chicago

10 Great Careers For Post 50s

by money.msn.com on February 11, 2012

Huffington Post…

If you want to be a fashion model, bike messenger or ball boy, it pays to be young. However, if you want a job in which you’re expected to convey reliability, wisdom or gravitas, you have an advantage if you’re over 50.

Continue reading here:
10 Great Careers For Post 50s

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

{ 0 comments }

The States With The Most Homes in Foreclosure

by Bonnie Kavoussi on February 11, 2012

Huffington Post…

While some of the states with high foreclosure rates have had substantial improvements in their economies, others continue to be hit hard. In Nevada and Florida, two states with the highest foreclosure rates, homes lost roughly half of their value over the past five years — and prices are still falling. Foreclosures that began several years ago and that are still active cannot be the only reason nearly 12% of Florida’s homes with mortgages were in foreclosure last year. Home prices in the state fell nearly 50% over the past five years, unemployment remains extremely high, and 17.4% of people with mortgages in the state were 90 days or more late on their mortgage payments.

Read the original here:
The States With The Most Homes in Foreclosure

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

{ 0 comments }

Fishermen Meet Amid Potentially Disastrous Cod Prospects

February 11, 2012

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) — Fishermen and federal officials grappled Friday with the increasingly bleak prospect of finding some way for the historic New England industry to avoid collapse amid troubles with the health of Gulf of Maine cod. Their meeting came in the week after regional regulators bought fisherman a yearlong reprieve from what would have been devastating cuts in 2012. But projections discussed Friday showed fishermen still face disastrous cuts in 2013 that most won’t survive. “It’s going to be hard to preserve the industry at those low numbers (in 2013) and that’s something that concerns us a great deal,” said Sam Rauch, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries arm, who led the meeting of fishermen, scientists and regulators. “This truly is one of the iconic fisheries,” he said in an interview after the meeting. “When you think of what the U.S. fisherman is, it’s an inshore Gulf of Maine cod fisherman. That’s why we are so devoted to working through this process to try to overturn every possibility we can. But the future, 2013, does not look rosy.” The cod in the Gulf of Maine has been crucial to New England fishermen from Cape Cod to Maine for hundreds of years, and four years ago, after a major assessment, it was thought to be one of the region’s strongest species. It brought in $15.8 million in 2010, second highest amount behind Georges Bank haddock among the region’s 20 regulated bottom-dwelling groundfish. But data released last year indicated the fish was so severely overfished that even if all fishing on it ended immediately, it wouldn’t rebound by 2014 to levels required under federal law. As a result, fishermen were looking at an 82 percent cut in what they were allowed to catch in 2011, a catastrophic reduction that would have wiped out fishermen around the region — not just those who rely on cod. That’s because major restrictions on cod severely limit fishing on the other key groundfish species, such as flounder and haddock, in order to protect the cod they swim among. Last week, regional regulators at the New England Fishery Management Council asked NOAA to adopt a one-year emergency rule that would enable regulators to avoid the massive cut. And they recommended allowing fishermen to catch either 6,700 metric tons or 7,500 metric tons of Gulf of Maine cod in 2012. On Friday, Rauch signaled that NOAA would allow the 6,700 catch limit in the 2012 fishing year, which starts in May. That would mean a tough 22 percent cut from what they were allowed to catch in 2011, though not nearly as deep a reduction as first feared. The problem, according to new projections discussed Friday, is that after the emergency rule expires in 2013, fishermen are again looking at a cut in cod catch just as severe as the huge reduction they were originally facing. From the first indications of cod trouble, fishermen and their advocates have questioned the science behind the new data and Friday was no exception. “We don’t trust your data,” New Hampshire charter boat fisherman Bill Wagner told regulators. “We don’t believe there’s a shortage of codfish. We don’t believe there’s a crisis in codfish.” Massachusetts Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, who represents the port of Gloucester, criticized what she characterized as the constant, massive swings in scientific assessments on the size of fish populations. “We’re always in the same dilemma and I don’t understand why,” she said. Gloucester fisherman Al Cottone said the new assessment has put the fishing industry “on death row.” “The anxiety the industry feels is unprecedented,” he said With so much doubt about the science behind the new data, Cottone said, regulators should give fishermen as much fish to catch as possible while they try to remove uncertainties in the numbers. “To basically flip the switch on the industry with so much reasonable doubt would be irresponsible,” he said. Rauch said the verifying and improving the science is a top priority, and no one can predict if the new work can find something in the next year that significantly improves the assessment of cod health. “It’s always possible we’ll find something there, but even if we don’t, this year allows us time to better plan … for where this industry may end up,” Rauch said. “Fishermen are resilient, they figure out ways to adapt. But this will be hard to adapt to.”

Read the full article →

Some States Using Funds From Foreclosure Deal To Close Budget Gaps

February 10, 2012

Well, that was fast. Two states have already announced that they won’t be using all of their share of the $25 billion allocated in Thursday’s historic foreclosure settlement to pay its intended recepients — the homeowners and borrowers who saw the housing market collapse beneath their feet. Instead, in some areas, a share of those dollars is likely to be diverted to state budgets, in a bid to offset some of the massive deficits that states have been struggling with since the economic downturn , according to reports. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen have announced plans to use $25.6 million of the settlement money — about 18 percent of the $140 million Wisconsin will get in total — to plug holes in the state’s budget , according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . As the MJS notes, this is a reversal of Walker’s previous opposition to using legal settlements to close budget gaps. Meanwhile, in Missouri, state Attorney General Chris Koster has said that he plans to put $40 million of Missouri’s settlement money — about 20 percent of the total $196 million — into the general state fund , apparently in response to Governor Jay Nixon’s call for a stronger college and university budget, Stateline reported. In the wake of Missouri and Wisconsin’s announcements to use the settlement funds for purposes other than directly assisting borrowers — and with similar announcements possibly forthcoming from other states — critics have begun comparing Thursday’s deal to the 1998 tobacco settlement that saw some of the country’s largest tobacco companies agree to pay $246 billion over the next 25 years to fund public-health initiatives. Much of that money has since been spent on other things, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which estimates that states will receive $25.6 billion from the tobacco settlement this year, but only use 1.8 percent of it to combat tobacco use . If the news that some of the money from the foreclosure settlement won’t end up in borrowers’ hands is disappointing to some, it won’t be the first time this week that the deal has let someone down. While the settlement involves five of the country’s largest banks — Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Ally Financial, Wells Fargo and Bank of America — and an amount of money that has been called one of the largest mortgage settlements in history , many borrowers stand to realize practical benefits that are marginal at best. Some 1 million homeowners will receive material mortgage relief that may help them stave off a default, but another 775,000 borrowers who have lost their homes to foreclosure will receive payments of no more than $2,000 . And the settlement excludes mortgages owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the massive mortgage agencies currently in government conservatorship, which means about half the country’s mortgages aren’t covered at all by the deal .

Read the full article →

Devon Swezey: Romer Misses the Mark on Manufacturing

February 10, 2012

A healthy manufacturing sector is essential to America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century. But you wouldn’t know that reading last Sunday’s New York Times , where former Obama Administration CEA Chair Christina Romer writes that there are no compelling reasons for U.S. manufacturing policy. According to Romer, the recent hubbub about manufacturing is due to the fact that people have a “feeling” that “making things” is important. In reality, she writes, consumers “value haircuts as much as hair dryers.” To be sure, all of us need haircuts, some of us more than others. But Romer ‘s argument that we should value all industries of the economy the same is just not true. It’s reminiscent of economist Michael Boskin, another former CEA chair, who said it doesn’t matter whether a country makes computer chips or potato chips. The fact is that some industries are characterized by high productivity and economies of scale that reduce costs and drive economic growth throughout the economy. As Clyde Prestowitz writes of Romer’s own example: Production of hair dryers can be done in large factories that produce economies of scale. Such scale economies lead to lower prices, lower inflation, higher productivity and thus higher wealth creation for the whole economy. In addition, producers of hair dryers invest in research and development to foster innovation of new, more efficient, less energy using, and easier to produce dryers. Investment in new product and process innovations is what drives economic growth over the long-term. And as we discuss in ” Manufacturing Growth: Advanced Manufacturing and the Future of the American Economy ,” manufacturing is absolutely central to innovation, something that many economists like Romer and economic commentators like Matt Yglesias don’t seem to understand. The manufacturing sector comprises two-thirds of the nation’s industry investment in research and development (R&D) and employs nearly 64 percent of the country’s scientists and engineers. But Romer doesn’t mention manufacturing’s importance to innovation in her article. Instead, she prefers to argue with what she sees as the common rationales for manufacturing policy — market failures, jobs and inequality — none of which she finds “completely convincing.” On the first issue, she writes that market failures in manufacturing — where positive spillovers mean that some benefits of a new manufacturing plant go to other companies in the area, thus providing a rationale for government investment — are small, citing two academic studies on the subject. But many other studies have found that manufacturing is a central component of regional industrial ecosystems, and that being near manufacturing can accelerate innovation and strengthen regional competitiveness. As President Bush’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology wrote in 2004 , “design, product development, and process evolution all benefit from proximity to manufacturing, so that new ideas can be tested and discussed with those ‘working on the ground.’” Indeed, recent research suggests that losing high-tech manufacturing can imperil a nation’s capacity for future innovation. Harvard’s Carl Pisano and Willy Shih write that America’s “industrial commons” — the collective engineering, R&D and manufacturing capabilities that sustain innovation — are being hollowed out and the United States can no longer produce many high-tech products. Moreover, research and design are starting to follow high-tech manufacturing abroad, imperiling America’s historic advantages in innovation. Next, Romer writes that the impact of manufacturing on jobs relative to the employment needs of the economy is small and that we should focus on boosting aggregate demand instead: Unemployment today is high, but not because of a decline in manufacturing. That decline has been going on for 30 years — and for most of the 1990s and 2000s, the unemployment rate was less than 6 percent. Put aside that this obscures the fact that manufacturing employment generally followed the business cycle with only modest declines until 2000 when it fell off a cliff — declining by 5.5 million jobs from 2000 to 2008, or 32 percent. Romer understates the impact of manufacturing on jobs for two key reasons. First, she ignores the fact that manufacturing facilities have extensive backward linkages, generating output and employment throughout the economy. Indeed, manufacturing’s “multiplier effect” in terms of both output and employment is larger than any other sector of the economy. Specifically, studies demonstrate that every dollar in final sales of manufactured products supports $1.40 in output from other sectors of the economy. And the average job in manufacturing produces two to three spinoff jobs elsewhere in the economy. Even if employment on the factory floor never reaches levels of previous decades, when these effects are taken into account, manufacturing’s employment footprint is quite substantial. Second, Romer completely misses the connection between America’s persistent, massive trade deficits and our employment situation. In 2010 the trade deficit stood at nearly $500 billion, down from a record of $760 billion in 2006. With such large deficits, it’s difficult to see how more fiscal stimulus to boost aggregate demand, which Romer favors, will fill the jobs hole in the economy. It would certainly create some jobs, but much of that demand would be filled by imports, which creates jobs in other countries. Rather, eliminating the trade deficit would create millions of jobs in the United States. And the best way to close the trade deficit is by expanding manufactured exports. This is because the large majority of U.S. trade — nearly 70 percent of exports and 83 percent of imports — is still in goods. Manufactured goods in particular comprise 57 percent of U.S. exports. Can exporting services help reduce the trade deficit? Absolutely, and the United States enjoyed a $149 billion surplus in services in 2010. But it took 11 years for service exports to double to its 2010 level of $543 billion. The simple arithmetic shows that the current positive balance in services would need to quadruple to eliminate the deficit in goods. This is implausible, to say the least. What about inequality? Romer writes correctly that while manufacturing pays higher-than-average wages, it is no longer a source of high-paying jobs for less educated workers. Manufacturing is a technologically sophisticated enterprise and today’s manufacturing workers must have a wide array of abilities, including the production skills to set up and operate processes, design and development skills to continuously improve those processes, as well as proficiency in maintenance, repair and supply chain logistics. But then the policy response should not be to ignore manufacturing but ensure that workers have the skills for advanced manufacturing industries. Romer ends by implying that manufacturing policy is driven by economic nostalgia for an earlier age, writing, “public policy needs to go beyond sentiment and history.” To be sure, policy must account for the ways in which manufacturing has changed over previous decades. Some labor-intensive industries are likely gone for good, while the increasing use of information technology, robotics, and high-precision tools means that today’s factory workers must have much greater skills than previous generations. Fortunately, advanced manufacturing policy need not be about sentimentality or history, but about creating the next generation of advanced technologies that spur innovation, drive productivity, and power economic growth in the 21st century. It is about strengthening a sector that is a key catalyst of employment and economic growth. And it’s about ensuring the international competitiveness of the U.S. economy, closing the trade deficit and out-competing other nations whose governments rightly view high-tech manufacturing as a strategic industry. The good news is that the Obama administration has recently recognized that advanced manufacturing is critical for the future prosperity of the U.S. economy, even if its former chief economist does not. For more on the importance of advanced manufacturing to the U.S. economy, see ” Manufacturing Growth, ” a joint report by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way.

