significantly unless they see sustainable growth. And in lieu of sustainable growth, they will settle for juicing numbers via layoffs and buybacks. The result is that even the most bullish of investors are targeting, at best, an unemployment rate of 8 percent in 2012 . Breaking this cycle is no easy task. It will take innovation, compromises on both sides and a little help from broader economic growth. Until that happens, don’t expect a big drop in unemployment any time soon. Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com. Write him at editor@investorplace​​.com.

Read the full article →

Is Bank Of America Really Cutting Off Small Businesses?

January 4, 2012

In an economy where every bit of capital can help or hurt a small business, is Bank of America cutting credit lines to some small businesses? That question emerged on Tuesday after a Los Angeles Times report cited at least two small-business owners who claim that Bank of America is now forcing them to pay their balances in full versus on a monthly basis — a move that could wipe them out. “I was like, ‘Dude, you’re calling a guy who’s barely surviving!’” Babak Zahabizadeh of Burbank, Calif.-based Messengers & Distribution told the Times , claiming he received a letter from Bank of America that stated his $96,000 debt must be repaid later this month. “My final word was that I can double my payment — but not triple or quadruple it. I told them if they apply too much pressure they’re going to push me into bankruptcy.” In an interview with The Huffington Post, however, Bank of America spokesperson Jefferson George disputed that portrayal and said that the struggling bank’s recent moves are not designed to raise capital. “What we’ve done is not cut or close credit lines for small-business clients across the board, but rather we’ve addressed this specific portfolio with a very, very, very small percentage of customers, and just put into place standard practices such as a maturity date and an annual renewal process,” Jefferson said. According to Jefferson, Bank of America has 4 million small-business customers nationwide, about 1.5 million of whom hold credit agreements. He said the small businesses within this particular portfolio comprise a small percentage — in the low single digits — of those 1.5 million. “Even if it’s a very small number, it’s important to be clear and transparent, and we explained these changes to our impacted clients in letters we sent more than a year ahead of that maturity date, which allowed us to work with all of them to explore other products that were available to them,” Jefferson said. “We’ve been able to work with 98 percent of our clients within this portfolio, and the overwhelming majority of those have the same interest rate as before. That has been, by far, the most common resolution. In very rare instances, you’d see a different solution, such as a different term or adjusted rate.” “I’m not aware of any case in which we failed to notify a client a year or more in advance,” Jefferson added. Ami Kassar, founder and CEO of MultiFunding, a Philadelphia-based firm that helps small businesses find loans , doesn’t buy it. “In our opinion, this is yet another example when a big bank’s public-relations tactics about small business doesn’t match their actions on the street,” Kassar said. “Small-business owners need loans and answers. They don’t need fancy suits visiting their offices, making promises that there is a good chance they won’t be able to fulfill.” According to MultiFunding’s research released Tuesday , Bank of America ranked 6,128 out of 6,800 banks in the United States based on small-business lending performance. Kassar also found that Bank of America’s total small-business loans, which he defines as business loans with balances of $1 million or less, decreased by $411 million between the second and third quarters of 2011. “While the average bank in America uses 7.75 percent of its deposits to make small-business loans, Bank of America uses 2.51 percent,” Kassar said. “This is a disgrace for the largest bank in the country.” Still, Jefferson is adamant about Bank of America’s commitment to small business. “We’re working with each and every small-business customer we have on their current needs — new, existing and down the road — and I’m not going to minimize anyone’s situation,” he said. “We’re going to try to find the best situation for them that would prevent a bad loan, because a bad loan would hurt the small business much more than the bank. We’re going to coninue trying to make every good loan we can to businesses that show an ability to repay the loan.”

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Chase Sued Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Mortgage Loans

January 3, 2012

JPMorgan Chase & Co has been sued for $95 million by the trustee for securities marketed in 2005 by the former Bear Stearns Cos over alleged misrepresentations regarding the underlying mortgage loans. US Bank NA wants to force JPMorgan to buy back the mortgage loans because of alleged breaches of representations and warranties regarding the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4, for which it serves as trustee. It also said JPMorgan has refused to provide the underlying loan, as the trust documents require, so it can investigate the extent of the alleged breaches. The unit of US Bancorp said it made its request at the direction of a majority certificate holder in the trust. US Bank also sued Bear Stearns and its former EMC Mortgage Corp unit. JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns in 2008. A JPMorgan spokeswoman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit was filed on Friday in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, and publicly docketed on Tuesday. It is one of many lawsuits seeking to hold banks responsible for investor losses over mortgages that may have been toxic, defective or improperly underwritten. The case is Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4 v. EMC Mortgage Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 650003/2012. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Foreclosures Taking Nearly Three Times As Long To Process As In 2007

December 28, 2011

If the American housing market is ever to recover — and provide some momentum to a broader economic turnaround — it needs to work its way through the millions of foreclosed properties that have yet to be processed and auctioned off. But those cases are taking longer and longer to get through. In 2007, the average foreclosure process in America, from beginning to end, took 253 days, or about eight months. Today, according to LPS Applied Analytics as reported by CNN, the average foreclosure takes 674 days . That’s a year and ten months, almost triple what it was four years ago. The foreclosure epidemic is one of the main factors inflicting damage on the housing market, which has still not made up for the losses it suffered a few years ago when the real estate bubble burst. In neighborhoods across the country, foreclosed or vacant properties are distorting their local markets, dragging down the values of the surrounding houses and wiping out vast sums in homeowner wealth. The ubiquity of foreclosures, and their depressing effect on housing prices, has been cited as both a symptom and a cause of the country’s persistent unemployment problem. Many homeowners enter default after losing their jobs — and on the flip side, as the Wall Street Journal recently noted, plummeting home values tend to trap people where they are , making it harder for them to move to other towns where employment opportunities might be more plentiful. The conundrum is expected to get worse in 2012. New foreclosures climbed by about 21 percent in the third quarter of 2011, with a total of almost 1.33 million foreclosures underway by the end of September. Analysts believe the volume of foreclosures will grow much greater next year as banks begin re-submitting documents that had to be discounted in the wake of the robo-signing scandal, when some of the country’s biggest lenders were found to have approved reams of mortgage paperwork without reading it first. Thanks to a government effort to screen out and correct instances of robo-signing, more than four million homeowners will eventually get the chance to submit their foreclosure cases for review — an ambitious damage-control program that is nevertheless likely to prolong the real estate market’s lifeless condition. Experts have offered a range of predictions for when the market might touch bottom and housing prices will begin to rise again. Even the most optimistic forecasts don’t see a recovery happening until late 2012 or early 2013 .

Read the full article →

Citi Selling Off Another Part Of Its Non-Core Business

December 28, 2011

NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc. is selling its Belgian consumer business to French bank Credit Mutuel Nord Europe as the New York bank continues to sell off operations that it deems are outside its core business. The company didn’t disclose the deal’s terms. Citigroup and other banks hurt by 2008′s financial meltdown and the economic downturn have been selling off “non-core” divisions. For example, Citigroup sold a $1.7 billion private equity portfolio to a French bank in June. Citigroup said it has reduced the assets within Citi Holdings by more than $582 billion since the peak in 2008′s first quarter. The company also is trimming its workforce and recently announced it will cut 4,500 jobs – or about 1.5 percent of its global workforce of 267,000 – over the next few quarters. Citigroup was one of the biggest recipients of taxpayer support during the financial crisis. It received $45 billion in bailouts funds and was partly owned by the government until December 2010. The company said Wednesday that Citibank Belgium SA has 700 workers and 500,000 customers. Citigroup said it will continue to serve corporate and institutional clients in Belgium through its Institutional Banking and Global Transaction Services franchises. The deal is expected to close in the second quarter of 2012. Shares of Citigroup fell 74 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $26.17 by early afternoon, edging near the bottom of the range from $21.40 to $51.50 where they have traded over the past year.

Read the full article →

Two Directors Resign From Board Of Struggling Company

December 27, 2011

Two Eastman Kodak directors resigned from the board last week, the struggling photography company said in a filing with U.S. regulators on Tuesday. Both directors – Adam Clammer and Herald Chen – were representatives of private equity firm KKR & Co on Kodak’s board. Kodak said Clammer and Chen notified the company of their resignations on December 21. Kodak did not give any further details as to why the directors resigned, and a spokesman was not immediately available for comment. Kodak earlier this year drew down on its revolving credit facility and on November 3 told investors that it may need to issue new debt or complete a multibillion-dollar patent sale to survive the next year. Kodak has hired Jones Day, a law firm known for restructuring cases, as well as restructuring firm FTI Consulting, but has denied that it intends to file for bankruptcy. It has been struggling to cope with the collapse of its film business. (Reporting By Michael Erman, Additional reporting by Greg Roumeliotis; Editing by Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Federal Judge Rudolph Randa Rules SEC Agreement Too Soft

December 22, 2011

A federal judge in Milwaukee has criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission for being too soft with corporate enforcement, marking the second time the agency has been criticized for weak settlements in the past month. Shadowing last month’s decision by U.S. district judge Jed Rakoff to kibosh the agency’s $258 million proposed settlement with Citibank, a federal judge in Milwaukee told the SEC that its proposed settlement with the Koss Corp. is too vague and asked the agency to provide more facts by January 24. In October the SEC charged Koss Corp., a headphone-manufacturer, with accounting fraud. Wednesday’s ruling from U.S. district judge Rudolph Randa is the latest in a string of actions by federal judges to challenge the way the government agency enforces regulations. The decision underscores the significance of the November ruling by Judge Rakoff to toss out the proposed settlement between the SEC and Citigroup that didn’t have enough facts, Rokoff said, and did not force the corporation to admit guilt. After the Citibank settlement, the SEC responded, saying the proposed agreement was business as usual . But Judge Rakoff’s decision — now followed by Judge Randa — suggests the status quo is getting a rethink. Adam C. Pritchard, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told The Huffington Post last month, “Judge Rakoff is saying that he thinks it’s time to figure out what the law is, what the obligations are for these banks.” However, amid criticism that the agency isn’t doing enough to hold executives accountable for the financial crisis, the SEC announced last week that it is suing six former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives for misleading the public about the mortgage giants’ exposure to risky subprime mortgages as the housing bubble deflated. Last February, SEC chairwoman Mary Schapiro said that the agency doesn’t have enough money to satisfactorily police Wall Street or draft new regulations required by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Frustration on the bench has been growing elsewhere. In 2010, two federal judges in Washington raised eyebrows over SEC and other government settlements . One federal judge refused to approve a $75 million settlement with Citibank in another case related to subprime mortgages. Another federal judge was critical of a $298 million deal between Barclay’s and the U.S. Department of Justice over charges that the bank had altered records to obscure international money transfers.

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: Break Up Bank of America Before It Breaks Us

December 21, 2011

On Monday, Bank of America (BofA) stocks briefly traded for under $5. Yes, you could buy a share of BofA for less than the noxious debit card fee they tried to force down your throat. BofA is massive, with assets equivalent to 15 percent of U.S. GDP. So why is it trading for the price of a latte? Because Wall Street’s dirty little secret is that BofA is a zombie bank. Now the reek is getting too strong to ignore. The Most Dangerous Bank In America? In 2008-2009, BofA publicly took $45 billion in TARP bailout funds and secretly took another $91 billion in emergency Federal Reserve loans. According to Bloomberg News , it made $1.5 billion in profits off of those loans. Yet, several analysts predict that BofA is woefully short of capital reserves. A recent study by NYU’s Stern School of Business ranks BofA as the most systemically risky firm in the United States. These analysts use public information and focus on the capital shortfall that would be experienced by the bank in the event of another crisis. BofA’s weak condition means it is in a position to “create or extend” such a crisis. As if this were not enough, recent news reports indicate that BofA is trying to move $22 trillion in derivatives out of its Merrill Lynch subsidiary into its FDIC-insured bank. The Fed favors the move (naturally). The FDIC, which provides insurance to depositors if a bank fails, does not. In this pile of derivatives could be all sorts of problems, including bad European debt, the same kind of debt that brought down Jon Corzine’s derivatives firm, MF Global. Taxpayers don’t backstop MF Global. We do backstop BofA through the FDIC and the Fed. Obama Promised to End the Era of Big Bank Bailouts While public rage focused on the $700 billion TARP bailout bill at the height of the crisis, we have learned that far more went out the door from the Fed to aid the big banks. The Center for Media and Democracy tallies the bailout at $4.7 trillion under 35 federal programs. Bloomberg News puts the number closer to $7.7 trillion in loans plus guarantees, which generated $13 billion in profits for the banks. With European Union countries teetering on the verge of default and no resolution in sight, the U.S. government needs to take decisive action to prevent another bailout of a major American firm — a move sure to generate explosive controversy in an election year. When President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill in 2010, he promised : “It will end taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street firms.” Yet, the “resolution authority” included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill requires a joint decision by a group of bank regulators to break up a systemically risky institution. Unfortunately, bank regulators like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke, strongly prefer zero accountability and unlimited bailouts. Time for a Redo While some on Wall Street frame the financial crisis as events of the distant past, the 99% understand that the crisis hasn’t ended for millions of Americans out of work. It hasn’t ended for small businesses who can’t get credit. It hasn’t ended for the millions of Americans facing foreclosure. And now we learn that a new bailout of BofA could be in the works. We learned from Ron Suskind’s new book Confidence Men that President Obama ordered the breakup of Citibank at the height of the crisis, but was stonewalled by Tim Geithner. The president’s instincts were good. Now he has an opportunity for a redo. Most Americans have had it with bailouts of the big banks on Wall Street when so little has been done for Main Street.
 