Read the full article →

Trader Joe’s Relents To Pressure, Signs Fair Food Agreement

February 10, 2012

Trader Joe’s relented this week and signed a Fair Food Agreement with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a community-based organization of mainly Latino, Mayan Indian and Haitian immigrants employed in low-wage jobs in Florida. The agreement requires the grocery store to pay a penny more per pound of tomatoes and to ensure better working conditions for tomato workers. In the past year, protesters have become a common sight at Trader Joe’s locations across the country in response to the chain’s refusal to sign the agreement . Chains like Taco Bell, McDonald’s, Burger King and Whole Foods all signed the agreement years ago. “This is nearly a 50 percent raise for the workers,” Barry Estabrook, the writer behind PoliticsOfThePlate.com and author of the book ” Tomatoland ” (about large-scale tomato agriculture), told The Huffington Post. “These are desperately poor people.” “We are truly happy today to welcome Trader Joe’s aboard the Fair Food Program,” said Gerardo Reyes of the CIW, in a jont press release issued by the coalition and Trader Joe’s. “Trader Joe’s is cherished by its customers for a number of reasons, but high on that list is the company’s commitment to ethical purchasing practices. With this agreement, Trader Joe’s reaffirms that commitment and sends a strong — and timely — message of support to the Florida growers who are choosing to do the right thing, investing in improved labor standards, despite the challenges of a difficult marketplace and tough economic times.” Although jointly issued, the press release did not have a comment directly from Trader Joe’s. The grocery chain told HuffPost via email that it had nothing further to say beyond the release. Estabrook, who last spoke to Trader Joe’s in the fall of 2011, said he found the company’s attitude to be “almost belligerent” when a group of religious leaders tried to present it with a petition in October of last year. But the CIW had a 40-city protest planned for this weekend , and Trader Joe’s may have felt compelled to finally sign on, he said. The protests have now been canceled. “Trader Joe’s presents an image of friendliness and fairness. When you’re doing that, you can’t very well have a group of people demonstrating in front of your stores,” Estabrook said. The CIW now plans to focus its attention on the major supermarket chain Publix, and has a six-day fast planned for next month. Trader Joe’s opened its first Florida store in Naples on Friday, one day after signing the CIW agreement. In a weird twist of fate, the store is located on Immokalee Road.

Read the full article →

Obama’s Approval Rating Keeps Inching Up, Driven By One Factor

February 10, 2012

WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the Gallup Daily tracking poll marked a symbolic milestone. For the first time in more than a month and only the third time since last July, Gallup reported an approval rating for President Barack Obama (49 percent) that was slightly higher than his disapproval rating (46 percent). On Friday, the Rasmussen Reports automated tracking survey marked a similar landmark. It showed Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent or greater nationwide for the fifth consecutive day, a popularity not matched on the Rasmussen poll since January 2011. The two daily tracking surveys are not alone. National telephone polls released in the past week by Fox News , ABC News and the Washington Post , Ipsos/Reuters , and the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy Polling (also sponsored by the website DailyKos and the Service Employees International Union) have all found increases in Obama’s approval rating since October. Most of the increases range between 4 and 6 percentage points; the Ipsos/Reuters survey found a smaller rise. The improvement since the fall has also been evident in state polls, including such likely battlegrounds in the general presidential election as Ohio , New Hampshire , North Carolina and Virginia . Given the recent upward blip in the two national daily-tracking polls, some have looked for explanations in the events of the past week , particularly last Friday’s Labor Department report of a rising employment rate . While positive economic news is the most likely reason for Obama’s improving job rating, the upward trend in his ratings did not begin in February. In fact, most of the surveys have tracked a gradual increase in Obama’s ratings that began in late October. The HuffPost Pollster chart , based on all available public polls, shows a slow, steady rise of roughly five percentage points in the president’s job approval rating since it hit its all-time low in early October. The longer-term increase in Obama’s approval rating parallels five months of increases in several survey-based indexes of consumer confidence. Specifically: Gallup reported that its index of consumer confidence has risen for five consecutive months to its highest point since May 2011. The pollster also reports that 22 percent of Americans now say they are satisfied with the way things are going, “higher than at any point since last spring.” The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index rose to its highest level in a year this week. The Thompson Reuters University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment was up in December for the fifth straight month. A preliminary estimate for January, based on a smaller sample, is slightly down , but confidence remained higher than in previous months. The Rasmussen Consumer Index stands at its highest level in over a year, although it’s down slightly from a peak earlier in the week. The Consumer Confidence Index of the Conference Board showed a slight decline in January, but its December and January measurements were still significantly higher than those of the three previous months . Of course, the overall economic mood remains gloomy. On the Gallup surveys , for example, far more Americans still say that economic conditions nationwide are getting worse (58 percent) than say they’re getting better (36 percent) — though the positive number has more than doubled, from 18 percent, since the fall. And despite big increases since October, the president continues to receive net negative ratings on “the economy” (44 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove) and “creating jobs” (44 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove) in the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post survey . The main point, however, is that the rising tide of consumer optimism directly parallels the upward trend in Obama’s overall job approval rating. That result underscores the promise and the peril for the Obama administration in 2012. Continuing economic recovery will likely further boost his approval ratings and his chances in the November election. Yet we have seen temporary increases in consumer confidence before — most memorably in January 2010 — that quickly ebbed in the face of later negative economic news. Either way, the economic trends of the next six to eight months are likely the most important factor in determining whether Barack Obama wins a second term in November.

Read the full article →

Mohamed A. El-Erian: "Half-Time in America" Highlights Our Political Dysfunctionality

February 10, 2012

Viewed as a standalone, the controversy generated by the Clint Eastwood Superbowl commercial is really silly. Yet it points to something profound that has and, if left unaddressed, will continue to undermine America’s ability to regain economic dynamism, create ample jobs, and deal with growing inequalities. In the event that you are one of the few who missed it, Clint Eastwood starred on Sunday in a commercial that NBC aired at half time. The message was powerful. Yes, America has stumbled, with people out of work, hurting and scared. But, by pulling together and acting as one, Americans will come from behind and win. “That’s what we do.” The concluding remarks were particularly potent: “This country can’t be knocked out by one punch. We get right back up; and when we do, the world will hear the roar of our engines.” Given that it was financed by Chrysler, the commercial’s direct reference was, of course, to the impressive recovery in Detroit’s car industry. But the intention, and the impact, went well beyond that. What Detroit has done, America as a whole can and will do. Coming on the heels of a series of favorable economic data releases — which will hopefully persist though this is far from certain unfortunately — the ad spoke to the hope that America is recovering and that our economy is building encouraging momentum. This is particularly important for the job market where we need to improve on the 243,000 positions created in January to meaningfully address our unemployment crisis, tackle the problem of long-term joblessness, counter the mounting obstacles to youth employment, and stop the worsening of income and wealth inequalities. You would think that this feel good message would be a unifying one for our political class. Far from it. Several Republicans complained this week that Clint Eastwood was implicitly supporting Barack Obama. After all, the commercial could be interpreted as suggesting that, under President Obama, America has turned the corner and is now embarking on a path to prosperity — something that most Republicans dismiss. Democrats were quick to counter. On the contrary they shouted. If anything, “Half Time in America” was pro-Republican. It could easily be viewed as implying the need for a change in game plan and personnel substitutions — similar to what a losing team would discuss in the locker room at half time in order to regain control of the game and win. This morning on CNBC’s Squawk Box , Clint Eastwood shared his views. His message was direct and unambiguous: Take the commercial for what it is — a message about Americans’ ability to overcome our problems and march forward to a better future. It is easy, indeed tempting, to dismiss all this political squabbling as indicative of the silliness that is inevitable during an election season. I certainly would like to do so. Yet I fear that it goes well beyond that. This is yet another illustration of the deep political dysfunctionality that continuously undermines DC’s willingness and ability to move forward with the much-needed revitalization of the economy. The longer this continues, the greater the costs and the harder the solutions. In the short-term, the cyclical economic bounce of the last few months — powered by large injections of global central bank liquidity and a once-for-all decline in the personnel savings rate — would end up suffering the same fate as in early 2010 and 2011: fizzling out rather than handing off to durable engines of investment, growth and jobs. In the longer-term, America would find it even more challenging to overcome structural impediments that, each day, are getting more deeply embedded in the construct of our economy. For the sake of both current and future generations, let us hope that Clint Eastwood’s “Half Time in America” commercial will be remembered for more than just igniting yet another round of political bickering and finger pointing.

Read the full article →

Awful Cover Letter To J.P. Morgan Laughing Stock Of Wall Street

February 10, 2012

It takes a lot to get noticed in this town, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. An NYU undergraduate student named Mark has become the laughing stock of Wall Street after his awful cover letter to J.P Morgan made its rounds among NYU Stern alumni, the financial district, and then went viral online. A cover letter can make or break you in the job hunting game and Mark’s letter is a lesson in exactly what not to do. By boasting that he “managed to bench double [his] body weight and do 35 pull ups” while achieving a 3.93 GPA, young Mark invited the inevitable comparisons to the infamous Aleksey Vayner . There’s a fine line between convincing your potential employeer of why they need to hire you, and only you, and coming across as a pompous ass. There is no doubt Mark’s status as a triple major in Mathematics, Economics and Computer Science is impressive on its own, but throw in the fact that he held two part-time jobs, placed-out of two classes and managed to keep himself in top physical shape, and it’s safe to say he crossed the line. Mark’s cover letter also could have used an edit from an English major, who might have advised him to find a different way to express that he “can perform basic office functions with terrifying efficiency.” He ended the letter with a disclaimer asking J.P. Morgan to “Please realize that I am not a braggart or conceited, I just wanted to outline my usefulness. Egos can be a huge liability, and I try not to have one.” Nice. It’s a letter so obnoxious that it’s unclear if Mark sent it as a joke. According to Gawker, Mark is well aware bit of laughter he brought to the bankers on Wall Street. When asked if he’d gotten a job at J.P Morgan, he laughed, telling the website , “No, not at all. Didn’t you see my letter?” Joke or not, Mark is not alone when it comes to terrible cover letters. An applicant for a position as an API Engineer in New York City recently wrote : “I’m super awesome and have incredible experience compared to this — it includes the required experiences below plus I am trained in MMA fighting, am the mayor of multiple Chipotles, Starbucks, and locally famous restaurants in downtown NYC, and I type really fast.” And we can’t forget Roanald Dvorak’s cover letter for a office manager position, where he wrote : “Forget all the other candidates for Aviary, I am the BEST,” and listed his skills in bullet points: “Organizing shit? Check. Calling numbers and shit? Doublecheck. Customer support and shit? Mega-check. Faxing numbers and shit? MOTHERFLIPPING CHECK ALL OVER THAT.” At a time when even the most qualified applicants can’t find jobs , it’s questionable if sending over-the-top or ironic cover letters is a good idea — especially given the fact that there’s no expectation of privacy. Last year, Business Insider even posted 12 of the worst cover letters they received, redacting the names to provide some protection for those who made the list. READ THE COVER LETTER: 1/23/2012 J.P. Morgan Dear Sir or Madame: I am an ambitious undergraduate at NYU triple majoring in Mathematics, Economics, and Computer Science. I am a punctual, personable, and shrewd individual, yet I have a quality which I pride myself on more than any of these. I am unequivocally the most unflaggingly hard worker I know, and I love self-improvement. I have always felt that my time should be spent wisely, so I continuously challenge myself; I left Villanova because the work was too easy. Once I realized I could achieve a perfect GPA while holding a part-time job at NYU, I decided to redouble my effort by placing out of two classes, taking two honors classes, and holding two part-time jobs. That semester I achieved a 3.93, and in the same time I managed to bench double my bodyweight and do 35 pull-ups. I say these things only because solid evidence is more convincing than unverifiable statements, and I want to demonstrate that I am a hard worker. J.P. Morgan is a firm with a reputation that precedes itself and employees who represent only the best and rightest in finance. I know that the employees in this firm will push me to excellence, especially within the Investment Banking division. In fact, one of the supporting reasons I chose Investment Banking over any other division was that I know it is difficult. I hope to augment my character by diligently working for the professionals at Morgan Stanley, and I feel I have much to offer in return. I am proficient in several programming languages, and I can pick up a new one very quickly. For instance, I learned a years worth of Java from NYU in 27 days on my own; this is how I placed out of two including: Money and Banking, Analysis, Game Theory, Probability and Statistics. Even further, I am taking Machine Learning and Probabilistic Graphical Modeling currently, two programming courses offered by Stanford, so that I may truly offer the most if I am accepted. I am proficient with Bloomberg terminals, excellent with excel, and can perform basic office functions with terrifying efficiency. I have plenty of experience in the professional world through my internship at Merrill Lynch, and my research assistant position at NYU. In fact, my most recent employer has found me so useful that he promoted me to a Research Assistant and an official CTED intern. This role is usually reserved for Masters students, but my employer gave the title to me so that he could give me more work. Please realize that I am not a braggart or conceited, I just want to outline my usefulness. Egos can be a huge liability, and I try not to have one. Thank you so much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you. Best, Mark

Read the full article →

Jed Kolko: The Robo-Signing Settlement: Breaking the Usual Rules of Housing Policy

February 10, 2012

The robo-signing settlement is the latest — and potentially the largest — piece in the U.S. housing policy puzzle. Even though it’s partly punishment for banks’ wrongdoing, it is also another answer by the government to the question of how it can help the housing market. Our own housing policy survey last December showed strong bipartisan support for two key elements of the robo-signing settlement: refinancing by underwater homeowners (82 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans), and loan modifications to reduce principal balances (74 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of Republicans). With the robo-signing settlement, as with any housing policy, I look at three questions: 1) Is it big or small? Relative to other housing policies, it’s big. It calls for much more money for loan modifications than HAMP has cost so far, and it could mean money or relief for close to two million current and former homeowners. HAMP and HARP have each helped roughly one million homeowners so far. But relative to the housing crisis, it’s small. The loan modifications could yield tens of billions in principal reductions for one million homeowners — but that’s a sliver compared with the 11 million homeowners today who are over $700 billion underwater. And the cash compensation of $1,500-$2,000 for up to a million people who lost their homes will hardly make them whole. 2) Who pays? Usually it’s good politics to keep quiet about who pays for housing policy, but not with the robo-signing settlement. It’s good politics for the government and the attorneys-general for everyone to know that the banks are paying for their robo-signing sins. In contrast, most housing policy announcements hide — or at least don’t broadcast — who is paying, whether it’s investors who implicitly bear the cost of refinancing or taxpayers who implicitly bear the cost of many other policies. 3) Does it reward risk-taking or bad behavior? Delinquency is a disqualification for refinancing but is almost a requirement for getting a principal reduction. The largest piece of the robo-signing settlement is for principal reduction for borrowers who are “either delinquent or at imminent risk of default.” This is opposite of the refinancing rules laid out in HARP and the State of the Union address , which require borrowers to be current on their payments because that shows they’re “responsible.” So much for a coherent message from the government to homeowners about moral hazard. This issue could be fuel for election debates on housing policy: Republicans are much more bothered by rewarding bad behavior than Democrats are. In our December survey of consumers, 61 percent of Democrats agreed that “helping people keep their homes is the right policy even if it helps some undeserving homeowners,” but only 38 percent of Republicans agreed.

Read the full article →

The 10 Tech Companies Taking The Biggest Stand Against Climate Change

February 10, 2012

How are some of the world’s biggest IT companies taking a stand against a climate change? A list released by Greenpeace this week ranks some of the world’s largest information technology companies based on their efforts to mitigate climate change. The fifth edition of the Cool IT Leaderboard puts Google at the top, with Cisco and Ericsson grabbing second and third. According to a press release , the list “ranks 21 IT companies on their clean energy leadership potential, willingness to embrace clean energy solutions and potential to influence energy decisions.” Neither Apple nor Facebook were included in the list, as they have not pursued “market opportunities to drive IT energy solutions” to the same extent as others, according to Greenpeace. Greenpeace International IT analyst Gary Cook said, “Technology giants have a real opportunity to use their power and influence to change how we produce and use energy — Google tops the table because it’s putting its money where its mouth is by pumping investment into renewable energy.” As Wired notes, the highest scoring company, Google, only received a score of 53 out of 100 . Cisco was last year’s winner, with 70 points, but dropped to 49 this year. Greenpeace says Cisco’s fall is due to “a much less forceful support for priority climate and energy policies.” For more information on some of the greenest companies around, check out Newsweek’s 2011 list of the 30 greenest tech companies . List courtesy of Greenpeace . Read their full report here . Scroll down for the companies ranked 11-21. The companies which did not make the top 10 include: 11. Wipro 12. Dell 13. Microsoft 14. SAP 15. AT&T 16. HCL 17. NTT 18. NEC 19. TCS 20. Telefónica 21. Oracle

Read the full article →

When The Poor Have Health Care Coverage, The Cost Goes Down For All

February 10, 2012

The concept of support for universal health care is taboo among Republicans who scrutinize the Affordable Care Act — dubbing it the “Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” — and call for its repeal. But a new UC Irvine study challenges the GOP argument that the health care law is too costly, with data illustrating that health care costs on the whole fall when poorer, uninsured patients are provided with insurance. “In a case study involving low-income people enrolled in a community-based health insurance program, we found that use of primary care increased but use of emergency services fell, and — over time — total health care costs declined,” David Neumark, a co-author of the study, said in a release accompanying the findings. The study — which focused on uninsured people in Richmond, Virginia who fell 200 percent below the poverty line — found that over three years, health care costs fell by almost 50 percent per participant, from $8,899 in the first year to $4,569 in the third after they received insurance. Participants who enrolled in health coverage made fewer trips to the emergency room, which are notorious for running up patient bills. Instead, insured participants went for more primary care visits. “A lot of the debate about health care reform surrounds the issue of whether we’re setting up something that’s going to cost us more by increasing use of medical services or something that will cut costs through more appropriate and timely use of medical services,” Neumark said in the release. “[O]ver time, costs can be reduced through increased use of primary care and reductions in emergency-department visits and hospital admissions, but it may take several years of coverage for substantive savings to occur.” Health care spending in the U.S. has been on the rise for years. Americans spent more than three times on health care in 2008 than they spent in the 18 years before, according to a Kaiser report. Low-income, uninsured individuals tend to rack up exorbitant health-care bills because they often rely on emergency room visits instead of primary care. In the long run, these bills are paid by taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act “is set to extend Medicaid benefits to about 16 million uninsured, low-income adults and children by the end of 2014,” according to the study. In an extreme example of the societal cost of leaving some uninsured, New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell once chronicled the medical costs of a homeless man in Nevada who “used more health-care dollars, after all, than almost anyone in the state.” “It would probably have been cheaper to give him a full-time nurse and his own apartment,” Gladwell wrote. Mandatory health care already saw some success in Massachusetts last decade, when current GOP presidential candidate and then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed a health care law that inspired the Affordable Care Act. Today, Massachusetts has the highest percentage of insured residents of any state . Though he initially supported the plan, Romney’s rival, GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, continues to slam Romney for enacting the health care law. “Your plan essentially is one more big-government, bureaucratic high-cost system.” Gingrich said . Gingrich’s views are reflective of a majority of Americans who say they are in favor of repealing the health care law. A repeal of the act could potentially add “at least a trillion dollars to the deficit,” according to HealthCare.gov .