Banks that are “too big to fail” are too big to exist. Tell President Obama it’s time to break up Bank of America before it breaks us.

Read the full article →

BofA Near Deal With DOJ On Claims Countrywide Used Abusive Lending Practices

December 21, 2011

NEW YORK — Bank of America is close to announcing an agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to settle allegations that its Countrywide Financial unit violated fair lending practices on mortgages. An announcement is expected at 3 p.m. Eastern Wednesday, according to a person with knowledge of the settlement. The person wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. The Justice Department has investigated Countrywide for abusive lending practices for mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2008. Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America Corp. bought the nation’s largest subprime lender Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2008.

Read the full article →

WSJ vs. GOP

December 21, 2011

The Wall Street Journal editorial page attacked congressional Republicans Wednesday for possibly losing the payroll tax cut standoff to President Barack Obama. The editorial begins : GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected. Given how he and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the payroll tax debate, we wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest. House Republicans killed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and a provision avoiding Medicare payment cuts to to doctors Tuesday by a 229-193 vote. The Senate voted Saturday by an 89-10 margin to extend all three for two months. All three provisions expire on Jan. 1. House Republicans want the Senate to return and negotiate over a compromise plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he won’t negotiate until the House approves the Senate’s package. The conservative editorial board wrote that the Republicans have “thoroughly botched the politics.” The board also added that Obama is in a “stronger re-election position today than he was a year ago.” If Congress does nothing, then the payroll tax paid by workers will rise from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent, long-term unemployment benefits will expire and doctors will face a 27 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements on Jan. 1.

Read the full article →

A Tax On Income Inequality Itself

December 19, 2011

THE progressive reformer and eminent jurist Louis D. Brandeis once said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Brandeis lived at a time when enormous disparities between the rich and the poor led to violent labor unrest and ultimately to a reform movement.

Read the full article →

Loan Modification Process ‘Adding Uncertainty To The Market,’ Delaying Recovery

December 18, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Shirley Burnell, a community activist from Oakland, California, has been trying to get her subprime loan restructured since 2007. She never missed a payment, but the adjustable rate mortgage she got in 2004 shot up to a monthly payment she could no longer afford. First she provided documents without getting any response, then she was denied in April by her servicer, Bank of America, for not providing documents it never actually asked for. As one part of the bank appealed that decision and approved her for a trial modification, another part denied her again – twice – providing two new reasons in part based on inaccurate calculations, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. When asked about Burnell’s case, a bank spokesman said she was unable to qualify under “imminent default provisions,” a third reason that Burnell said she had never been given. At one point, Burnell even received notice the bank would accelerate foreclosure proceedings, despite her perfect payment record and the letter itself saying the bank owed her $281.01. “They gave you a funky loan in the first place, and now they’re refusing to work with people to get it worked out,” Burnell said. “It just keeps you upset all the time.” Bank of America is “committed to keeping customers in their homes whenever the homeowner has the financial wherewithal to make reasonable payments and the desire to keep the home,” a spokesman for the bank said. Three years after the foreclosure crisis began, the process to apply for a loan modification remains a bureaucratic nightmare that is complicating the housing recovery and could dull the impact of any Obama administration initiatives in the works. The administration’s biggest foreclosure-prevention effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), targeted to help 3 million to 4 million homeowners, has reached only about a quarter of that since its 2009 inception. The program pushed mortgage servicers to cut interest, extend terms, or defer parts of a loan in an effort to reduce monthly payments and keep borrowers in their homes. But servicers have dragged their feet on providing wide-scale modifications. They continue to lose documents, use inaccurate numbers to issue denials, or both approve and deny applications at the same time, according to housing advocates. “It delays resolution of the problem of defaulting loans and it is adding uncertainty to the market,” said Susan Wachter, a housing expert at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Around one in every 12 mortgages in the country is delinquent, and only a fraction of them have received modifications. “Somehow the borrower is unreachable, or the servicer hasn’t found the right way to reach the borrower, but the fact is, we see (modifications) piercing maybe 10 to 25 percent of the potential population,” said Diane Westerback, a managing director of global surveillance analytics at Standard & Poor’s. Banks have stepped up efforts to deal with the foreclosure crisis since 2009. Chase, for example, set up 82 centers around the country specifically to deal with struggling homeowners. Wells Fargo hosts one-day fairs for homeowners to bring in all of their paperwork and potentially get approved for a modification on the spot. Bank of America says it has completed almost 1 million modifications since 2008, and Wells Fargo says it initiated or completed more than two modifications for every one foreclosure of owner-occupied homes in the past two years. But the majority of homeowners, advocates say, still get stuck in byzantine mazes, with no real enforcement mechanism to pursue under HAMP. “If you get a minor traffic ticket, you get a right to an impartial hearing, but if you are applying for federal home saving assistance, the bank is judge, jury, and executioner,” said Joseph Sant, a lawyer at Staten Island Legal Services who helps defend homeowners facing foreclosure. ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’ It took nearly one year for Hakan Tale to convince his servicer, Chase, that it overvalued his house by more than $100,000 in rejecting a modification. Once he was able to convince Chase of that mistake, it rejected him again, dropping his monthly income by almost $4,000 and determining he didn’t make enough money to qualify, even though his actual income had not changed. In November, more than two years after Tale first sought a modification, Chase asked him to submit an entirely new application. “Maybe they don’t want me to be an example for other people,” said Tale, who lives with his wife and three children in Staten Island, New York. “Any excuse they find, they deny it.” “We have worked with the customer and reviewed his application multiple times, and have been involved in multiple mediation meetings,” a Chase spokesman said. Another Staten Island resident, 77-year-old Hamson McPherson, was first denied a modification two years ago by his servicer, Wells Fargo, after it miscalculated his income. The bank then served him with a foreclosure summons and complaint, which in New York can lead to court-supervised settlement conference. But it stalled on moving forward for so long that McPherson triggered the proceedings himself in August 2011 to try to negotiate an alternative to foreclosure. In October, more than two years after he first applied for a modification, the bank told him there was an investor restriction on the loan, which meant it couldn’t modify it. That investor agreement was public, Wells Fargo told him. But after confronting the bank with that agreement, which did not include any such restriction, the bank told him there was a previously undisclosed secret document that included the restriction. “It’s a nightmare,” McPherson said, “when you have these things, you don’t get proper sleep at all.” In an ironic twist, the hold music played when he called Wells Fargo once was a song called, “Going in Circles.” “I listened to it for five minutes and then hung up because I was so upset,” he said. A Wells Fargo spokesman said the bank has “worked for some time to find payment assistance within the investor guidelines of the loan.” “We continue to work with him to find alternatives to foreclosure,” the spokesman said. ‘NOT DOING THEIR JOB’ Even with staff additions — Chase, for example, added some 10,000 employees to deal with defaults, and Bank of America increased its 5,000 employees to 40,000 — individual negotiators can still have hundreds, or even thousands of cases open, according to housing advocates. Employees can be so overwhelmed that applications languish for months. Banks consider financial documents “stale” within two or three months, forcing homeowners to provide updated documents all over again. While housing counselors have seen some improvements in the past few years, many borrowers are still not even able to email applications in; they have to fax them in, thus creating no real paper trail. Carlos Cespedes, an advocate with the Neighborhood of Affordable Housing in Boston, said his files include 25 faxes of the same document, provided over and over to a servicer that said it never received it or lost it. One of his clients traveled to Central America to obtain her deported husband’s signature on a document renouncing his interest in the property, but had to send that same document six times to her servicer who kept losing it. “These are institutions that have taken a huge amount of bailout money. There should be a level of responsibility to communities,” said Josh Zinner, an advocate with the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in New York. “HAMP is far from perfect, but the biggest problem is servicers not doing their job.” (Reporting by Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Xavier Briand) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Loan Modification Process ‘Adding Uncertainty To The Market,’ Delaying Recovery

December 18, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Shirley Burnell, a community activist from Oakland, California, has been trying to get her subprime loan restructured since 2007. She never missed a payment, but the adjustable rate mortgage she got in 2004 shot up to a monthly payment she could no longer afford. First she provided documents without getting any response, then she was denied in April by her servicer, Bank of America, for not providing documents it never actually asked for. As one part of the bank appealed that decision and approved her for a trial modification, another part denied her again – twice – providing two new reasons in part based on inaccurate calculations, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. When asked about Burnell’s case, a bank spokesman said she was unable to qualify under “imminent default provisions,” a third reason that Burnell said she had never been given. At one point, Burnell even received notice the bank would accelerate foreclosure proceedings, despite her perfect payment record and the letter itself saying the bank owed her $281.01. “They gave you a funky loan in the first place, and now they’re refusing to work with people to get it worked out,” Burnell said. “It just keeps you upset all the time.” Bank of America is “committed to keeping customers in their homes whenever the homeowner has the financial wherewithal to make reasonable payments and the desire to keep the home,” a spokesman for the bank said. Three years after the foreclosure crisis began, the process to apply for a loan modification remains a bureaucratic nightmare that is complicating the housing recovery and could dull the impact of any Obama administration initiatives in the works. The administration’s biggest foreclosure-prevention effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), targeted to help 3 million to 4 million homeowners, has reached only about a quarter of that since its 2009 inception. The program pushed mortgage servicers to cut interest, extend terms, or defer parts of a loan in an effort to reduce monthly payments and keep borrowers in their homes. But servicers have dragged their feet on providing wide-scale modifications. They continue to lose documents, use inaccurate numbers to issue denials, or both approve and deny applications at the same time, according to housing advocates. “It delays resolution of the problem of defaulting loans and it is adding uncertainty to the market,” said Susan Wachter, a housing expert at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Around one in every 12 mortgages in the country is delinquent, and only a fraction of them have received modifications. “Somehow the borrower is unreachable, or the servicer hasn’t found the right way to reach the borrower, but the fact is, we see (modifications) piercing maybe 10 to 25 percent of the potential population,” said Diane Westerback, a managing director of global surveillance analytics at Standard & Poor’s. Banks have stepped up efforts to deal with the foreclosure crisis since 2009. Chase, for example, set up 82 centers around the country specifically to deal with struggling homeowners. Wells Fargo hosts one-day fairs for homeowners to bring in all of their paperwork and potentially get approved for a modification on the spot. Bank of America says it has completed almost 1 million modifications since 2008, and Wells Fargo says it initiated or completed more than two modifications for every one foreclosure of owner-occupied homes in the past two years. But the majority of homeowners, advocates say, still get stuck in byzantine mazes, with no real enforcement mechanism to pursue under HAMP. “If you get a minor traffic ticket, you get a right to an impartial hearing, but if you are applying for federal home saving assistance, the bank is judge, jury, and executioner,” said Joseph Sant, a lawyer at Staten Island Legal Services who helps defend homeowners facing foreclosure. ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’ It took nearly one year for Hakan Tale to convince his servicer, Chase, that it overvalued his house by more than $100,000 in rejecting a modification. Once he was able to convince Chase of that mistake, it rejected him again, dropping his monthly income by almost $4,000 and determining he didn’t make enough money to qualify, even though his actual income had not changed. In November, more than two years after Tale first sought a modification, Chase asked him to submit an entirely new application. “Maybe they don’t want me to be an example for other people,” said Tale, who lives with his wife and three children in Staten Island, New York. “Any excuse they find, they deny it.” “We have worked with the customer and reviewed his application multiple times, and have been involved in multiple mediation meetings,” a Chase spokesman said. Another Staten Island resident, 77-year-old Hamson McPherson, was first denied a modification two years ago by his servicer, Wells Fargo, after it miscalculated his income. The bank then served him with a foreclosure summons and complaint, which in New York can lead to court-supervised settlement conference. But it stalled on moving forward for so long that McPherson triggered the proceedings himself in August 2011 to try to negotiate an alternative to foreclosure. In October, more than two years after he first applied for a modification, the bank told him there was an investor restriction on the loan, which meant it couldn’t modify it. That investor agreement was public, Wells Fargo told him. But after confronting the bank with that agreement, which did not include any such restriction, the bank told him there was a previously undisclosed secret document that included the restriction. “It’s a nightmare,” McPherson said, “when you have these things, you don’t get proper sleep at all.” In an ironic twist, the hold music played when he called Wells Fargo once was a song called, “Going in Circles.” “I listened to it for five minutes and then hung up because I was so upset,” he said. A Wells Fargo spokesman said the bank has “worked for some time to find payment assistance within the investor guidelines of the loan.” “We continue to work with him to find alternatives to foreclosure,” the spokesman said. ‘NOT DOING THEIR JOB’ Even with staff additions — Chase, for example, added some 10,000 employees to deal with defaults, and Bank of America increased its 5,000 employees to 40,000 — individual negotiators can still have hundreds, or even thousands of cases open, according to housing advocates. Employees can be so overwhelmed that applications languish for months. Banks consider financial documents “stale” within two or three months, forcing homeowners to provide updated documents all over again. While housing counselors have seen some improvements in the past few years, many borrowers are still not even able to email applications in; they have to fax them in, thus creating no real paper trail. Carlos Cespedes, an advocate with the Neighborhood of Affordable Housing in Boston, said his files include 25 faxes of the same document, provided over and over to a servicer that said it never received it or lost it. One of his clients traveled to Central America to obtain her deported husband’s signature on a document renouncing his interest in the property, but had to send that same document six times to her servicer who kept losing it. “These are institutions that have taken a huge amount of bailout money. There should be a level of responsibility to communities,” said Josh Zinner, an advocate with the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in New York. “HAMP is far from perfect, but the biggest problem is servicers not doing their job.” (Reporting by Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Xavier Briand) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Students Create Microloan Institutions, Tackle Community Issues

December 14, 2011

The Campus Microfinance Alliance , a coalition of student-run microfinance groups, recently launched a new campaign to spur job growth for budding entrepreneurs by giving microloans to students starting small businesses. The Campus Microfinance Alliance (CMA) allows students to apply to the ” Lend for America ” program. The program takes form as an eight-week summer internship program devoted to educating accepted students about microfinance, underwriting loans, building credit, fundraising and helps them to develop their own MFI (Microfinance Institution), according to its website . “We believe college students have creativity and imagination,” Vanessa Carter, director of CMA, told the Boston Herald . “We believe in their potential as young leaders.” When the summer ends, students are on their own. By beginning their own campus MFIs, students of the program both create jobs for themselves and revitalize urban economies by offering capital and resources to small business owners in their communities. Gaurav Kikani, who will graduate from Northwestern University in 2014, founded LEND (Lending for Evanston and Northwestern Development) in February of 2010 with the help of “Lend for America.” “LEND is instituting positive social change right where it should start, in our local community,” Kikani told “Lend for America.” The start-up nonprofit fights poverty in Evanston, Ill. through its business training program for local low-income entrepreneurs. Its motto is “Empowering entrepreneurs, uplifting communities.” Most importantly, the program isn’t an office internship — students “deal with real businesses and real money. [They] are part of creating solutions to help recreate and realize the American Dream,” Carter told the Boston Herald .

Read the full article →

House Passes Payroll Tax Bill Packed With Poison Pills

December 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — A GOP plan to pay for a payroll tax cut by docking federal workers and cutting Medicare passed the House Tuesday, but appeared headed for quick failure in the Senate as both parties jockeyed for political advantage. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 234 to 193 for the bill, in spite of a White House promise to veto it and a warning from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that it would never pass in his chamber. The plan would pay for the one-year, 2 percent payroll tax cut by means-testing Medicare so that recipients making $85,000 and above have to pay higher premiums — effectively raising $31 billion. Another $62 billion would come from freezing federal pay for a year and making federal retirees pay more for health care. It would raise yet another $38 billion by hiking fees on banks doing business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Besides the controversial methods of paying for the bill, it would also stop clean air regulations estimated to save 20,000 lives , circumvent an environmental review of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline, slash emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks, and allow states to force the jobless to prove they’re not on drugs in order to get unemployment benefits. Earlier, Reid called the pipeline provision “ideological candy coating” and said the unemployment reforms were “on the wrong side of ridiculous.” Still, Republican leaders insisted it was a bipartisan plan that should be passed immediately. “This has been a very balanced package put together by the House, designed to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “The way it is paid for — much of it has been recommended by the administration itself in various talks that we’ve had over the past year.” Democrats have proposed a larger payroll tax cut of 3.1 percent, paid for largely by levying a surtax on income about $1 million. At stake is a break worth about $1,000 to 160 million Americans, or $1,500 if the Democrats’ proposal passes. The cut expires Jan. 1 if the sides cannot agree. Democrats — and even some Republicans — feel like they have been winning the message battle over the issue, with Democrats pointing to the lengths Republicans are going to in order to preserve the rich from a tax hike. If Congress can’t strike some kind of deal before the end of the month, 1.8 million long-term jobless will miss expected benefits in January, according to the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy nonprofit. Congressional Democrats want to preserve the current regimen of extended federal benefits, which provide compensation for up to 73 weeks for laid-off workers who use up 26 weeks of state benefits. The White House has signaled it would be willing to forgo 20 weeks of federal assistance. But Republicans want to cut the federal portion by 40 weeks to 33 weeks max, and its bill gives states the option of trimming benefits further. It also lets states require the jobless to pass a drug test to be eligible for unemployment compensation. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the committee that oversees unemployment insurance, said Tuesday that 3.3 million jobless would miss weeks of checks next year under the GOP bill. Both Republicans and Democrats have insisted they will extend unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut, but with agreement on only one part of the method for funding the tax cut — raising fees on Fannie and Freddie — it was unclear Tuesday how they would proceed. A Democratic source said Reid approached McConnell earlier Tuesday and offered to bring the GOP measure up for a vote immediately. Such a move requires unanimous consent in the Senate, but McConnell declined. “We need to begin real negotiations on how to prevent a $1,000 tax hike on American families,” Reid said after the House voted. “The sooner we get this vote over with, the sooner those negotiations can begin in earnest. I will speak with Sen. McConnell again tomorrow to determine how soon we can hold this vote.” Dozens of jobless have told HuffPost they’re anxiously watching Congress for a reauthorization of federal benefits. Susan Lundberg of Palm Springs, Calif., said she lost her waitress job one year ago. Now she’s worried that her unemployment benefits will run out before she finds a job. She said she’d worked at the same restaurant for longer than a decade. She has felt that her age, 60, has been a major obstacle to finding new work, and that she’ll be “screwed” if her benefits stop before she finds employment. “I was happy at my job and am sorry they closed,” Lundberg said in an email. “Due to things beyond my control I am now in this situation. Congress should assume at least some accountability for the current situation that they have put people in.” Having used up her 26 weeks of state benefits halfway through this year, Lundberg recently advanced to the second “tier” of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which offers up to 14 weeks of checks. It’s unclear how Lundberg would be affected under the Republican plan, which would eliminate the second and fourth tiers of EUC and phase out the 20-week Extended Benefits program halfway through next year. The third tier of EUC, which Republicans would save, offers up to 13 weeks of benefits. Lundberg said she did not like the way things like unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut got rolled up in a bill with the Keystone pipeline. “If they really thought it was a serious issue they wouldn’t put in all this other stuff,” she said. “They should vote on it separately. It just makes things not happen when you put all these things in the bundle.” As for drug testing, Lundberg said: “I think they should drug test Congress. They’ve been acting a little weird.” Nine Poison Pills In The GOP Payroll Tax Extension Bill:

Read the full article →

Wendy K. Leigh: Peace, Love and Flash Grenades: Witness to the Seattle Port Strike

December 13, 2011

As demonstrators poured out of Westlake Park in the financial district of Seattle at 1:30 p.m on December 12, I scanned the crowd to see exactly who these people were. As part of a massive coordinated effort along the West Coast to bring the issues of economic disparity down to America’s ports of call, these were people who had been fully warned that this could get ugly. Yet, as I joined the throng for the three-mile march through the city’s core and down to the shipyards and the port, all I could see were “ordinary” Americans: a woman in a wheelchair … a couple hand-in-hand swinging their young child, who whooped with delight … a lady in her 60s playing a bongo drum on the side of the road … Native Americans in traditional garb … professional businesswomen in uncomfortable looking suits and heels … old men who served in our country’s wars generations ago — and young ones who’ve just returned. By various estimates, 400 people or more in total moved en masse through Seattle’s streets on this unusually clear, crisp December afternoon. Highlighted by festive Christmas decorations, with snow-capped mountains in the distance, the air was filled with recitations of poetry, guitars strumming, and voices united with songs and slogans. Truckers pulled on their horns, giving the thumbs-up. Shopkeepers, dock workers, waitresses and more appeared out of nowhere, lining the streets in solidarity for brief moments. One policeman on horseback was smiling and chatting with protesters. I heard him say ” If ever we meet when I’m not doing my job, we’ll sit down and have a conversation.” Traffic came to a dead stop and the police presence grew thicker. Though it would have been easy to be lulled into a romanticized illusion that this was the sixties and that “peace, love and flower-power” were being reincarnated in the 21st century, I reminded myself that the issues today are no less powerful and potentially violent than those 50 years ago. These people were marching with passion and full awareness that ports of call in America are federal property — and that the terminal we were marching toward is owned in part by Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful financial entities in the world. In addition, these Americans, who consider themselves representative of the 99%, are in fact reviled and suspected by many in the same majority with which they align themselves. I stepped off the sidelines where members of the press generally cling, and fell in step with “we the people” as they chanted, “This is what democracy looks like!” The face of democracy , however, would show a darker side in less than three hours. Arriving at the port, still blocking major thoroughfares that held trucks and automobiles filled with workers trying to clock in to their jobs on the other side of quickly forming picket lines, the group halted in front of Terminal 18. In a pre-organized movement, everyone aligned themselves according to “willingness to be arrested.” Clearly defined sections were divided by constantly changing color zones of green, yellow and red, with red indicating a high risk of exposure to violence and potential arrest. Those who ensconced themselves safely in the green zone were occasionally taunted by those sitting defiantly in the middle of major expressways, who called out: “Get off the sidewalk and into the fight.” A loud “green” voice quelled the tension by proclaiming, “There has to be someone left to bail your asses out of jail.” Within minutes, that prediction came true, as the first arrests began. Three were detained at that point, with two taken into custody. As protesters fell into picket lines in front of the entrance to the terminal, it was yet to be seen whether arriving union workers would cross the lines to keep their jobs. Though the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) were not participating in the attempts to shut down the port, Gabriel Prawl, a local longshoreman and co-convener of the Million Worker March of the Pacific Northwest, is quoted in a previous statement posted on the Occupy Seattle website, as saying: “Many differences between economic classes have traditionally been aired out on the waterfront throughout the last century, including long before my union existed. As West Coast longshoremen, we follow a set of ten guiding principles to help us do the right thing in situations like this. Principle number four states that we respect any picket line as if it were our own. And we hold this principle more sacred than the sanctity of any contract under which we work.” Hovering between the safety of the green zone and the “maybe you’re safe” yellow zone, I fell into step beside Kurt Goble, a weathered man who says that he worked in the surrounding shipyards and barge companies for 45 years. After first accusing me of being a “journalism slut” and part of the 1% who just want to sensationalize the struggles of everyday working men and women, he invited me to follow him to where the real battles are fought — and often lost. As we strolled across the waterfront, in a surreal diorama of police boats, hovering sheriff helicopters and police officers mounted on horseback and bicycles, he pointed out the sub-world structures to which most are oblivious. Storage containers adjacent to the picket lines are what he claimed were “tank farms” which are vulnerable to oil spills and sabotage. Trains, barges, trucks and freighters all synchronize on a daily basis to form the foundation of the container transfer operation surrounding the now “occupied” grounds. Having come this far, I struck out on my own into the soon-to-be infamous red zone at Terminal 18. Protesters were erecting an enormous blockade out of wood scraps, crates and aluminum debris, which eventually blocked all access to traffic. Many climbed atop the mound, which was soon surrounded by police officers. A young woman stood silent and stiff, holding a sign that declared “Our Ports.” At 4:40 p.m. a man with a megaphone climbed the barricade and the crowd erupted in cheers as he made the announcement: “Terminal 18 is now shut down for the night.” Port workers had been told to go home, alleviating a potential showdown over crossing picket lines. While many celebrated success, about 100 protesters remained at the barricade, refusing to dismantle and disperse. The legally required warnings from police were being issued when officers on horseback began to lose control of the animals. Hoofs were raised and protesters in close proximity stood their ground. At approximately 5 p.m., just minutes after the declaration of successful port closure, police officers threw two “flash bang” percussion grenades into the crowd, which landed directly behind me. Smoke filled the air as people struggled to don protective masks. Pepper spray permeated the space and protesters fell at my feet, screaming, as Occupy medics grabbed bottles of water, milk and other homemade remedies and began treating the wounded. Multiple arrests were made, including two medics, identified by bystanders as Brendan McCormack and Kelly Larsen. Later statements by the police and press assert that demonstrators began throwing bags of bricks, flares and paint at officers monitoring the event. While in the midst of the red zone, approximately 20 feet from the line of law enforcement personnel, I did not personally observe these actions prior to the explosion of flash bang grenades and the dispersal of pepper spray. As the night wore on, the movement to occupy the port shifted focus to Terminal 5, where additional blockades were erected and protesters linked arms in front of an employee entrance. Some vowed to continue the occupation into the following days – but my work here was done. As a peaceful observer, I had done what I came to do: watch a version of democracy in process. Wendy K. Leigh is a citizen journalist and photographer who has been documenting the Occupy movement in Seattle. If you would like to contribute as a citizen journalist to The Huffington Post’s coverage of American political life, please contact us at www.offthebus.org .