Read the full article →

The Woman Some Are Dubbing ‘The Female Barack Obama’

February 10, 2012

By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha Feb 9 (Reuters) – California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a veteran prosecutor with acute political instincts and a reputation for thick skin, gambled big in the settlement negotiations with banks over illegal foreclosures. It’s a gamble that appears to have paid off spectacularly. Harris, whose state has been one of the hardest hit by the U.S. foreclosure crisis, pulled out of talks with the banks last September, saying what they were offering was grossly insufficient. At the time, her office said on Thursday, California was being offered between $2 billion and $4 billion. The gambit carried significant risks. California is a non-judicial foreclosure state, meaning foreclosures can happen outside the court system. Thus there are no court files filled with the notorious “robo-signed” documents, leaving Harris with less leverage than other states in negotiating with the banks. Yet on Thursday, Harris held a press conference in Los Angeles to herald a deal that looks exceptionally favorable to California. Out of the $40 billion in total benefits that are expected to flow from the $25 billion settlement that the banks agreed to pay, California is set to emerge with some $18 billion. Harris wrung a commitment from the banks to reduce loans to distressed homeowners by $9 billion, and to provide $3 billion to assist short sales. Another $6 billion will fund restitution and anti-blight programs, among other things. There are also enforcement and penalty provisions unique to California that Harris said will make sure the banks comply with the terms of the settlement. Harris’ hardball tactics reflect a woman who has prospered in the rough and tumble politics of the Golden State. Born in Oakland, California, she is the daughter of a Tamil mother, a breast cancer specialist who emigrated to the United States in 1960, and a Jamaican American father, a Stanford University economic professor. Her parents divorced when she was a toddler and her mother raised Harris and her sister to be proud African Americans during the tumult of the Civil Rights era. By virtue of her gender and her parentage, Harris is the first female, the first African American and the first Asian American attorney general in California, and the first Tamil American attorney general in the United States. A career prosecutor, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 after defeating two-term incumbent Terence Hall. She was re-elected unopposed in 2007. Convictions in San Francisco increased sharply during her tenure. But her unshakeable opposition to the death penalty led to a bitter stand-off with the city’s police department when, just four months into the job, a police officer was gunned down and killed by a gang member and Harris declined to seek the death penalty. She also came under fire when a scandal engulfed the San Francisco crime lab, resulting in the mass dismissal of drug cases. Yet she remained a highly appealing political figure, dubbed “the female Barack Obama” by some wags. In 2010, she prevailed over a weak field to win the Democratic nomination for attorney general, and then barely edged her Republican rival, Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, in the general election. Harris is widely considered to be a likely future candidate for higher office; if the mortgage settlement proceeds as planned, it could ultimately help more than just the troubled homeowners. (Reporting By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Richard Chang)

Read the full article →

U.S. Clamps Down On ‘Sex In The City’ Counterfeit Perfumes

February 10, 2012

The ladies of “Sex and the City” are still cool enough for China’s massive counterfeit market. Counterfeit perfume seizures by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection surged in the United States last year, jumping 471 percent to a total value of $9.4 million. And of all perfumes seized, the one most often found was called “Sex in the City,” a counterfeit variation on the HBO trademark. The surge in fake fragrance raids was the result of new partnerships between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and American companies like HBO trying to protect their trademarks, the agency said in a report . “The collaborative effort that we’ve had with Customs have been incredibly effective and we’ve been happy with the results,” said HBO spokesman Jeff Cusson of the seizures. U.S. fragrance companies have turned to law enforcement for help in battling counterfeits after nearly a decade of weak sales, which dropped 20 percent between 2005 and 2010, according to Euromonitor International , a market research group. While the recession is partially responsible, the groups says, top-level brands may no longer hold the same weight over imitations that they once did. “Fragrances have lost their mystique and become less ‘special’ and commoditised,” Euromonitor wrote in a May 2011 report . “With over a hundred new fragrance launches a year, the glut of fragrances in the marketplace has also created consumer confusion.” Or perhaps Americans are simply no longer willing to pay $100 for designer fragrances when cheap versions abound. The “Sex in the City” fake, for example, is sold all over the Internet for less than $10. Versions like Lust, Kiss, Love and Dream are currently available on Amazon.com , Overstock.com and many other beauty sites. Three of the four countries most often responsible for counterfeit perfumes seized in 2011 are located in Asia — China, India and Hong Kong — but the perfumes also often originated from Germany, according to Customs seizure data. Most fans of the fragrance likely don’t know that the “Sex in the City” perfume is a fake at all, especially since the HBO-approved scent was only

Read the full article →

David Kiley: The Great Debate Over Chrysler’s Super Bowl Ad

February 10, 2012

When I saw Chrysler’s Super Bowl ad at halftime on Feb. 5, I emailed the executive who conceived it, Chrysler marketing chief Olivier Francois, and told him I didn’t like it so much. It was my first viewing of the ad, and thus my initial reaction from the gut. I thought it was too dark. Unlike last year’s Eminem Super Bowl ad, I thought it didn’t do enough to lift Detroit or Chrysler — and wasn’t that the point? But after watching the video perhaps 10 times since that initial viewing, I have warmed to the ad, and recognized that my initial reaction seems to be in the minority. I’ve also come to think my response was tainted by all the election year claptrap and hogwash I watch and listen to on cable TV and satellite radio on a daily basis. Driven by the sharp reactions to the ad communicated via Twitter and in post-game interviews from political pundits and power-brokers like GOP fundraiser and former Bush Administration official Karl Rove , the media seized on the fact that the ad seemed to feature working-class folks from a Midwestern industrial town and the ad copy seemed to be right out of an Obama campaign speechwriter’s notebook, extolling the virtues of the auto industry bailout. The charge that Chrysler was somehow sending an early Valentine to the Obama campaign as thanks for the 44th president green-lighting the federal bailout of Chrysler in 2009 started to take shape on the airwaves. I initially thought the ad was a clever piece of marketing Jiu Jitsu, designed to create maximum buzz and chatter for the Chrysler after the game. Casting well-known Republican libertarian-cum-bailout criticizer Clint Eastwood was supposed to inoculate Chrysler from the pro-Obama charge. How could it be, I asked myself, that all these smart people at Chrysler and the ad agency Wieden & Kennedy had no clue their commercial would be seen through a political lens, especially just a couple weeks before the Michigan GOP primary? Even the line, “It’s Halftime in America,” made me think immediately of Ronald Reagan’s “Its Morning Again in America” spot — and that it’s coming up to “halftime in the Obama two-term presidency.” Francois says a possible political interpretation of the ad never come up in conversations during the two months of its development. He also says “creating buzz and chatter was never even part of the consideration.” Should we believe this very clever, intelligent, French-born executive heading both Fiat and Chrysler’s global marketing? No buzz intended? Olivier says the ad’s aim was to offer a logical sequel to last year’s Eminem ad, which ushered in the “Imported From Detroit” tagline as a slogan for the Chrysler brand. That line, repeated in this year’s ad, is now being used as an umbrella theme for all the company’s brands, including Dodge, Jeep, Ram and Mopar. “We are trying to shine a light on the values we hold in Detroit, values that we are trying to embrace for Chrysler and the values we think our customers identify with,” Francois said. “I know I am French and come from an Italian company, but I feel very much like I am gaining cultural citizenship in America, if not legal citizenship. And our team, which is led by Sergio Marchionne, is very serious about communicating what we think is great about this place and these people to the rest of the country.” Francois said Marchionne, the Fiat and Chrysler CEO, was intimately involved in the creation of this year’s ad, right down to writing and editing copy. Chrysler brand marketing chief Saad Shehab also had a hand in its writing and editing. And Clint Eastwood also had a lot to do with shaping the ad, choosing locations and writing copy. Eastwood was surprised Republican critics and Obama supporters felt that the ad was “pro-Obama.” But Eastwood’s spoken lines tee up, like it or not, an inevitable political discussion that will take place this month in advance of the Michigan GOP primary and into the fall, especially if Michigan native Mitt Romney goes on to face off against President Obama in the general election. Was the bailout the right thing to do? Was it money well spent? Was it fair to industries and companies that did not get bailed out? Was it too generous to the unions? The key lines: “[The people of Detroit] almost lost everything. But we all pulled together. Now, the Motor City is fighting again … but after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one, because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times. And if we can’t find a way, then we make one … how do we come from behind … how do we come together, and how do we win … it’s halftime, America, and our second half is about to begin.” The vast majority of Republicans, including all the current presidential candidates, were against the government-assisted bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. They believed the companies should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy court without aid from Uncle Sam, so that creditors could just pick over the companies, buy or be granted what they thought was valuable — Chevy, Jeep, Ram truck, Cadillac, real estate, etc. — and liquidate the rest. But amid the meltdown of the financial sector, there was no financing for an organized bankruptcy that would have allowed the companies to come out as whole at the end of the process, meaning it would have been a liquidation free-for-all. And as private equity companies usually do, there would have been a fire-sale of assets, followed by an inevitable move to get as much headcount and production out of Michigan and into Southern states and Mexico — as far away from the stronghold of the United Auto Workers as possible. The reason Southeast Michigan is clawing its way back is because hiring is happening. GM is the biggest automaker in the world again, and making billions. Chrysler is in the black and posting solid progress. Ford is making billions. Suppliers are bouncing back financially. The companies did not close or move away. GM and Chrysler have made substantial investments in the city and surrounding suburbs. Communities are still fighting to get back to par, but they haven’t been destroyed. The sentiments and words in Chrysler’s ad reflect the way the automaker’s executives and Eastwood feel about the values they find in the working people who design, engineer, market and sell the vehicles produced by the company. Their words also seem to support the idea that high-value manufacturing, such as automobiles, is an important industry to protect and nurture in the U.S. Those values and thoughts also happen to be shared by Obama’s administration, and they are a cornerstone of his campaign rhetoric and prose as president. It all seems to be a right-cross to the jaws of the GOP presidential candidates and the establishment conservatives who both opposed the auto bailout and regularly express disdain for the UAW. All on the biggest TV day of the year with over 100 million people watching. So it’s not difficult for many people to think the content and timing of Chrysler’s commercial could have been planned and calculated to maximize buzz, the currency on which most successful ads trade these days (no matter what Francois says he was looking for). The Chrysler executives and Eastwood say these political themes some of us think we saw were not in their minds or conversations. They sought to make an ad, they say, that simply touched and engaged everyone, not one party or another. Late Thursday, four days after the game, there were 5.8 million YouTube views of the ad. A cursory patrol of comments left by real people — not pundits or members of the media — shows those of us in the media are, indeed, in the minority of those who found it possibly pro-Democrat or pro-Obama. We won’t see the ad on TV again, says Olivier. Unlike last year’s Eminem ad, it won’t be shown in shorter versions for normal ad break. It was meant as a one-time-only event. My guess is that it will be remembered and talked about for at least a few days more. Then the YouTube hits will slow down, and we will move on to other topics. But the ad — intentionally or not — meshes well with the Obama message for the Midwest and especially Michigan. So it wouldn’t surprise me if we see the ad pointed to by the president and Democrats for months to come as a reminder of the grit, determination and values of Detroiters and Southeast Michiganders — and of just who kept the Michigan economy from falling of a cliff.