Read the full article →

The Food Companies That Spent The Most On Lobbyists This Year

December 13, 2011

A lot of the attention on the intersection between food and the U.S. legislature recently has focused on the impending revision of the Farm Bill . Thousands of jobs and the health of millions ride on the billions of dollars that will be doled out by the Farm Bill, so it’s an understandable target of interest. But the Farm Bill is far from the only piece of legislature that affects the food world. In fact, every year, food and beverage companies spend tens of millions of dollars trying to influence dozens of bills under consideration by the Senate and House of Representatives. These bills ranges from overhauls of elementary school nutrition program to tweaks to rules on patent protection — and all are subject to lobbying. The parties that spend the most trying to influence these bills are inevitably those that have the most to gain or lose as a result of the outcome. It’s no surprise, then, that PepsiCo spends lavishly to increase protection for patents, while French food services company Sodexo, which has has trouble with unions in the past, directs its attention to labor law. Such detailed information on lobbying would have been almost impossible to find a few decades ago. But thanks to the magic of the Internet, it’s now only a few clicks away. With the help of website OpenSecrets.org, we’ve assembled a list of the 10 food and beverage companies that have spent the most on lobbyists so far in 2011 . Click through below to find out who “won” the dubious honors.

Read the full article →

Karen K. Harris: Welfare: Why Don’t They Get It?

December 13, 2011

The “Welfare” Reform Proposal Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) along with seven other Senate Republican co-sponsors, has introduced the misleadingly titled bill, The Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1167) . The bill is an attempt to hark back to President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich’s popular federal welfare reforms of 1996. At that time, the program that provided a federal entitlement to cash assistance for needy families, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, was repealed and replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ (TANF) program, which placed time limits on the receipt of benefits and added work requirements. The new “welfare” reform bill expands the definition of welfare well beyond its popular meaning of cash assistance to needy families to encompass a wide range of other programs for low- and moderate-income people and imposes deep cuts and restrictions on them. To support the supposed need for welfare reform, these lawmakers point out that “welfare” spending has grown more quickly over the last 20 years than have outlays for Medicare and Social Security, education and defense. In a statement, Senator DeMint said that, “with record levels of federal spending and record levels of Americans in poverty and using food stamps, it’s hard not to conclude that federal welfare programs are failing.” The proposed bill would, supposedly, save roughly $2.4 trillion over a decade — or twice as much as the minimum savings that the deficit-reducing super committee is tasked with finding. Specifically, the bill would : 1. Require disclosure of total means-tested welfare expenditures in the president’s budget; 2. Plan an aggregate spending cap on all means-tested welfare spending at pre-2007 levels once unemployment falls below 6.5 percent; 3. Provide enforcement of the spending cap through the budget resolution process; 4. Extend work requirements to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly known as food stamps); 5. Incentivize states to alleviate poverty through self-sufficiency, not dependence on government; and 6. Prevent federal funding of abortion. Why Lawmakers Don’t Get It: As usual, some lawmakers aren’t getting it and, in fact, are getting it wrong. They misinterpret the relevance of the recent poverty data — they see it as a result of individuals’ failure to be self-sufficient. The reason that there is more federal spending on means-tested programs is because there are more people in need as a result of the very deregulation of financial institutions that conservative lawmakers championed. The impact of a pre-2007 cap would be a drastic reduction in the number of families receiving needed aid. In just the first six years of the cap, programs would be cut 40 percent, and cuts would grow deeper thereafter. For example, if all programs were cut by the same percentage Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program would be cut by $144 billion in 2016 and more than $1.1 trillion over the cap’s first six years. Similarly, SNAP would be cut by $24 billion in 2016 and $153 billion over six years and job training programs would be cut by $1.4 billion in 2016 and $10 billion over six years. Needy families should not be penalized for their appropriate reliance in troubled times on welfare “safety net” programs. This is especially true when the “failure” wasn’t with these families, but rather with financial institutions. Similarly, increasing the work requirement for families with dependent children to 120 hours, up from 90 hours under current law, and expanding this requirement to SNAP would leave many needy families without a safety net because of their failure, perhaps for legitimate reasons (e.g., child care issues) to fulfill this requirement. Additionally, under current rules, only a narrowly defined set of activities count toward a state’s work participation rate and participation in some of these activities can only count for limited periods or if other limitations are met. Many of the activities that TANF recipients often need to be prepared for work do not count and there is no evidence that participating in a narrowly defined set of work activities improves participants’ employment outcomes. Instead of increasing and expanding the requirement, it would be better to expand the type and duration of activities that can count, thereby encouraging more individuals to work. Although these lawmakers claim that public benefit programs aren’t working, the newly created Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) , which is an attempt to update the woefully inadequate official poverty measure that underestimates poverty, proves they’re wrong. The SPM, which takes into account, for the first time, certain out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., taxes, housing, utilities, health care costs) and the value of government income supplements (e.g., SNAP) that are aimed at improving the economic situation of the poor, shows the impact such programs have on poverty. Under this new measure, almost 7 million more people would have lived in poverty in 2009 and 2010 absent government action and excluding SNAP, for instance, would have increased poverty by 17.7 percent. This data proves that public benefit programs are an important factor in poverty alleviation and that, especially in today’s economy, the nation cannot afford further cuts in them. Yet, that is exactly what this welfare reform bill would do. So how do they continue to get it so wrong? Your guess is as good as mine.

Read the full article →

U.S. Financial Sector By Far The Worst Performer In S&P 500 This Year

December 12, 2011

(Angela Moon and Ryan Vlastelica) – Even experienced Wall Street contrarians are eyeing the beaten-down U.S. financial sector warily. The sector is down 20 percent this year, by far the worst performer in the S&P 500. The weakness has been so pervasive that the S&P, which is down 1.8 percent in 2011, would be up 3.3 percent on the year if financials were excluded, according to Standard & Poor’s Equity Research. Most market participants agree these stocks are set for a rebound over the long term. They still appear too risky for short-term traders. Arguably, this is when intrepid bargain hunters who buy into investor fear would be snapping up the beaten-down sector. But the problems dogging banks all year – from the debt crisis in Europe to the bleak outlook for profits – do not appear to be abating. “Our job is to buy low and sell high. With financials, I’m still questioning, ‘What is low?’” said John Manley, chief equity strategist for Wells Fargo Advantage Funds in New York. The aversion to financials is great. Assets in bank-focused funds have dropped by 40 percent in the last six months, and the group is the only one of 10 S&P sectors trading at less than the value of the assets on their books. Market participants cite various reasons for financials to decline further, including regulations, weakness in the housing sector and fears linked to Europe’s escalating debt crisis. “Valuations are attractive, but there has to be a catalyst to move prices higher and I just don’t see that,” said Peter Coleman, director of research at JMP Securities in San Francisco. VALUATIONS In the last six months through the week ended December 7, the assets under management (AUM) in the U.S. financial/banking funds sector have dropped a net $8 billion, or nearly 40 percent, according to Thomson Reuters’ Lipper U.S. Fund Flows database. Assets in the sector hit a peak in February 2011 of nearly $23 billion in AUM. Since then, it’s been mostly outflows. Investors have remained skittish due to the worries about Europe. The predominant investing strategy this year has been to trade on macro events, specifically the euro zone debt crisis. Whenever the outlook for Europe worsens, the banks are punished, particularly brokerages such as Morgan Stanley and Jefferies & Co, on fears of exposure to Europe. It has contributed to high volatility in the sector. “The things that made these stocks cheap are still around. It’s still a risky business and you have no idea how bad business can get until they really get bad,” said Manley. That’s contributed to making banks more undervalued than any other sector based on anticipated growth. By StarMine’s current estimates, the financials are priced at 57 percent of their intrinsic value, compared with 72 percent for the S&P. Intrinsic value is where StarMine believes a stock should trade based on likely growth over the next decade. “If you have a three to five year timeline you’ll look back at today’s prices and wish you bought in, but I don’t see anything to move them higher over the next 12 months and I just can’t ignore the headwinds,” said Coleman. This is the reason the market capitalization of the bank sector is less than the value of the assets on their books. The combined market cap of the sector is $1.68 trillion, compared with book value of $1.95 trillion, according to StarMine. OPTIONS AND DOOM Even the options market does not suggest optimism for the future. Last week open interest on the Select Sector Financial SPDR fund , which tracks the S&P financial sector, reached its highest since the financial crisis. Put options outpaced call options by a ratio of 1.7, according to Interactive Brokers. Normally, the ratio is between 1 to 1.2. When Bank of America shares fell to a fresh two-year low of $5.03 last week, instead of betting on a rebound, option traders moved to hedge themselves against more declines. “There’s a group of high-quality banks that have bottomed, but Bank of America isn’t one of them,” said Marty Mosby, large-cap bank analyst at Guggenheim Partners in Memphis, Tennessee. Mosby listed Wells Fargo, US Bancorp and Bank of New York Mellon among those where “we haven’t yet reached an inflection point where their strong fundamentals will drag prices up in a risk-averse market.” Among individual names, the put-to-call open interest ratio on Goldman Sachs was 1.11 while Citigroup’s ratio was 0.62. “I think what you would find looking at trades on specific names is that there are traders positioning for a range of scenarios from recovery to disaster,” said Caitlin Duffy, Equity Options Analyst at Interactive Brokers. Even some of those speak positively about the banks are staying cautious. BNY Mellon’s wealth management core portfolio recently moved to a slight “overweight” position on the group due to the bad news already priced into the sector. “As a group, banks are fairly valued, however it’s understandable that we’re going to be cautious about moving to a large overweight at this time,” said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York. “This could turn out to be an outstanding entry point, but it depends on your risk appetite… there could be more risk than potential reward.” (Reporting by Angela Moon and Ryan Vlastelica; Additional Reporting by Dan Bases; Editing by Andrew Hay) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Occupy Denver To Disrupt Loveland Walmart

December 12, 2011

Occupy Denver is planning a rally to disrupt the large Walmart Distribution Center in Loveland on Monday. The rally is intended to show solidarity and support for the simultaneous protests planned to shut down West Coast ports from San Diego to Alaska coordinated by other occupy movements, according to CNN . (SCROLL DOWN FOR LIVESTREAM VIDEO) In a press release , Occupy Denver had this to say about the Walmart rally: On 12/12 Occupy Denver will be rallying at the Walmart Distribution Center, 7500 Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado, in order to illustrate the problems with a globalization solely based on the interests of multi-national corporations and total disregard for human values or human beings. Occupy Denver will be joined by Occupy Salt Lake City as well as seven labor unions, according to Occupy Denver’s Facebook page . Occupy SLC made this statement about the Walmart disruption on their website : As West Coast Occupations shut down their ports and the East Coast Occupations shut down their waterfront on December 12th, 2011, Occupy Denver has given a call for occupations to organize mass mobilizations across the nation to support these actions. Occupy Salt Lake will stand in solidarity with Occupy Denver and others by disrupting the distribution system of Walmart, an excessively oppressive corporation that is actively destroying communities throughout our nation. Occupy Denver protesters plan to meet at 8 a.m. at Civic Center Park for caravans to the site, according to their Facebook page . Below is the full press release from Occupy Denver. For more information visit OccupyDenver.org . Considering the coordinated attacks on the Occupations and attacks on workers: Occupy Denver stands in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who will be protesting the abuses of the economic apparatus of the 1% on Dec 12. The wanton pursuit of profit at the expense of human values by multinational corporations with no local grounding has destroyed communities throughout the world, disregarded workers’ natural rights, eliminated production jobs in the United States and sweatshops abroad, and lowered the standard of living for all, only to enrich the wealthy by manipulating the laws and base corruption. At the same time, coordinated nationwide police attacks have turned our cities into battlegrounds in an effort to disrupt our Occupy movement, which is protesting this state of affairs while our politicians are neglecting the very serious issues we are raising. We call on every occupation to organize a mass mobilization on December 12 in support of the actions taken across the US, especially those on the West Coast against Goldman Sachs and other bankers. On 12/12 Occupy Denver will be rallying at the Walmart Distribution Center, 7500 Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado, in order to illustrate the problems with a globalization solely based on the interests of multi-national corporations and total disregard for human values or human beings.