Read the full article →

Google’s $12.5 Billion Deal Expected To Be Approved

February 9, 2012

By Diane Bartz WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Justice Department will approve Google’s $12.5 billion bid to acquire Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc, according to sources close to the antitrust review. The department is also expected to approve an Apple-led consortium’s bid to acquire a group of patents from bankrupt Canadian company Nortel Networks. Both deals are expected to be cleared early next week. Google, whose Android software is the top operating system for Internet-enabled smart phones, announced in August it planned to acquire phone-maker Motorola Mobility. The deal will give Google one of the mobile phone industry’s largest patent libraries, as well as hardware manufacturing operations that will allow Google to develop its own line of smart phones. The Apple-led consortium, which includes RIM, Microsoft, EMC, Ericsson and Sony, had agreed in July pay $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents and patent applications that telecom-equipment maker Nortel had put up for sale, including coveted 4G wireless technologies. The companies joined forces to outbid Google for the patents. Google, the world’s No. 1 search engine, has been under increasing regulatory scrutiny. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the European Union are both investigating Google’s business practices. The company faces accusations it uses its clout in the search market to beat rivals as it moves into related businesses. The Justice Department will likely continue monitoring patent litigation in the telecom space, according to the sources. The department of Justice, Google, and Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. (Reporting By Diane Bartz; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Read the full article →

The Greenest Car Of 2012 Is…

February 9, 2012

From Mother Nature Networks’ Melissa Hincha-Ownby: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has published its 14th annual Greenest Cars List and for the first time an electric vehicle takes the number one spot. The new Mitsubishi i-MIEV bested the Honda Civic Natural Gas , which held the number one spot for eight straight years. A variety of environmental criteria are assessed when evaluating a vehicle’s green score, including the emissions created by the power plant used to provide electricity to the i-MIEV and other electric vehicles . The changing face of the eco-friendly automotive scene actually led to a few changes in the ACEEE’s methodology this year. “This year, a number of updates were made to the Green Book® methodology to more accurately estimate vehicles’ environmental impacts. These include improved emissions estimates for the vehicle manufacturing process, changes reflecting current natural gas extraction practices, and consideration of upcoming shifts in the generation mix for the electricity used to power electric cars.” Source: ACEEE One very prominent electrified vehicle is missing from this list, the Chevy Volt . According to CNNMoney.com , “That’s because the ACEEE uses vehicle weight as a criterion for scoring, under the assumption that a heavier vehicle causes more waste in production.” Unfortunately for General Motors, the Chevy Volt was their best chance for inclusion on the list. Instead, the Greenest Cars of 2012 list is dominated by Japanese imports. General Motors and other Detroit-based automakers are receiving unfavorable recognition on the Greenest List’s companion, the Meanest Vehicles for the Environment in 2012 . Both the Chevrolet G3500 Express Cargo van and its GMC cousin, the G3500 Savana tied with the Ford E-350 Wagon for the Meanest Vehicle of 2012 with a Green Score of 17. For those that cry foul, there are electric cargo vans on the market that are a viable alternative to these gas-hogging beasts. The 2012 Greenest List and each vehicle’s corresponding Green Score follows:

Read the full article →

Morty Lefkoe: Do You Have a Fear of Public Speaking?

February 9, 2012

If you fear public speaking more than going to the dentist, or even death, you are not alone. This fear is so common that surveys indicate that over 50 percent of the adult population of the United States experiences fear when speaking in public. As Jerry Seinfield put it quite accurately on one of his shows: Most people would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy. We have had a number of clients whose fear of speaking in pubic was so great that they turned down promotions rather than take a job that required them to speak in public on a regular basis. The saddest call we ever had was from a man who called to say his daughter had just announced to him that she was about to get married… and this news made him petrified. Why? Because he realized he was going to have to make a toast at the wedding. Interestingly enough, there is nothing inherently scary about talking to a few people who are there to hear what you have to say. And why does merely having to introduce oneself at a meeting lead many people to go to the bathroom just before it is their turn. What makes speaking in public so common and so frightful? If you’ve been reading my regular blog posts, you won’t be surprised to learn that my answer is: beliefs. In fact, after helping over 3,000 people eliminate this problem, we’ve discovered the specific beliefs that cause this fear. Let me tell you what they are and why they result in this widespread fear. Here are the beliefs that cause a fear of public speaking in most people: • Mistakes and failure are bad. • If I make a mistake or fail I’ll be rejected. • I’m not good enough. • I’m not capable. • I’m not competent. • What I have to say is not important. • People aren’t interested in what I have to say. • I’m not important. • What makes me good enough and important is having people think well of me. • Change is difficult. • Public speaking is inherently scary. To make it real that these beliefs could cause such terror in so many people, ask yourself this question: Imagine someone, whom you don’t know, who really had all the beliefs I listed above. Do you think she would be afraid to speak in public? In fact, wouldn’t you be willing to wager that she would have public speaking anxiety? Why these beliefs cause a fear of speaking in public I think most people would agree that anyone with these beliefs would fear public speaking. And here’s why: A belief is nothing more than a statement about reality that we feel is true. And if we think it is true that it is bad to make mistakes and if we do we’ll be rejected, and if our sense of importance is dependent on others thinking well of us — then we would have to be terrified when we stand up to speak in front of others because we could make a mistake, leading to rejection, and because we would feel less important if people thought less of us. But you might be thinking: I am afraid to speak in public but I don’t agree with most of these beliefs. Here’s a strange thing about beliefs: It is possible to intellectually disagree with a belief we hold. In other words, early in life we might have concluded as a result of interactions with our parents that it’s bad to make a mistake (because mom and dad got upset when we didn’t live up to their expectations). Now, today, we might realize that innovation is possible only if we are willing to try new things that might not work out. Mistakes are part of the process of doing something new and different. So we “know” that it’s okay to make mistakes and learn from them. But merely knowing that does not get rid of beliefs. If fear is not inherent in public speaking and if the fear is caused by specific beliefs, then eliminating the beliefs will eliminate the fear. Not reduce it or make it easier to deal with. Eliminate it. Research proves eliminating beliefs eliminates public speaking fear A study conducted by the University of Arizona several years ago determined that if the beliefs listed above (and a few conditionings) were eliminated, the mean level of fear of the subjects studied fell from 7 to 1.5 on a scale of 1-10, one being no fear whatsoever and 10 being terror. To prove this to yourself, get rid of three of the 11 beliefs that cause a fear of public speaking (and a bunch of other unpleasant feelings) by using a free belief-elimination process at http://recreateyourlife.com/free . Your fear of speaking in public is not due to “human nature.” You can rid yourself of that terrifying prospect once and for all.

Read the full article →

Steve Blank: Two Giant Steps Forward for Entrepreneurs

February 9, 2012

While entrepreneurship is in the news fairly regularly, I seldom make news myself. Today, however there are two important updates for entrepreneurs everywhere. Let me be brief… The “Startup Owner’s Manual” goes On Press Tuesday 2/14 Two years in the making and literally ten years in development, I’m proud to announce that my new book, The Startup Owners Manual , goes onto the printing press next Tuesday. This 608-page work is, as its subtitle says, “the step-by-step guide for building a great company.” It’s the result of a decade of me learning from 1,000 of entrepreneurs, corporate partners, students and scientists the best practices of what wins in startups. I’ve spent the last two years cramming knowledge into this new book. In brief, The Startup Owners Manual is far more detailed and more readable than Four Steps to the Epiphany, (most of the sentences are even finished!). In fact, you could say that all that remains from my last book are the four steps of Customer Development. Briefly, the new book Integrates Alexander Osterwalders “Business Model Canvas” as the front-end and “scorecard” for the customer discovery process. Provides separate paths and advice for web/mobile products versus physical products Offers a ton of detail and great tips on how to get, keep, and grow customers, recognizing that this happens very differently between web and physical channels. and finally it teaches a “new math” for startups: “metrics that matter. While MBA’s have had a stack of texts to help them “execute” a business model, this book joins the growing library of books for practitioners in “search” of a business model. The Lean LaunchPad Online Class My online Lean LaunchPad class has created a lot of buzz this week. As you may have heard, I was deep into the production of the lectures when I realized I was producing the wrong class. The online class was originally based on my book The Four Steps to the Epiphany . Only when I held the draft of my latest book, The Startup Owner’s Manual , in my hands, did it dawn on me that my online students deserved all the latest best practices of entrepreneurship and Customer Development. Not the stuff I taught a decade ago, but all that I’ve learned teaching the Lean LaunchPad in front of students at Stanford, Berkeley, Columbia and the National Science Foundation in the last year. And I particularly wanted to incorporate I’ve spent two years integrating into The Startup Owner’s Manual . So apologies to all of you who were expecting the class this month. I hope to get the updated version online in the next 60 days. I’ll keep you updated on this blog as we record our lectures. In the meantime, if you want to prepare for the class…or get a jump on your startup competition, you can start reading the “recommended text” for the online class right now by ordering my new book. It is recommended–not required–reading for the free online course, and I believe it will be immensely helpful to the startup community at large. Lessons Learned Startups search for business models, exisitng companies execute them There are tons of texts about execution, but a paucity of practical ones for founders on how to search The Startup Owner’s Manual is the definitive reference book for founders, investors and everyone interested in startups The Lean Launchpad on-line class will be based on the new book Steve Blank’s blog: www.steveblank.com

Read the full article →

Who Does And Does Not Qualify For A Piece Of The $25 Billion Mortgage Settlement

February 9, 2012

The government’s $25 billion settlement with five of the nation’s largest banks could help up to one million homeowners . About $21.5 billion is earmarked for consumer relief, with the remainder going to state and federal governments. Distressed homeowners should not expect a check or aid tomorrow, however. According to the government’s National Mortgage Settlement website, it will take up to two months to select an administrator to oversee the process, identifying who is eligible to receive help, and six to nine months to start with the actual housing help. Help could come via partial loan forgiveness or “principal reduction,” refinancing or, cash payments of up to $2,000 for those who have already lost their home. The program only applies to homeowners who have or had mortgages serviced by Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial. Those with loans owned by housing giants Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are not affected by settlement. Homeowners from Oklahoma, the only state to not sign the settlement agreement, are not eligible. Here’s more detail on who’s eligible for relief: Principal reductions Servicers are required to provide at least $17 billion worth of direct relief to current homeowners, most of which will go to provide help for principal reduction for first and second mortgages. Other money will be used to facilitate short sales–where the home is sold for less than the mortgage value. The funds also cover anti-blight measures, and enhanced homeowner transition programs. Principal reductions could be anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000 on average but the amount will depend on each homeowner’s market. Homeowners who think they qualify should contact their lender directly. Who is eligible? Homeowners who are still in their home, but are not current on their payments and are struggling to make them. Refinancing Servicers will have to provide up to $3 billion in refinancing relief nationwide to help homeowners get better interest rates on home loans to reduce monthly payments. Current rates for 30-year and 15-year fixed rate mortgages are under 4 percent. Who is eligible? Homeowners who owe more on their home than it is worth and are current on their mortgage payments. Cash Servicers will divvy up $1.5 billion among 750,000 homeowners who have already lost their homes to foreclosure. That comes out to $2,000 and checks will be mailed over the next six to nine months. Who is eligible? Homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2011. For homeowners who lost their house but are concerned it could be difficult for the administrator to track you down, please contact an Attorney General’s Office . For more information: Ally/GMAC : 800-766-4622 Bank of America : 877-488-7814 Citi : 866-272-4749 JPMorgan Chase : 866-372-6901 Wells Fargo : 800-288-3212

Read the full article →

Occupy Y’All Street: Occupy Charlotte Activist Gambles Everything On The Movement