Read the full article →

Venture Capitalist: Why Taxing The Rich Leads To Job Creation

December 2, 2011

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop. Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

Read the full article →

Coke Cans Confusing Can

December 1, 2011

Coca-Cola announced that it’s canning this year’s design for white holiday season Coke cans before the holiday season even began, reports the Wall Street Journal . The cans feature silver polar bears on a white background , and were designed, in part, to support the WWF’s efforts to conserve habitat for polar bears . But many customers found the cans hard to distinguish from Diet Coke cans , which are silver and red, causing confusion in grocery stores and restaurants alike. So Coke has decided to sub the white background for a more traditional red — though the company is keeping the polar bears. The Huffington Post has its own anecdotal evidence to suggest the prudence of Coke’s decision to abandon the new design. Not one, but two, senior editors in our New York newsroom admitted to confusing the white regular Coke cans for Diet Coke.

Read the full article →

Goldman Raises Hundreds Of Millions To Invest In Start Up Hedge Funds: Report

November 30, 2011

Goldman Sachs (GS.N) has raised $600 million from clients such as pension funds, wealthy families and large institutions for a new fund that would provide start-up money to hedge-fund managers, the Wall Street Journal said. Goldman plans investments in eight to 10 new hedge funds, to get them up and running, the Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter. Each hedge fund can expect to receive between $75 million and $150 million from Goldman’s fund, which is expected to raise about $1 billion in total, the WSJ said. Goldman stands to gain fees on the total amount managed by the fund, and also from business the hedge funds will do with the bank’s trading unit, the report said. Goldman Sachs representatives declined to comment to the Journal. The bank could not immediately be reached by Reuters for comment outside regular U.S. business hours. (Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Vinu Pilakkott) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Scott Brown: Don’t Pay For Payroll Tax Cuts

November 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) may have gotten a dose of populism for his showdown against Elizabeth Warren — or maybe he prefers helping people who have jobs to aiding the unemployed. Brown declared Tuesday that he favors extending a payroll tax cut without finding a way to make up for the lost revenue, while last year he opposed extending unemployment benefits unless Congress offset the $56 billion cost. It’s a position that puts him at odds with both his own leadership and with Democrats, and comes as he’s facing a tough election challenge from the popular former consumer watchdog, Warren. Democrats have proposed a 3.1 percent cut in payroll taxes that would cost about $255 billion. They would pay for it with a surtax on earnings above $1 million. Brown’s Republican leaders said Tuesday that they would back extending the cut enacted last year if, this time, it is offset. “We need to be paying for a measure like this that’s temporary,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “And I think in the end we will pay for it. We’ll offer an alternative to the one that’s being proposed in the Senate.” But Brown saw no reason to go with the Democrats’ plan to tax the rich or with McConnell’s to find the cash elsewhere, noting that Congress did not pay for last year’s break. “It wasn’t paid for before, so why is it paid for now?” Brown told several reporters Tuesday. “Through economic activity, it’ll pay for itself. I think we need to get it out there, get the money in people’s hands.” Brown had a different take when it came to extending emergency unemployment benefits last December for people who were running out, and cast the deciding vote against an extension. “I have complete and total sympathy and understanding, and I want to help,” Brown said according to a Boston Globe account of his vote. “More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep throwing money that’s not paid for at a problem … makes no sense to me.” Unemployment benefits were ultimately extended after President Obama cut a deal with Republicans to also extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years.

Read the full article →

Are Windows Tablets Coming Too Late?

November 29, 2011

The research group Forrester has a new study out in which it shows a shrinking appetite for Windows 8 tablets, the yet-to-be-released devices running the touch-friendly new Windows that is set for a 2012 launch . In a blog post , JP Gownder of Forrester says that Windows 8 tablets are going to be “very late to the party”; he blames a slow-moving Microsoft for the dip in consumer interest. Gownder reports that, while 46 percent of U.S. consumers expressed an interest in an upcoming Windows 8 tablet back in quarter one of 2011, that number fell to 21 percent in quarter three of 2011. From his blog post , titled “Microsoft’s Shrinking Window For Tablets: Its Fifth-Mover Product Strategy Is Late”: Product strategists often look to be “fast followers” in their product markets. Perhaps the most famous example is the original browser war of the 1990s: Microsoft’s fast-following Internet Explorer drove incumbent Netscape out of the market altogether. Question: What matters more — being a “fast follower,” or being a good follower? The steady decline of Internet Explorer , from about 91 percent in 2004 to 54 percent in 2011 , as “slower” followers like Firefox and Google Chrome rose, would suggest that being a fast follower is not really important over time, at least in the browser space. Also, Internet Explorer came bundled with Windows PCs ( later deemed to be an illegal monopolistic advantage ), so that doesn’t really seem like valid proof of the “fast-follower” thesis. Gownder also writes, For tablets, though, Windows really isn’t a fast follower. Rather it’s (at best) a fifth-mover after iPad, Android tablets like the Samsung Galaxy Tab, HP’s now-defunct webOS tablet, and the BlackBerry PlayBook tablet. While Windows’ product strategists can learn from these products, other players have come a long way in executing and refining their products — Apple, Samsung, and others have already launched second-generation products and will likely be into their third generation by the time Windows 8 launches. Gownder lists the iPad, and then three kinds of tablets that have gotten trounced by the iPad, as initial movers in the tablet space, products that “beat” Windows 8 tablets. Well, the HP Touchpad was discontinued by HP in recent months (so much for the virtues of being a third-follower), and the BlackBerry PlayBook has long been rumored to be nearly-dead . Android tablets (second-followers) that are not the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet are also failing in the marketplace . Would Microsoft really want to be in the position of any of the non-iPad tablets that Gownder lists as having a “mover” advantage over them? Meanwhile, newer competitors like Amazon (Kindle Fire) and Barnes & Noble (Nook Tablet) are reshaping consumer expectations in the market, driving down price points (and concomitant price expectations), and redefining what a tablet is. Here is the real wisdom of the Forrester analysis: Any drop in consumer desire for a Windows 8 tablet has less to do with its perceived “lateness” and more to do with a shifting marketplace that may even affect demand for the mighty $500 iPad . This was the primary finding of a survey conducted by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in October — consumers decide on tablets based on a set of preferences, with tablet ease-of-use, available applications and price points informing their buying decisions. Windows 8 tablets really appeal to consumers, the BCG report found , because the idea of a Windows interface on a tablet is appealing to those who are familiar with Microsoft products. It’s likely this still holds true. By releasing its Windows 8-powered tablets late, Microsoft will have to overcome three generations of iPads and two of the Kindle Fire (which, let’s remember, has probably sold many millions on its own “late-moving” first attempt). Breaking into the tablet market is not impossible if you’ve made a desired device, as Amazon has proven. To dismiss the Windows 8 tablet before anyone outside of a bunch of developers have seen one seems premature, no matter what the survey says. Let’s wait for a product, price and availability before we write off Windows 8 as Windows Too Late.

Read the full article →

Steve Fraser: Take Our Children, Please!

November 29, 2011

A Modest Proposal for Occupy Wall Street Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com In 1729, when Ireland had fallen into a state of utter destitution at the hands of its British landlords, Jonathan Swift published a famous essay , “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.”  His idea was simple: the starving Irish should sell their own children to the rich as food.  His inspiration, as it happened, came from across the Atlantic.  As he explained, “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young, healthy child well nourished is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragoust.” Inspired in turn by Swift, I want to suggest that we put in motion a similar undertaking: on January 16th, Martin Luther King Day, citizens from around the country should gather at the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street.  Let’s call this macabre gathering — with luck and even worse times, it should be mammoth — “We Surrender” or “Restore Debtor’s Prisons” or “De-Fault Is Ours” or “Collateralize Us.”  And plan on a mirthful day of mourning. The basic idea is that we offer ourselves up, 99% of us anyway, on the altar of high finance as a sacrifice to the bond markets.  It was Karl Marx who first observed that high finance is “the Vatican of capitalism.”  How right he turned out to be — right with a vengeance!  The Death of Democracy Whole governments, democratically elected, are collapsing, or abdicating on orders from our secular version of the papacy.  Who will weep for the passing of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi?  Not many, surely.  Still, it’s appalling that, in Italy as in Greece, governing authority has been usurped by technocrats, elected by no one, answerable only to the European institutions of high finance that installed them in power.  At last count, eight governments of the European Union have come and gone, suffering the wrath of our new god.  Other European governments barely hang on and scurry to curry favor with the bond market, proposing in effect to eat their own children and the futures of 99% of their people, if that’s what it takes to make high finance happy.  More will follow.  By the time this piece was published, who would be surprised if yet another government had bitten the dust. What about here in the U.S.A.?  That capitalism and democracy go together (like love and marriage in that old song) has been the imperial boast conveyed to the rest of the world by American banks and diplomats and presidents and Marines for a century — and more recently, by crony capitalist outfits like KBR and predator drones.  Today, at home and abroad that particular gospel seems a sorry piece of hypocrisy.  Capitalism has become a synonym for — to use an old word on its way back just in time — plutocracy, not democracy.  The Obama administration like the Bush administration before it, and the one before that, and the one before that, has bent its knee to “the Vatican of capitalism.”  Take Our Children, Please! Anticipating Swift, we are already eating our own children or, at least, the futures available to them .  My suggestion is to make the most of that reality.  When we assemble on January 16th, we should arrive as supplicants, bringing the deeds to our homes, if we still have them.  We could come dressed as credit-default swaps or collateralized debt obligations.  (Use your imagination!)  You’ll want to turn in your subprime mortgage documents.  And do you really need that mobile home or tent?  And certainly, you’ll want to offer up your children to Wall Street if they’re young enough to make a “delicious” and nourishing meal.  If a bit older, haul along that creaky swing-set from your backyard, or dilapidated blackboards and outmoded computer consoles from your child’s underfunded, disintegrating school.  Bring with you the paints, recorders, and stage props once used by art, music, and theater teachers, but made superfluous when their programs were cut by schools too poor to afford them.  If your children are older still, and waterlogged from the college loans that put them “underwater” before they even had their first jobs, why not donate those debts as securitized gifts to the Street?  Better yet: give back their college diplomas.  If you can, cart along vats of heating oil or coal bins to symbolize the winter fuel that you can no longer afford.  (Thank god for global warming !)  Declare yourself undocumented or at the very least “undeserving” (a prematurely retired and wonderfully apt word used by the 1% back in the late nineteenth century to describe those who apparently preferred starving to working).  Turn in your food stamps and unemployment insurance checks.  If you happen to have a job, return it or tithe a portion of your wages or pension for the cause.    Give back your votes; they do you no good, but might placate The Street.  If you’re not too shy, donate your medical records, x-rays, CAT scans and IV drips; you won’t need them anymore since the odds are you won’t be able to afford health care, and Wall Street can use them.  After all, who is more endlessly ingenious when it comes to turning misery into money?  Here’s a really big January 16th gesture if you’re up for it: securitize your body parts.  What, for example, is a leg- or ear- or brainpan-derivative really worth on the open market?  You don’t know, but Wall Street will.  And you can think of it as your contribution to solving the deficit dilemma, which keeps the 1% awake at night.  My poor imagination is hardly up to the task of imagining all the ways in which we might express our fealty to Wall Street’s financiers.  But we, the partisans of OWS, are if nothing else a remarkably creative bunch.  I’m confident that, when we get together on the 16th of January, the world will marvel at our inventiveness. An Archipelago of Isolation Chambers However “Swiftian” our mood, signage, and costumes, however much we retain the vital capacity to laugh at our own predicament and make fun of our tormentors, what I’m proposing is, in the end, serious business.  A massive “Collateralize Us” day is doable — and through its wit could embolden us and shame those in charge of the care and feeding of the 1%.  More important, it could put in the most graphic terms, where everyone could see it, a core indictment of a system in ruins and perhaps even hint at what might replace it. Why pick a single day and a single place to symbolically immolate our own children (and their children to come)?  Why not continue to occupy as many places as we can on all days?  We should!  However, the simple epiphany that OWS allowed millions to experience was its blunt discovery that Wall Street, the world of financial mis-engineers and predatory speculators, was the taproot of our multiple dilemmas.  For people around the globe, that street remains, at least symbolically, the site where our misbegotten Age of Austerity was born.  So it makes continuing sense to persevere in pressing that singular insight, in pursuing a determination to confront a dysfunctional system where it originates. So, too, local governments around the country have consistently used their police forces to cage, disperse, or otherwise fragment local occupations and may even have coordinated their police “occupations” with one another .  “Our streets” are ever less “ours” in any meaningful sense.  The geography of democracy is being transformed into an archipelago of isolation chambers.  But that won’t be the case if untold numbers assemble in New York on the 16th.  If every movement and organization that has had anything to do with OWS over these last months were to collaborate in mobilizing, even on the bitterest of January days, the streets will again be “ours.” Martin Luther King and Jubilee Day Then, of course, there is the resonant significance of the day itself.  Martin Luther King was a lawbreaker for justice.  So, too, were all those who defied “legitimate authority” alongside him. I’m not suggesting we break the law. I do suggest we exercise rights that are growing weak, and will grow weaker, if allowed to atrophy further.  And I do suggest as well that we, like King, become the midwives of new law.  If credit-default swaps and structured investment vehicles are legal, as they are, and if marching in the streets is becoming ever less so, as it is, then on January 16th we should begin to turn that kind of preposterous world upside down.  What was lawful shall become criminal and what was denied to the people shall be taken by them and made good law. When we gather on the 16th of January at the corner of Broad and Wall streets — don’t worry, you’ll find it! — in an act of unprecedented symbolic self-sacrifice, we might also make one modest request. With Martin Luther King in mind, let us propose that January 16th also become Jubilee Day.   Such days were a more or less regular part of the calendar in biblical times and long after.  It was the moment when common people were relieved of their crushing debts and the world was allowed to start over again.   Our own version of such a “day of forgiveness” would focus on all the debts with which the 1% have burdened so many working people.  On that day, we might resume a conversation about how to start the world anew.  It would undoubtedly be a conversation about all the vital resources that everyone depends on to enjoy life, be healthy, and have a future worthy of bequeathing to our children.  It would certainly be about how these must never again be allowed to congeal in the hands of an infinitesimal elite organized in a tiny number of private institutions indifferent to the commonweal and immune from censure. See you on the 16th.  Bring your children. Steve Fraser is Editor-at-Large of New Labor Forum, a TomDispatch regular , and co-founder of the American Empire Project (Metropolitan Books).  He is a labor and economic historian whose most recent book is Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace .  To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here .