February 9, 2012

This is the fourth in a series of stories and short films on under-publicized Occupy sites. The first is here , the second is here , and the third is here . Stay tuned in the coming days for more from our road trip through the South. CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Vic Suter is looking for Ghost. She sloshes through the slick grass and soggy leaves matting the grounds of the Old City Hall. She and the rest of Occupy Charlotte have called the property home since early October. She knows every sign, every tent in this place. But it’s Ghost’s tent that she wants. A cold rain begins to fall steadily on a camp that’s all but deserted. Vic, 22, doesn’t care. Vic motors past tents sagging under layers of tarp and other jerry-rigged, middle-of-the-night weatherproofing. Dragging a cardboard sign with a bitten corner, she ignores all those tents before finally stopping at a giant beige orb, outfitted with a mesh enclosure that gives off a screened-in porch effect. There’s room for three chairs and what look like wind chimes. Ghost has his shit together. “Hey Ghost?” she shouts, a few feet from his tent. Vic leans into the orb’s entrance. Her face, curtained by her brown hoodie, is pale and expectant. Even at 11 a.m. in early November, she looks game. “Hey Ghost! You in there?” The orb shows no signs of life. “You got to Godzilla people’s tents — shake them, nag them to get up and go on a march,” she explains later. Vic lets out one long “Ghooouuuust!” in a nagging sing-song. She thinks this is funny. She stoner-laughs to herself. The rain sounds like it’s hitting the trees a little harder. Vic fiddles with the orb’s flaps. “Let’s see.” The tent is locked. “No, he’s not here.” Vic finally has to give up. She trudges past the orb in her untied black army boots — shitkickers her stepfather wore when he turned 18 in Vietnam. She says she’s worn them every day since high school. Instead of lockers and jocks, she has to stomp past an empty bucket, empty plastic chairs and more empty tents. Ghost is a memory. She’s looking for James and Bobby, and somebody named Peanut. Vic hits on the last of the tents located at the outer edge of the camp. They’re quiet, too. “Where is everybody?” she asks. A month earlier, the Occupy activists in Charlotte had drawn more than 500 to their first march uptown, a noisy success that included a stop at Bank of America’s North Tryon Street headquarters, where the throngs chanted up its 60 stories. The building — the tallest in the state and a dominant spear in the city’s skyline — had been a force for civic pride. But since the Great Recession, the bank has become one of the country’s great villains. The Wall Street of the South now had its own potent occupation. The early general assemblies could number in the hundreds. The meeting participants were drawn by growing income disparities, rising college tuition costs, the region’s environmental decay. They were among the metro area’s double-digit unemployment rate. They realized they were everybody. Vic had joined on the first night and had been charged with welcoming newcomers and teaching them the movement’s hand signals. Soon she began organizing three marches each day to one spot. This was her work week. Charlotte’s downtown had grown rich with examples of injustice wrapped in glass and outfitted with bad public art. Vic filled up to-do lists with ideas for future marches. For years, she had searched for her place. She tattooed “Restless” in black cursive script on her shoulder. But at Occupy, she thought she might have found her calling, and her very own tribe in the buckle of the bible belt. She fell hard. “When you’re throwing yourself into something,” she explained to us, “you don’t have a lunch break. You don’t have time off. You don’t get a vacation from a long-term protest.” The movement proved it could inspire people like Vic to produce Pastebin manifestos, YouTube gotchas, and a working kitchen. But a month or so in, Occupy began facing an important dilemma that they have yet to resolve. How does a non-hierarchical movement avoid arguing itself into oblivion? How does it sustain the true believers? As the days got colder, and inertia seeped in, the general assemblies got smaller and so did the press stories. Even before the big city camps were razed, a lot of activists had already burned out. But Vic never did. The problem for Vic was that the chants never got old. Vic wants Ghost and Peanut for a march that will begin in a half hour and lead her — and as many willing activists as she can cajole — from their camp, through downtown Charlotte to Duke Energy’s headquarters. Vic chose the energy mega-company for its planned rate hike ; its environmental record and its hold on power in the region and beyond — planners for the Democratic National Convention, to be held in Charlotte, rely on a $10 million line of credit from the company. She is still exuberant about this march — even if it means chanting in the rain to stone-faced security guards in Charlotte’s bank-building canyon. Not everyone in Occupy Charlotte is as charged up. Last night, Vic says she begged three fellow activists to get her up on time for the morning march. Her cell was dying and she couldn’t depend on its alarm. “None of them wake up,” she explains of her neighboring activists. “Thanks guys.” She ended up oversleeping. Vic trudges back toward the camp’s center, first stopping at the information desk’s uncovered table and filing cabinet. A fellow activist shows her his sign — it’s the state outline with a fight-the-power fist punching up through its midsection. Vic approves. “That’s awesome. Right on. Hell yeah.” A small group of guys are standing by a cluster of tents near the kitchen and storage spot where the activists keep their signs. Earlier that morning, the kitchen’s tent started collecting water and nearly caved in. It had to be held up by a broom. The guys watch her. As one of the only female campers, she stands out — a girlie gutter punk with piercings (tribal) and tattoos (personal), a sea-green streak manic-panicked through a mess of matted, light-brown curls piled high above her round face. You don’t want to mess with that. You want to follow that. The guys are waiting for her orders. One is wearing a dress. “You guys want to mic check?” she hollers down toward them. They want to mic check. “IF YOU’RE GOING TO MARCH, WE’RE LEAVING NOW!” Suddenly, stragglers appear and grab signs. They display them for Vic to sign off on. Vic asks for a cigarette. A guy rolls one for her. Vic asks for a light. She leans into the flame and exhales a fat cloud. She eats a banana that someone drops on the ground. She laces up her stepfather’s boots. She tells everyone that marching in untied boots is lazy. Fifteen Occupy Charlotte activists — all men — are ready to join her. And then Vic asks the question she’s been wanting to ask all morning: “Why are we still here?” * * * * * Occupy Wall Street’s most effective recruitment tools were not testimonials from the unemployed or income-inequality charts. The movement grew exponentially with each video that captured police actions against demonstrators. The mass arrest on the Brooklyn Bridge, the maiming of Iraq War Vet Scott Olsen in Oakland, the UC Davis cop pepper-spraying seated students — each jolted the movement’s sense of outrage, and gave the mainstream media fresh footage to endlessly loop. The resulting demonstrations were some of the bigger, more effective marches. None had more impact on Occupy than the videos capturing NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna’s close-range pepper-spraying of a group of women penned behind orange police netting. One YouTube video of the incident racked up more than 800,000 views. Another attracted more than 1.5 million. Vic had seen the clips: the white-shirt official firing the stinging spray, the women cooped in, shrieking in horror before crumbling to the pavement. “It was just a catalyst,” Vic says. “It got me going. For the following week after that, I was just sitting there like obsessive at the computer just trying to find out more and more and more.” How long is this going to last? Are they serious? Vic wanted to know. Vic began calling around to the few activists she knew in Charlotte, hoping for any signs that a local occupation might be starting. The odds were against her. The city had no reputation as a rowdy place of political dissent. The big banks held sway over the local economy, the southern conservative mindset over the political discourse. Just days before the occupation started, Mayor Anthony Foxx, a Democrat, defended Bank of America against criticism for wanting to charge customers a $5 monthly fee for using its services: “People who live in this community know how generous our financial institutions have been.” Vic’s last activism had been a silent protest, helping with a letter writing campaign against Monsanto, an agri-business giant. She couldn’t remember the last time she marched or attended a rally. As soon as she heard that Occupy Charlotte would start, she put in her two-weeks notice at the earthy grocery store where she did food prep for $9 an hour. The first day that Occupy Charlotte began its encampment — Oct. 8 — was Vic’s last at the grocery. After her final shift, Vic said goodbye to the group house she’d rented for about $252 per month. Her roommate gave her a ride downtown. She forgot to pack a sleeping bag or pillow. But she did remember to stuff in her backpack a couple journals and books (Emma Goldman, George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, Nietzsche), a re-useable water bottle, extra clothes and a couple blankets. She also packed nonperishable food like granola bars and sunflower seeds, along with a few pieces of fruit. She did not plan on leaving. That first night, Vic joined maybe a dozen strangers. They formed a circle and introduced themselves: the high school dropout, the injured iron worker, the local musician, the college student. They talked about what the movement would mean to them. Vic said she was glad to see people in Charlotte finally not “turning a blind eye to things.” She says she didn’t go to sleep for two days. “It was awesome,” she says. “It came at a good point in her life,” says Vic’s stepfather, Danny Hill, 59. “She needed something to latch onto that would get her focused again … It was just get up and go to work. She didn’t really have much time for herself. This has been her passion all along but she just didn’t know how to go about doing it.” A month before she joined Occupy Charlotte, Vic wasn’t sure where she belonged. She wrote in her journal: “The world is changing quickly or maybe I’m not adapting fast enough. Maybe it’s not changing fast enough for me — or perhaps I’m not changing fast enough for me.” In Charlotte, Vic had a difficult time finding her way. Her beloved older brother Nick moved out before she hit middle school. Her parents put her in a small, private, Christian high school. She graduated an expert on what it felt to be shunned by your own peers. “Being the only out gay person in your school, being someone who graduated from a Christian school who never believed any of it, I was alone,” she says. She’d had to sit through Bible study every day for two years. Vic moved a little more than 90 minutes away, across the South Carolina border, and enrolled in Columbia College. But she quickly found that the all-women’s school wasn’t for her either. “All my peers were busy reading Vogue,” she says. “They were in school to meet their husband and their bridesmaids. I was starving to learn more.” Vic dropped out after her freshman year. For three months, Vic bounced around the Southeast: Athens, Atlanta, Savannah. “I’d hang around somewhere for a week, get bored and then leave,” she says. She’d walk or hitch or jump trains. In Tallahassee she joined up with a friend’s band. In Tampa, she squatted in a warehouse covered in black mold. Her itinerary ended with a return trip to her parents’ house. After a short stint at a community college, Vic enrolled at Winthrop University. But all that came to a chaotic end in October 2009 when she contracted swine flu. That December, she lost her grandfather. She felt overwhelmed and depressed. She decided to withdraw. Vic tried to re-enroll but says Winthrop wouldn’t accept all of her old credits. It became too much of a financial burden. “I was heartbroken that I couldn’t go back,” she says. Instead, she took the grocery job. “It was hard to live one block from my school and walk through campus on my way to work. It was a daily reminder.” Her mother Karen Hill says they couldn’t pay for Vic’s college; they had persistent health problems, and barely enough money to eat on their fixed incomes. Danny Hill has shoulder and lung issues, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his tours in Vietnam and the first Gulf War. It is hard for him to walk without having to catch his breath. Karen Hill handled baggage for US Airways, loading and unloading up to 20,000 pounds of luggage per shift, she estimates. After 23 years on the job, she had to have carpel tunnel surgery. She says her doctors soon rushed her back to work; she ended up with nerve damage in both hands. She never was able to get worker’s comp, she says. Her hands swelled up so bad, Vic had to dial for her and cradle the receiver. Vic had racked up her own share of medical debts. She had grown up with lungs weakened by a stubborn asthma that left her immune system vulnerable to attack. Hospital stays were common annoyances. In her journals, she taped a hospital bracelet from this past June. In the corner of the page, she wrote in black: “DIE YOUNG AND SAVE YOURSELF.” As the start of the occupation grew closer, she wrote in her journal: “Clean slate in front of me, bumpy road both behind and before — I’m bursting … I must become as strong as stone.” During the first week Vic lived at Occupy Charlotte, she says someone stole her clothes, her jacket and her ID. She eventually got a tent and a lock. She says she was afraid to leave the camp. She’d only leave for an hour or two a day. “I was always scared — What’s going to happen while I’m gone? What am I going to come back to?” she recalls thinking. “I was just scared that somebody was going to do something stupid and get us shut down and I was going to come back and tents were going to be destroyed.” Despite the setbacks, Vic confessed to her mom just how meaningful it all was. “She told me that this is the most important thing she’s ever done in her life,” Karen Hill says of her finally grown up daughter. “I had to let her go.” It was hard to fathom that this was the same daughter who had come out to her by handing her a note. Hill made sure to drop off an entire wardrobe of clothes. Hill couldn’t march, but she could open her home to her daughter’s new friends. As the seasons changed, she supplied the activists with vitamin c and cold meds. When they needed a break, she invited them over to the house for a hot meal and the use of their washer, dryer and shower. They hardly disturbed the household. “Usually, they would sit on the floor with their computers — and it was Occupy, Occupy, Occupy,” Hill says. But their victories went beyond blog posts and tweets. A group of Latino tenants were facing eviction when the camp decided to take up their cause. The landlord soon backed down. “That’s a concrete thing that they can point to and say ‘Look, this is what we did,’” says Mark Kemp, editor in chief of Creative Loafing, the Charlotte weekly. Luis Rodriguez , a former organizer with Occupy Charlotte, describes Vic as pivotal to whatever success the camp had. “She’s a big motivator,” Rodriguez explains. “She’s very charismatic and she has a way of rallying support to her … You look at her and you see the hair and the piercings and then you get to talking to her and she’s really, really passionate. She does not suffer idleness and she wants everyone else to be constantly moving.” The marches were addictive. Vic says she yelled so much that no one heard her real voice for long stretches. For the first three weeks, her voice was constantly hoarse. But it wasn’t powerful enough to silence the camp’s in-fighting that sometimes got physical. On a few occasions, people got caught bringing drugs into the camp. One leader left in a well-publicized dispute over the direction of the camp. Restraining orders were exchanged, the scope of which banned one of the main organizers from the camp and from participating “directly or indirectly” in general assemblies. There was a fight over who controls the camp’s website. The ousted activist turned one site into an anti-Occupy Charlotte missive. The remaining occupiers had to start a new site. General assemblies became a grind even for Vic. After a particularly intense session, Vic walked away in tears. She thought about quitting. She’d been occupying for about a month. She was tired of seeing too many activists sitting around. She’d sometimes had to barter with them to march: I’ll give you a cigarette if you get out of your tent . She and others even had to march on their own camp to motivate the laziest camp squatters. They’d tromp through the haphazard rows of tents shouting, “Out of the tents and into the streets!” More than once, Vic complained about the camp going slack. Not everyone appreciated her bluntness. Some tent dwellers had taken to calling Vic a “stuck-up bitch.” If an activist quit the camp, others blamed her. She didn’t miss the quitters. There was always the next march to organize. She didn’t care if she could only get a half dozen to march with her. They were an escape from the camp’s drama and bad vibes. The morning of the march on Duke Energy, one man sits in the rain in front of a chess board, expressionless. Later, an activist shouts down a young girl. She doesn’t look old enough to drive. She’d been at the camp before. She had runaway from home and ended up there. She left in a police car that time. The activist isn’t happy that she came back. He bellows at her loud enough for the whole camp to hear. He calls her a “fucking bitch.” The girl asks to borrow one of our cellphones. She needs to get a ride home. That night, the camp is partly illuminated by the city’s police headquarters across Trade. The Occupiers are only a short walk from the heart of downtown Charlotte’s decade-and-a-half building boom, but the tents feel a world away from the gleaming hotels and loud bars. One activist describes it as “a bubble.” It’s kind of quiet inside the bubble. There are no drummers, or old heads moderating debates over the ” Pedagogy Of The Oppressed .” Instead of a friendship circle, there are small cliques hanging by the information desk and around the kitchen smoking cigarettes. They all look young and tired, shivering in jean jackets and hoodies. At the previous night’s general assembly, several activists debated whether another should be allowed to wear a ball cap emblazoned with the words “Fuck the Police.” Zuccotti Park inspired more than a hundred camps just like this one. The tents and general assembly hand gestures may be the same. But camps like Occupy Charlotte’s have had to make their way very much in the dark, without the correctives that constant media attention can bring, without the steady flow of donations and celebrity cameos. Russell Simmons and Michael Moore have not stopped by. Here, it’s up to Vic and her ability to get Peanut to wake up and march. The night before Vic had sat at the information desk until 4:30 a.m. in the hopes of pitching the movement to any stranger that happened to stumble down to this darkened block of Trade. Tonight, she just wants sleep. Vic slinks away from her group and walks carefully past the tree line running along Trade and into the pathless dark, looking for her one-person tent. She unwraps her tent tarp and fiddles with the combination on her padlock. “The weather is ruining this lock,” she complains. Her voice is a rasp. It’s about 10 p.m. when she finally takes her boots off. After little sleep, she wakes up at 7:30 a.m. feeling sick. The first march to a military recruiting center to highlight the plight of veterans will have to be put on hold. Vic wants more sleep. At 10:30 a.m., Vic’s speech is groggy, her eyes bloodshot. “You’re catching me like just waking up,” she says, laughing. “Sorry.” She decided to join a friend’s tent for the conversation and the platonic body warmth. “When it gets cold, you make friends with your neighbors,” she says. “Body heat is a necessity.” Vic spies the camp from the tent’s entrance. Not a soul in sight. “I wish more people were up and moving about,” she says. She insists she will be ready for the next march: “Put my boots on and go.” Vic had one advantage over all the other Occupy activists: her older brother Nick. From an early age, he introduced her to Orwell and Zinn and radical punk bands like Crass and the Dead Kennedys. He’d stand in the doorway to her bedroom and roll his eyes at her record collection. “What is this except for a waste of record space?” he’d sneer. He was eight years older. He left home when she was 10. Even when he moved out to the Midwest, he made sure to heckle her long distance — pushing her toward more alternative culture. “I’ve always looked up to him,” Vic explains. “He never led me astray … He was always there to give me that hint.” Nick had been a part of the anti-globalization protests a decade earlier. He marched against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. While the movement’s message, tactics and global analysis animated the Occupiers, Nick’s generation faced an ambivalent public and brutal police. Pepper spray was the least of their worries. The press corps only seemed to accept the kettling tactics as a justified use of force. After one infamous mass arrest, The Washington Post headlined its editorial ” Hail to the Chief–and His Cops .” The preemptive roundup would ultimately cost taxpayers millions in civil-suit settlements . No activist got famous on Twitter or ended up as a talking head on MSNBC. Nick remembers the tear gassing and pepper spraying, the times when the police beat him with their nightsticks and stomped on him with their heavy boots. None of it ended up on YouTube. But he could share his war stories with Vic. “I guess I wanted to try to pass on values, a willingness to stand up for what you believe in,” he says. “I didn’t really want to pass on a lot of the stuff I was doing. Nightsticks hurt. And tear gas isn’t fun. I wouldn’t want her to experience that part of things.” Vic had sought counsel from her brother before her planned arrest. Nick recalls telling her to not piss off the cops. Make them work for her arrest but not too much. “Make them pick you up,” he told her. “Ride that fine line between being cooperative and resisting.” Five days after we met her, Vic and three others formed a human blockade in front of the entrance to Bank of America’s headquarters. They stretched out a banner that said “Bank of Coal.” The Charlotte cops didn’t really know what to do at first. The blockade lasted maybe five minutes. “But it felt like an hour,” Vic says. Vic and seven other activists were arrested for blocking the entrance and climbing the flag pole for another banner drop. Vic made sure, her mother says, to take off her piercings, so she’d look more respectable. But Nick had to call to critique her mugshot. “I was kind of let down she wasn’t smiling,” he says. “I thought she would have smiled for it. When I talked to her, I gave her a hard time about it.” He said he was surprised how easy her arrest went down, that the cops didn’t get rough. He had to admit, though, that he was impressed with her commitment — especially her decision to quit her job for Occupy. “I was actually pretty proud of that,” he says. “I wish I had been at a place where I could do the same and join her. It’s an admirable thing. You find something that means that much to you and you’re willing to give up what you have to be a part of it … It’s kind of her taking it to where I wanted to be.” The Bush Administration and its two wars would consume the energy of the U.S.-based anti-globalization movement. As Nick got older, he says the activists organizing the most aggressive actions appeared to migrate overseas. “It kind of hit a point where nothing was happening,” he recalls. “All the meetings started taking place in Europe. You got punk kid from Charlotte — you can’t go over to Italy or those places.” Especially not a punk kid with growing financial debts. Nick, 30, says he needed to find steady employment, which eventually led him to railroad work as a track laborer in Wisconsin. He currently is a train conductor based in Duluth, Minn. — far from his old activist friends. He’s getting married in June. The closest he gets to protesting is participating in union meetings, and calling and texting his sister. When Vic first started, Nick called with some advice. He still remembers the conversation, that he cautioned her not to let Occupy become all consuming. “I didn’t really know what all to say at the time,” he explains. “Just tried to tell her to be careful and don’t make it like work, like a job. I’d seen a lot of people … taking it to a point where it becomes too much work, too stressful.” When the activists deserted the camp during the Thanksgiving holiday, Vic insisted on remaining behind, her mother recalls. “Somebody had to be there,” Vic explains. “I didn’t trust leaving. I was scared. If I left and everyone else did, anything could happen.” What would the media say if they found a ghost town? she wondered. On Nov. 26 she wrote in her journal: “As of today I have been protesting for 50 days straight. Not one day I haven’t marched.” She had watched the camp grow from six tents to more than 40. In mid-December, Vic learned that a friend — not affiliated with Occupy — had died from a heroin overdose. She says she couldn’t handle the funeral. When word spread about a ride to Occupy DC, she took it. She left behind both her tent and an ambitious schedule of marches. She brought with her a backpack full of clothes and $3. Vic says she needed to step away from Charlotte’s small, intense group. She wanted to witness up close how a big city’s Occupy force handles things. She made sure to take a few Occupy Charlotte friends with her. Vic says she spent her first night with Freedom Plaza’s Occupy faction. There was no friendly circle, no introductions, and no all-night bonding session. “It was cold shoulders everywhere I went,” she says. “It was an ‘I’m too busy’ type thing. That was disappointing.” The next day, Vic and a friend moved their shared tent to Occupy DC at McPherson Square, just off K Street. She found a spot under a giant tarp that made up the neighborhood named after Malcolm X. She’d jump into people’s faces: “Hey, I’m Vic.” Vic’s voice eventually grew hoarse in D.C., too. She participated in marches against the National Defense Authorization Act — the recently signed law that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens. She screamed in front of the White House. She’d loved watching others do the same. “You could see it and it was beautiful,” she gushes, when we catch up with her in D.C. But there are fights at the camp nearly every night, she says. There are fights over missing money. There are fights over a missing laptop. There are drunken fights. Even worse than the fights — some days, there aren’t any marches at all, just rumors of marches. Sometimes, when they march, Vic says the organizers seem to get lost. We go to a used bookstore a short drive from the camp. She says she could spend hours there. She could fall asleep in a corner of the literature section. We walk around a bit, looking for a place to eat. Vic seems oblivious to the stores and restaurants. None of it matters. She isn’t protesting them. Vic admits that it had maybe been 24 hours since her last real meal. She is still an outsider at the camp, just an Occupy tourist. She only mentions one Occupy DC activist — a painter she had met on her first day. Her deeper connection is still with Occupy Charlotte. “I was really down about Charlotte and the state of things,” she says. “Coming here helped me get a little respect back for my hometown’s occupation.” Ten days into her stay, Vic develops a cough. “You lay down at night to go to sleep,” she explains, “and it’s just like a chorus of coughing.” We are sitting in a sandwich shop, the closest warm place to the camp that afternoon. Outside, it looks like it might rain. She admits: “I’ve been terrified … If I hear people coughing, I might put my bandanna up.” Vic gives her cough a funny name. She calls it her “Occu-Cough.” She thinks there’s another anti-NDAA march. Maybe it’s at 6 p.m. Maybe it’s at 8. She doesn’t know but she does want to join it. By 6:30, she texts: “No ones marching yet!,” then, “Im trying to see if anyones wanting to march at 8 against the ndaa.” Whatever plans there are wash away with the night’s heavy rains. We find her in her tent in the back of Fort Malcolm. A battery-powered lantern illuminates the small space filled with old clothes, half-empty sugar cereal boxes, and tangles of adapter wires. Vic would rather be marching. “Everybody’s pussing out, man,” she complains, curling up in a fuzzy blanket next to a new friend named Kiki. Even without the march, Vic has a lot on her mind — including her other Occupy Charlotte transplants. “My to-do list keeps growing,” she says. “I have to write three press releases. I have to call my lawyer tomorrow. I have to get Tate to call the lawyer tomorrow because he’s not doing it on his own, same with Jesse. Fucking babysit. I have to find out what’s going on tomorrow as far as marches. I’ve got two meetings tomorrow. It just doesn’t stop.” * * * * * Shortly before Christmas, Vic returns to Occupy Charlotte to address her court case and add a New Year’s Eve march to her to-do list. The planning hits a snag when police catch a couple activists burning American flags late one night and charge them with careless use of fire . One of the culprits claims that the flag burning was done as an attempt to motivate the camp. Instead, they receive a lot of bad publicity, and two well-attended but drama-filled general assemblies that fail to resolve the matter. A small faction of activists who don’t reside at the park walk into Occupy Charlotte and read a declaration that they are no longer working with the campers. Vic finds that the activists have done very little in her absence. They respond with laughter when she asks whether they had kept up the marches. “Is there a purpose in me doing this?” she worries. “I don’t know.” Vic was not on the scene at the time of the flag burning, but at her parents’ house. “We are the pissed off white kids. We need to be so much more,” she complains after hearing the news. “It’s now tarnished everything.” She then utters the previously-unthinkable: “I’m going later today to get my tent.” But Vic decides to keep her holiday march on schedule. She and about two dozen other activists read off her New Year’s resolutions in front of Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Duke Energy. They all begin the same way: “We the people of 600 E. Trade St. as a part of Occupy Charlotte, stand in protest of the injustices brought upon the city of Charlotte.” It is her last march through her hometown. Even before her return, she had planned her exit strategy, what she calls out her “Occu-Hop” — a nine-month tour of still-standing Occupy camps, with visits to friends and family along the way. The first stop would be a return trip to Occupy DC, then she’d travel to Chicago and maybe stop in on her biological father, and then to Duluth to see Nick. Eventually, she’d make her way to Oakland before returning east to Charlotte, in time for the Democratic National Convention in September. Before she leaves for D.C., her stepfather Danny Hill presents her with his Marine duffel bag, which he’d had since 1970. It fits with the boots and the Vietnam-era gas mask he’d given her. When she isn’t looking, he stuffs a $100 into her belongings. “It is different with her in D.C.,” Hill says. “You get a little more worried. You watch things going on there. You can tell it’s on a whole different level … We’d rather her stay here. But at the same time, we understand that’s what she was wanting to do.” On Jan. 4, Vic and her ride leave Charlotte. As they head out through the city, Vic stops at the Occupy site one last time. She still needs to get her old tent. She makes her rounds, too, saying her goodbyes. Some are sad, some are angry that she is leaving. They all tell her to “be safe.” Vic knows the camp may be gone by the time she returns. By the end of the month, it will be — police clear the site after the city passes an ordinance banning camping on public property. It is 1:40 p.m. when Vic finally gets going. “I’ll certainly be worried about the occupation as well as my family within and outside of it,” she texts, “but I’m ready for the road …”