Read the full article →

OECD: Policy Makers Should Be Prepared To ‘Face The Worst’ From Debt Crisis

November 28, 2011

PARIS — The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said Monday policy makers around the world must “be prepared to face the worst,” as the economic impact of Europe’s debt crisis threatens to spread around the developed world. The Paris-based OECD said in its latest Economic Outlook that continued failure by EU leaders to stem the debt crisis that has spread from Greece to much-bigger Italy “could massively escalate economic disruption” and end in “highly devastating outcomes.” The half-yearly update also recommended urgently boosting the EU bailout fund and called on Europe’s central bank to do more to stem the crisis. “The ECB has the means to provide a credible measure to avoid further contagion in the sovereign bond markets,” the OECD’s chief economist Carlo Padoan said. “And if you ask me if that is the lender of last resort function, I would say yes.” Many think the ECB is the only institution capable of calming frayed market nerves and Merkel’s continued dismissal of a greater ECB role knocked market sentiment and stocks all round Europe fell again after a morning rebound. Potentially, the ECB has unlimited financial firepower through its ability to print money. However, Germany finds the idea of monetizing debts unappealing, warning that it lets the more profligate countries off the hook for their bad practices. In addition, it conjures up bad memories of hyperinflation in Germany in the 1920s. Padoan also upped the pressure on Europe to implement the Greek debt restructuring agreed to by EU leaders in October, saying that further delay could render the plan “insufficient,” just as an earlier plan unveiled in July turned out to be. The OECD now forecasts the eurozone economy to be in a six-month recession lasting through the first quarter of 2012, followed by a slow recovery that will leave the 17-nation bloc with only 0.2 percent growth next year. Padoan warned however that a combination of factors including continued fiscal gridlock in the U.S. and a sovereign debt default or bank failure in Europe could result in a “downside scenario” that sees the eurozone shrink by 2 percent next year and even more in 2013. The OECD expects the U.S. to grow by 2 percent next year and 2.5 percent in 2013, while the Japanese economy is forecast to grow 2 percent next year and 1.6 percent in 2013. (This version CORRECTS title of Padoan in fourth paragraph.)

Read the full article →

Richard Attias: Barack Obama at APEC: America Is Still Welcome

November 25, 2011

Although his remarks at the recent APEC CEO conference in Hawaii earlier this month were mostly serious, US President Barack Obama opened with a joke. “This is my birthplace, I know that was contested for a while,” he said. “I can show you the hospital if you’d like.” That matter dispensed with, he moved to weightier topics. Obama praised the outcomes that had been agreed on at the G20 summit earlier this month. “I was pleased to see that European leaders were taking seriously the need to solve not just the Greek crisis but also the broader European crisis,” he said. Like other speakers at the APEC CEO summit, he felt that the end is not quite in sight. “We’re not going to see massive growth in Europe till the problem is resolved. That will have a dampening effect on the overall economy.” But as long as the problems are contained, this presents an opportunity for growth for APEC. In a time when the rest of the world struggles, the Asia-Pacific region is more important to the US than ever before. Obama said he was happy with the progress of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In such an extraordinarily diverse region it offers the potential to resolve trade issues of the past and those that may emerge in the future. If it succeeds, he thought that the TPP could be a model not just for the Asia-Pacific, but also for the wider world. On China, he accepted that some tensions continue, since the US, like many countries, both competes with China and wants to engage with it. The issues loom especially large in intellectual property, where America’s main advantage lies in its innovation and its patents. In this realm and in others like procurement and currency, China does not play fair. However, the President was supportive of the changes that are taking place in China. “We should be rooting for China to grow,” he suggested. “Now only does that present an enormous marketplace for American businesses and exports; but to see so many millions of people lifted out of poverty is a remarkable achievement.” He addressed some misperceptions about his administration’s activities, which he said he had noticed in the business press, arguing that he has issued fewer new regulations than the previous two governments. In addition, he said he has engaged in regulatory look-back, re-examining certain topics and removing rules that had become out of date. For the audience back home, Obama had one more message. There have been times when Americans may question their influence. This has been true over the past decade, during which the US has been involved in military conflicts and stricken by economic woes. “One of the things I’m encouraged about is the eagerness of countries to see the US re-engaged in this region,” he stated. American leadership is still welcomed, although the nature of that leadership may have shifted a little. “I am very proud of the leadership America has shown in the past but I also don’t want people to underestimate the leadership we are showing now,” he said. ‘We are poised to work in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect with countries around the world.”

Read the full article →

States Missing Out On Revenue From Whistle-Blower Law

November 23, 2011

(Andrew Longstreth) – For many states, a law intended to root out corruption also has been good for the bottom line. Over the last decade, more than 20 states have passed a version of the federal anti-corruption law known as the False Claims Act (FCA). The local laws, like the federal one, allow governments to join lawsuits filed by whistle-blowers who spot fraud involving taxpayers dollars. They have been a lucrative proposition, helping states collect millions of dollars in fines. In May, California announced a $241 million settlement of an FCA lawsuit against Quest Diagnostics Inc that alleged overcharges to the state’s medical program for the poor. California’s share of the settlement, $171 million, flowed to the state’s general fund. Yet at least nine states have tried and failed to pass local versions of the False Claims Act. In Ohio, there have been attempts to pass a bill since at least 2007. Republican state Attorney General Mike DeWine threw his support behind a bill in April, but so far nothing has come of it. Kentucky and Pennsylvania have also been unable to beat back opponents. Some of the most vocal criticism of the False Claims Act has come from the pharmaceutical and medical industries, which claim that the law encourages meritless lawsuits and creates a hostile business environment. They also question the cost-effectiveness of such statutes, which require significant government resources to investigate the claims and oblige the government to share recoveries with whistle-blowers. Samuel Denisco of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, said that a state False Claims Act would be duplicative of the federal law, adding that policy makers have a responsibility to avoid “protractive litigation that is not beneficial to the state.” States that have been unable to counter those objections are starting to pay the price, according to proponents of the law. In August, for example, Kentucky sought to join a sweeping lawsuit accusing Education Management Corp, a for-profit educational company, of fraud. The state said that EMC made false statements to the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority and the U.S. Department of Education. California, Florida and Illinois — all of which have False Claims statutes — had already joined the case, first filed by a whistleblower in 2007 alleging that EDMC wrongfully received more than $11 billion in federal and state funds. But on October 24, Federal District Judge Terrence McVerry in Pittsburgh ruled that Kentucky could not intervene, citing its lack of a False Claims Act. A spokeswoman for the Kentucky attorney general’s office said it “respectfully disagrees” with the judge’s decision and is considering an appeal. “It’s a shame that Kentucky didn’t have all the tools that other states have to go after fraud against taxpayers,” said Harry Litman, an attorney for the whistle-blowers in the case. False Claims legislation has run into similar obstacles in Pennsylvania. A coalition of Pennsylvania business groups, mainly in the medical professions, urged the legislature to oppose a version of a False Claims Act bill that was introduced last year. It argued that the bill would duplicate the federal statute and would hurt the state’s efforts to recruit and retain physicians. Opposition to the False Claims Act hardly is hardly ever about politics or ideology, said Patrick Burns of Taxpayers Against Fraud, who notes that states with the law are both blue and red. “It’s really about how state legislators will sell themselves out for a few thousand dollars apiece,” said Burns. “Even in a state like Ohio or Pennsylvania where the economy is in shatters and unemployment is through the roof, a few thousand dollars will prevent the state legislature from passing a bill that will stop the hemorrhaging of fraud and recover hundreds of millions of dollars.” DATING TO LINCOLN’S ERA The federal False Claims Act has a long history. It was first passed in 1863 in an effort championed by President Abraham Lincoln to combat unscrupulous defense contractors defrauding the Union Army. But the act really got its teeth in 1987 when it was amended to allow whistle-blowers who discover fraud against the government to bring a lawsuit and to receive 15 percent to 30 percent of any recovery. The changes also increased potential recoveries available to plaintiffs to three times the amount of actual damages. As states began passing their own version of the False Claims Act, they tended to use the statutes to target healthcare fraud. Recoveries were initially relatively modest, according to findings published in a 2005 Tulane Law Review article. In Hawaii, for example, recoveries obtained between 2000 and the fall of 2004 were $4 million. But more recently, some states have reached eight and nine-figure settlements in whistleblower cases and begun to amend their False Claims Act laws to tackle other types of corruption. New York, with one of the most powerful state FCAs in the country, put the statute to novel use in October when Attorney General Eric Schneiderman intervened in a whistleblower case brought against Bank of New York Mellon for bilking investors in foreign exchange transactions. He is seeking nearly $2 billion on behalf of public pension funds and other investors. And False Claims Act boosters whose efforts have been unsuccessful are going back to the drawing board. Kentucky’s House speaker, Greg Stumbo, has been trying to push a False Claims Act since he was attorney general of the state from 2003 to 2007. Though an effort to pass a version of the law failed earlier this year, Stumbo says he plans to reintroduce the legislation in January. “There’s no reason for states not to have it,” he said. (Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Eileen Daspin and Steve Orlofsky) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Steve Blank: The Sucess Of Start-ups: An Unexpected Consequence Of The Recession

November 22, 2011

“When it’s darkest men see the stars” — Ralph Waldo Emerson This Thanksgiving season, it might seem there’s less to be thankful for. One out of 11 of Americans is out of work. The common wisdom says that the chickens have all come home to roost from a disastrous series of economic decisions including outsourcing the manufacturing of America’s physical goods. The United States is now a debtor nation to China and the bill is about to come due. The pundits say the American dream is dead and this next decade will see the further decline and fall of the West and in particular of the United States. It may be that all the doomsayers are right. But I don’t think so. Let me offer my prediction: the second decade of the 21st century may well turn out to be the West’s, and in particular the United States’, finest hour. I believe we will look back at this decade as the beginning of an economic revolution as important as the scientific revolution in the 16th century and the industrial revolution in the 18th. We’re standing at the beginning of the entrepreneurial revolution that will permanently reshape business as we know it and more importantly, change the quality of life across the entire planet for all who come after us. The Barriers to Entrepreneurship While start-ups continued to innovate in each new wave of technology, the rate of innovation was constrained by limitations we only now can understand. Start-ups were once constrained by: long technology development cycles (how long it takes from idea to product); the high cost of getting to first customers (dollars to build the product); the structure of the venture capital industry (a limited number of VC firms); the expertise about how to build start-ups (clustered in specific regions like Silicon Valley); the failure rate of new ventures (start-ups were a hit-or-miss proposition); the slow adoption rate of new technologies by the government and large companies. The Democratization of Entrepreneurship What’s happening is something more profound than a change in technology. What’s happening is that all the things that have been limits to start-ups and innovation are being removed. At once. Starting now. Compressing the Product Development Cycle In the past, the time to build a first product release was measured in months or even years as start-ups executed the founder’s vision of what customers wanted. Today start-ups have begun to build products differently. Instead of building the maximum number of features, they look to deliver a minimum feature set in the shortest period of time. For products that are simply “bits” delivered over the Web, a first product can be shipped in weeks rather than years. Start-ups Built for Thousands Rather Than Millions of Dollars Start-ups traditionally required millions of dollars of funding just to get their first product to customers. Today open source software has slashed the cost of software development from millions of dollars to thousands. The cost of getting the first product out the door for an Internet commerce start-up has dropped by a factor of a ten or more in the last decade. The New Structure of the Venture Capital industry The plummeting cost of getting a first product to market (particularly for Internet start-ups) has shaken up the venture capital industry. New groups of VC’s, super angels, smaller than the traditional large VC fund, can make small investments necessary to get a consumer Internet start-up launched. They make lots of early bets and double-down when early results appear. (And the results do appear years earlier.) In addition to super angels, incubators like Y Combinator , TechStars and 200-plus others like them worldwide have begun to formalize seed-investing. They pay expenses in a formal three-month program while a start-up builds something impressive enough to raise money on a larger scale. Finally, venture capital and angel investing is no longer a U.S. or Euro-centric phenomenon. Risk capital has emerged in China, India, and other countries where risk taking, innovation and liquidity is encouraged, on a scale previously only seen in the U.S. In sum, the worldwide pool of potential start-ups has increased at least 10-fold since the turn of this century. Entrepreneurship as Its Own Management Science Over the last 10 years, entrepreneurs began to understand that start-ups were not simply smaller versions of large companies. While companies execute business models, start-ups search for a business model. Instead of adopting the management techniques of large companies, which too often stifle innovation in a young start up, entrepreneurs began to develop their own management tools. Using the business model/customer development/agile development solution stack, entrepreneurs first map their assumptions (their business model) and then test these hypotheses with customers outside in the field (customer development) and use an iterative and incremental development methodology (agile development) to build the product. When founders discover their assumptions are wrong, as they inevitably will, the result isn’t a crisis, it’s a learning event called a pivot — and an opportunity to change the business model. The result: start-ups now have tools that speed up the search for customers, reduce time to market and slash the cost of development. When It’s Darkest Men See the Stars The economic downturn in the United States has had an unexpected consequence for start-ups — it has created more of them. Young and old, innovators who are unemployed or underemployed now face less risk in starting a company. It’s possible that we’ll look back to this decade as the beginning of our own revolution. It may even be the dawn of a new era for a new American economy built on entrepreneurship and innovation. One our children will look back on and marvel that when it was the darkest, we saw the stars. Excerpted from a Thanksgiving 2010 message on Steve Blank’s Website and Blog .

Read the full article →

Anna Cuevas: Independent Foreclosure Review: Is It the Real Deal?

November 22, 2011

On November 1, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency began a new initiative, requiring a review by an independent consultant to determine if errors or misrepresentations made by banks might have caused financial harm to homeowners. Is this the real deal? I’ve assisted thousands of homeowners who are facing foreclosure, and I have personally witnessed untold amounts of bank errors, misrepresentations, miscalculations, and even unfamiliarity with the foreclosure process. Each of these has, no doubt, resulted in some measure of financial injury or harm to the homeowner, whether they received a loan modification and saved their home or lost their home to foreclosure. If it’s the real deal, it’s huge. Four and a half million homeowners could be affected, as long as their mortgage was serviced by one of the 14 largest services (named below). Other criteria requires that the house was the homeowner’s primary residence and that the foreclosure took place between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. The government said that they’ve already begun sending out notification letters to potentially eligible homeowners — that process is to be completed by December 31, 2011. If you receive a notification that your foreclosure fits the initial criteria for an independent review, you must complete and return a Request for Review Form, which must be postmarked no later than April 30, 2012. While I applaud the efforts to recognize that banks do err, resulting in great financial injury and the loss of a home to its customers, I also welcome these efforts with an ounce of caution. Simply put, I’ve learned that even the best intentions, coupled with stringent guidelines and government bureaucracy, can create additional problems. As I’ve said many times before, question authority. If you believe you meet the eligibility requirements and were financially injured due to a wrongful foreclosure or bank error, misrepresentation, etc., that resulted in foreclosure, it’s important that you follow the guidelines in your notification letter. But be aware of the potential for several problems: 1. You don’t receive a notification letter, even though your loan was serviced by one of the 14 servicers subject to review. (In this case, you can call 1-888-952-9105 or visit www.independentforeclosurereview.com  to find out if you should have been included.) 2. If you don’t receive a letter, question why not. The addresses provided to the government for potentially eligible homeowners are provided by none other than their lenders. Does your lender know your current address, or are they sending your notification to your last-known address… the address for the home which was foreclosed on? Again, question authority. 3. If you don’t receive a letter, what criteria and parameters are being used? Does the government have the final determination over who receives an independent foreclosure review, or does the lender? Whose figures will they use in determining error or financial loss? These questions alone prompt further investigation. 4. I should point out that the independent foreclosure reviews are not being done by the government — the government is only requiring them to be completed. So who is performing the reviews? “Independent” reviewers who are hired by your mortgage servicer will be reviewing your foreclosure to see if the bank who hired them made a mistake. This raises red flags and the potential for possible conflicts of interest and bias on the part of the reviewer. 5. As with any government incentive, too little is known about the independent foreclosure review process. There is only a smattering of examples of what and who qualifies, with very little offered to define “financial injury” or how people will be compensated for it. While some may get nothing, others may get a mere few dollars for overpayment of fees. Will those who are entitled to larger compensations be justly awarded the full amount of the loss they suffered due to bank error? After all, these are the same banks that made the mistake in the first place — the possibility for more mistakes certainly exists today. And what about those who suffered the greatest loss — the loss of their home? How will they be compensated? 6. Among the foreclosed homeowners who will receive financial compensation for their losses, how and when will they be paid? How long does the process take, and will it be fair to all involved? While I agree wholeheartedly with an independent review of foreclosures in an effort to right the wrongs that may have been committed by lenders, I also am skeptical. There are too many gray areas which can affect homeowners, and I can see room for even more error. This might be the real deal, but it might also require diligence, perseverance, and a little determination and sweat equity on your part to find out if it is. You, not the government, the bank, or an independent reviewer, will always be your own best advocate. Trust no one, do your own homework and research and question authority. *The 14 lenders subject to the independent foreclosure review regulation are (in alphabetical order): Ally’s GMAC Mortgage, Aurora Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, EverBank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife, OneWest, PNC, Sovereign Bank, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo.  If you believe that you are eligible for an independent review, visit the government’s website at www.independentforeclosurereview.com or call 1-888-952-9105. Make sure you receive a letter and a request for a review and follow the guidelines and timelines as stated.

Read the full article →

Occupy Demonstrators Arrested After Protesting Massive Education Cuts

November 17, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — Police arrested a number of Occupy protesters and students Wednesday who stormed into a downtown San Francisco bank and shouted slogans as they tried to set up camp in the lobby. The arrests came after more than 100 demonstrators rushed into a Bank of America branch, chanting “money for schools and education, not for banks and corporations.” Police officers in riot gear cuffed the activists one-by-one as hundreds more demonstrators surrounded the building, blocking entrances and exits. Deputy Police Chief Kevin Cashman said 80 arrests were expected for trespassing. Suspects were taken to jail, cited and released. Elsewhere, students and anti-Wall Street activists settled into a new encampment at the University of California, Berkeley, and visited the state Capitol to demand the restoration of funding for higher education. At Berkeley, police watched over about two dozen tents that were pitched Tuesday night on a student plaza despite a campus policy that forbids camping. Police warned that protesters could be arrested if they didn’t leave. Seth Weinberg, a 20-year-old cognitive science major, said he slept in a tent on Sproul Plaza to press the university to lobby for more public education funding. “There should be a way for anyone who wants to go to college if they choose to,” Weinberg said. “What the university doesn’t understand is that we are not camping out. This is a constant protest.” In Sacramento, about 75 student leaders and a few administrators from UC Berkeley and the University of California, Davis lobbied lawmakers and the governor to allocate more money to education. Adam Thongsavat, student body president at UC Davis, called on lawmakers to be “more courageous, more aggressive and more thoughtful.” “Come to our campuses and see how your actions affect us,” he said. “I want you all to tell us why prisons deserve more spending than universities.” University of California President Mark Yudof issued a statement of support for the students’ “passion and conviction” in support of public higher education. “We also suffer together the strains caused by what has been a long pattern of state disinvestment in the University of California,” he said. Protesters in San Francisco marched through downtown in a demonstration partly organized by ReFund California, a coalition of student groups and university employee unions. The group bused in protesters from UC Berkeley, the University of California, Merced and other schools to join Occupy San Francisco activists as they marched to the bank and the state building. The marches in support of higher education came as police in San Francisco and San Diego cleared encampments in those cities, citing public health and safety concerns. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee met with Occupy SF activists to let them know an expansion of their camp would not be tolerated. “I did give the order to our police chief this morning that there cannot be an expansion of what we’re perceiving to be a health hazard in the city,” Lee said after the meeting. Gene Doherty, a media contact for Occupy San Francisco, said the group was surprised by the early morning raid on the encampment. “Because of this morning’s meeting, we thought that the city would be acting in good faith,” Doherty said. Police once again broke up the Occupy encampment in San Diego that officials said posed a growing problem with violence and mounting trash. Nine people were arrested and one other was cited and released during the 2 a.m. raid. As some encampments came down, the tent city at UC Berkeley remained after a day of activism against big banks and education cuts culminated with about 4,000 people rallying Tuesday night at a speech by former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Occupy Cal’s general assembly voted to invite the university’s chancellor and Board of Regents to a debate in early December and to send the educational officials a list of demands, including a tuition rollback to 2009 levels. They also voted in favor of rebuilding their encampment despite earlier violence on Nov. 9, when police jabbed students with batons and arrested 40 people as the university sought to uphold the campus ban on camping. Alyssa Kies, a 20-year-old geography major, said there was a dance party and lots of discussion throughout the night on the UC Berkeley plaza. She said she wasn’t worried about police action because the political climate was too precarious for any sort of violence to be accepted. ___ Duff-Brown reported from San Francisco. Associated Press writers Garance Burke in San Francisco, Julie Watson in San Diego and Juliet Williams in Sacramento also contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Company Announces Major Decision In Controversial Pipeline Saga

November 14, 2011

LINCOLN, Neb. — TransCanada will move the route of its planned oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, two company officials announced Monday night. Speaking at a news conference at the Nebraska Capitol, the officials said TransCanada would agree to the new route, a move the company previously said wasn’t possible, as part of an effort to push through the proposed $7 billion project. They expressed confidence the project would ultimately be approved. Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and oil pipelines, said rerouting the line would likely require 30 to 40 additional miles. “We’re confident that collaborating with the state of Nebraska will make this process much easier,” Pourbaix said. The announcement follows the federal government’s decision last week to delay a decision on a federal permit for the project until it studies new potential routes that avoid the Sandhills area and the Ogallala aquifer. The proposed pipeline would carry crude oil from Canada to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. Debate over the pipeline has drawn national attention focused largely on Nebraska, because the pipeline would cross the Sandhills – an expanse of grass-strewn, loose-soil hills – and part of the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies water to Nebraska and parts of seven other states. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman called a special legislative session to seek a legal and constitutional solution to the pipeline debate. But the session’s stated goal – to enact oil pipeline legislation – has lacked a clear consensus about what, if anything, state officials ought to do. Environmentalists and some Nebraska landowners fear the pipeline would disrupt the region’s loose soil for decades, harm wildlife, and contaminate the aquifer. Business and labor groups who support the project say the criticism is overblown, and based more on opposition to oil than the project itself. They say the project will create construction jobs, although the exact number is disputed.

Read the full article →

MF Global’s Bankruptcy Erodes Trust In Brokerages

November 12, 2011

NEW YORK (David Henry, David Sheppard and Matthew Goldstein) – Almost two weeks after the bankruptcy of commodities firm MF Global, customers at rival firms are all asking the same question: How safe is my money? MF Global’s collapse is confronting clients across the industry with the harsh truth that while their accounts may be termed “segregated” that does not mean they are off-limits from trouble at a commodity futures firm, much less backstopped by any government insurance fund. MF Global revealed to regulators during its October 31 bankruptcy that it was short perhaps $600 million in customer funds – money which the firm was supposed to keep in “segregated” accounts maintained under a raft of laws and regulations. The concerns among investors have reached such a pitch that futures exchange operator CME Group announced late Friday that it will provide a guarantee for $300 million of the missing money in the MF Global case. “I’ve lost a good deal of money already over this. Now I’m a big boy who should have known better, with over 25 years experience in the futures industry, but what they were doing with client funds is to me outrageous,” said Stuart McClellan, an independent trader from Norfolk in the United Kingdom, who previously worked for Schroders in London. McClellan has more than $110,000 tied up in MF Global, which he doesn’t know if he will get back. “Using the excess collateral in clients’ funds to trade is not illegal, but to my mind it’s immoral. There is a huge risk,” he said. Futures commission merchants, as brokers in the industry are known, have always been allowed, with certain restrictions, to invest customers’ so-called “excess margin,” or the funds in their accounts over and above the collateral required to maintain trades. The brokers then book any profits for themselves. Segregation simply means that customer deposits can’t be mixed with the firm’s own money or used to cover firm expenses. They must always be available for customers to trade with or withdraw at a moment’s notice. In other words, customer segregated money isn’t some big cookie jar for the firm to dip into when it is short on cash. “That is what is so shocking about MF Global’s situation,” said Michael Greenberger, a former director of the Division of Trading and Markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and now a law professor at the University of Maryland. “If that stability is not present, people will not want to go into what is already a highly volatile trading environment,” he said. Now with each passing day that missing money has not been found, there is growing concern that MF Global may have abused its legal latitude with the segregated customer accounts. The fear is that MF lost the segregated funds in bad trades or used them illegally to meet other obligations. By this time, traders and investigative sources say, it should have been possible to trace the money, if it still exists, in some account with another financial institution. Some traders who tried to withdraw funds from MF Global prior to the bankruptcy received checks that bounced. Commodity traders and investors are now saying they will demand their brokerage houses reveal exactly what they plan investing customer funds in. Don McAfee, a private investor from the San Juan Islands in Washington state, said he had been a “novice” trader of commodities who had become interested in the sector, in part because he saw less risk from the fate of individual banks and brokerages than in equities or bonds. “It was a way of diversifying out of just playing stocks, and I was very attracted to the fact you did not seem to have any counterparty risk,” McAfee said, who has around $220,000 still frozen at MF Global. “In the future I am going to want an ironclad guarantee that my account is fully segregated. And if it’s not I need to know that at most it’s being invested in U.S. Treasuries, not commercial paper or foreign bonds.” PRESSURE MOUNTS ON RIVALS Brokers at rival firms, who had perhaps hoped to benefit from the disappearance of one of their fiercest competitors, are fielding endless calls from concerned customers and fearing a run on their own accounts. “I’m getting calls from people, wanting to know if this could happen again, if I can give them proof that the banks I’m dealing with are okay and that their money is safe,” said one broker on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) on Thursday, who asked not to be identified. “That’s never happened to me before. There’s a lot of fear,’ he said. Other traders said they were looking to spread their accounts across multiple brokers to limit their risk, after watching friends and colleagues locked out of the market over the past two weeks. Others said they were looking into insuring their funds. The failure to free up client funds quickly after the bankruptcy was further undermining faith in the safeguards in the commodities market, said Michael “Mack” Frankfurter, co-founder of commodity trading advisor Cervino Capital Management LLC in Beverly Hills. “There is unintended consequences and systemic risk evolving in this situation. It’s not about what needs to be done going forward… It’s about what needs to be done immediately to save the industry,” he said. WHO TO TRUST? MF Global’s standard agreement with customers permitted the firm to “borrow, pledge, repledge, transfer, hypothecate, rehypothecate, loan or invest any of the collateral” in customer accounts. The language is typical of agreements throughout the industry, said one longtime futures trader and industry consultant who did not want to be identified because he does work for CME Group. The largest customers might be able to get that language tweaked in their favor a bit, perhaps with an agreement to split revenue earned on the customer deposits. But smaller investors generally have to accept the firm’s plans for the use of excess cash in their accounts. Trading in commodities has exploded over the past ten years, increasing by more than 600 percent according to some estimates, and bringing in a new breed of ‘Mom and Pop’ investors hoping to protect themselves against, and benefit from, the rising costs of food and energy. The practice of firms using customer excess cash to make money has been a basic source of revenue for the industry for decades, if not centuries. In fact, it is revenue from those investments that has allowed the firms to cut their commission rates to attract more business. The practice is codified in U.S. law and regulation, which until 2000 limited use of the funds to basically U.S. Treasury and state and municipal obligations. Over the next five years, the rules were eased to permit firms to use customer money to enter into repurchase agreements and buy foreign bonds, money market funds, and assorted securities. When the financial crisis prompted second thoughts from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the industry fought to stop proposals to cut back on how much the firms could do with customer money. MF Global, which was led by ex-Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, teamed up with Newedge Group, a major competitor, and warned in a December 2010 letter that reducing the stream of revenue could force some futures commission merchants to shut down. The Futures Industry Association, an umbrella organization representing futures traders such as Goldman Sachs Group and Jefferies & Company, as well as MF Global, also pushed back against plans to stop firms investing in foreign bonds and other riskier assets with customer funds. The proposal was eventually shelved. The MF Global collapse prompted CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler to say November 7 that he will push again to tighten the restrictions. Industry experts say that may improve the security of segregated funds, but it could also force brokers to charge higher fees. Meanwhile, the building outrage over the missing money is rattling industry veterans. Dennis Gartman, a board member of the Kansas City Board of Trade known for his daily market commentary, wrote Friday that if industry leaders do not act quickly to make good on the MF customer money, “the futures markets shall be under real and permanent assault.” Todd Thielmann, a former MF Global broker on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, said fear was spreading fast among customers. “They’ve taken any excess money out of all firms now and they don’t know who to trust.” (Reporting by David Henry, David Sheppard and Matthew Goldstein in New York. Additional reporting by Jed Horowitz, Barani Krishnan and Josephine Mason in New York, Samuel Nelson and PJ Huffstutter in Chicago; editing by Edward Tobin and Martin Howell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Lynn Forester de Rothschild: Restoring Capitalism — Restoring America

November 10, 2011

Although portrayed as opposites, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protesters are essentially kissing cousins, both with important contributions to make to America. Neither movement believes that our nation is working for them. They see a society rigged by big government, big labor and big business against the people. They have a point. Ironically, they would each be more persuasive if they acted together, instead of allowing themselves to be exploited by the squabbling and ineffective political parties. Engagement in a war of attrition dilutes the power of both groups. However, the two movements could claim victory if they force our nation to rethink and rebuild our economy and our civil society based on a shared belief in the best of our democratic values and capitalist roots. President Obama has broken trust with the American people. Not only has he left us more bitterly divided than ever imaginable, but since the beginning of his presidency, 1.3 million more Americans are unemployed, 913,000 private sector jobs have been destroyed, 13 million people have been added to food stamp dependency and over 6 million have lost their homes. While our economy needs 90,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with our national birth rate, we have reached that threshold only 9 times since February 2009. All that is bad enough, but at the same time our government has increased our debt burden from $5.8 trillion in 2008 (40.3% of GDP) to over $9 trillion in 2011 (67% of GDP). And, our annual federal government budget deficit has grown from $458 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2011. Only 19% of Americans “always” or “mostly” trust the government to do what is right, down from 75% in 1958. Millions are fed up and are opting to “starve the beast”. That is not crazy. In light of all this, the government’s disproportionate protection of the financial sector is appalling. The implied guarantee for “too big to fail” banks, a tax regime that levies lower tax rates on financial engineers making millions at hedge funds and private equity funds than on earners in any other industry, and the failure of banks to loosen financing for small and medium sized businesses hurts the majority. Lending to small and medium businesses has fallen to $607 billion from $711 billion in 2008. This is in spite of the June 2011 report by the Federal Reserve that excess reserves at banks totals nearly $1.57 trillion — 20 times what banks need to satisfy their reserve requirements. These realities provide evidence of collusion between the political and financial elites. Frustration, even anger, with this state of our country is not insane or unreasonable. But, to blame either a duplicitous government or a greedy private sector is too simple. Instead, we need to ask all sides to put aside their divisive rhetoric and work together to restore the shared greatness of America. Although abused in recent years, capitalism has been the bedrock of our prosperity and our fairness. In order for our economy to lift all of our citizens, our economy will need to be powered by the private sector and government will have to take actions that are anathema to the vested interests of both parties. We must find common ground to reform our tax system, eliminate most tax subsidies, recalibrate our regulations, restructure our entitlement programs, re-create a smaller and wiser government and establish private-public partnerships for many essential tasks. We have had leadership in America in the past that has brought us together in this way. Bill Clinton had it right in his State of the Union Address in 1996 when he said, “the era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the era of fending for yourself. We have to go forward to the era of working together as a community, as a team, as one America, with all of us reaching across these lines that divide us — the division, the discrimination, the rancor — we have to reach across it to find common ground. We have got to work together if we want America to work”. The Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movements both have legitimate gripes. We need to be what we have always been; a nation that creates better opportunities for a greater number of people. It is through the hopes and dreams and hard work of the believers in the American Dream that our differences will disappear and our confidence will return. After all, deep down in our soul we know that with inspired leadership, which we sorely lack right now, success, and even outrageous fortune, should be available to anyone who works hard and plays by the rules in America. Lynn Forester de Rothschild is CEO of EL Rothschild, LLC and the co-Chair of the “Better Values, Better Markets” Task Force at the Henry Jackson Society in London.

Read the full article →

Shadow Economy World’s Second Largest

November 7, 2011

By Freakonomics : In 2009, the OECD concluded that half the world’s workers (almost 1.8 billion people) were employed in the shadow economy. By 2020, the OECD predicts the shadow economy will employ two-thirds of the world’s workers. This new economy even has a name: “System D.” In a new article (accompanying photoessay here ) for Foreign Policy , Robert Neuwirth explains: System D is a slang phrase pirated from French-speaking Africa and the Caribbean. The French have a word that they often use to describe particularly effective and motivated people. They call them debrouillards. To say a man is a debrouillard is to tell people how resourceful and ingenious he is. The former French colonies have sculpted this word to their own social and economic reality. Read the entire post here, or more Freakonomics content below: – Read more from Freakonomics here : – How Far Along Are We Towards Reducing Healthcare Spending? – The Pricing Strategy Of Omelets

Read the full article →