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Settlement Reached: Largest Bank Payout By Far Since Financial Crisis

February 9, 2012

As early as Thursday the government is expected to announce a roughly $25 billion deal with some of the nation’s largest banks to settle charges of systemic and widespread mortgage fraud, according to multiple sources close to the negotiations. The deal would be the largest payout to date from banks in the wake of the financial crisis. The settlement, 16 months in the making, could bring significant relief to those in danger of losing their homes and also much needed stability to the long-suffering housing market. Those who already lost their home, however, would receive just the smallest fraction of the money: a one-time cash payment of about $1,800 as compensation. “Their entire lives have been turned upside down and changed,” said Philip Robinson, the acting executive director of Civil Justice, a Baltimore-based nonprofit that has worked with thousands of Maryland families fighting for their homes. “Does $1,800 sound fair? Does that seem like compensation for a financial and emotional tragedy?” The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the Obama administration’s lead negotiators on the deal, could not be reached for comment. Late Wednesday night, as the terms were being finalized, more than 40 states had signed on, including New York, which had been vocal in its opposition to any deal that was soft on the banks. A source close to the negotiations said that California also was on board, but a representative from Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office would not confirm its participation. The deal between federal officials, the state attorneys general and Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial is an attempt to close the book on a scandal that erupted in 2010, freezing the housing market as the legality of thousands of bank-initiated foreclosures were called into question. The announcement is expected to crank up the pace of bank foreclosures, which has slowed as government officials investigate whether some institutions have forfeited their right to repossess homes after forging key real estate documents. As part of the deal, participating states would agree not to pursue a variety of independent lawsuits against the banks. Some consumer advocates argue that the deal is inherently too lenient on banks because the administration chose to negotiate a settlement without first conducting a full investigation into the nature and magnitude of the banks’ alleged fraud. “Any partial settlement is fraught partly because we don’t know the scope of the damages,” said Robert Borosage, founder and president of the Institute for America’s Future, a left-leaning nonprofit organization. “If the banks get broad immunity, homeowners get screwed because the next investigation won’t be able to get around that.” Under the terms of the settlement, the banks would pay $25 billion to participating states. California is reportedly receiving a total of $6 billion to $15 billion in the settlement. Potentially more significant, the banks would agree to forgive some mortgage debt owed by struggling borrowers through what’s called “principal reduction.” The remedy is nearly universally hailed by economists on the right and left as a way to revive the ailing housing market and rescue the nation’s struggling underwater borrowers: More than 20 percent of mortgage holders in the United States owe more on their loan than their home is worth. Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Bank declined to comment while requests for comment from JPMorgan Chase went unanswered. Bank of America declined to discuss the terms of the deal, instead saying, “We’re interested in finding a path forward with a comprehensive settlement that benefits homeowners and communities.” The settlement has the potential to prevent future wrongdoing through new bank guidelines that have been crafted as part of the deal. The effectiveness of these new rules will rely heavily on whether the states can enforce them. The Obama administration pushed forcefully for the deal to present it to voters in 2012 as evidence that the president is helping homeowners and getting tough on banks. Splitting a $25 billion deal between five banks, however, will amount to little more than the cost of doing business and is too small a penalty to deter future fraud, many housing advocates say. “Compared to what these [banks] literally stole, it’s just eyewash,” said Margery Golant, a Florida-based attorney who represents homeowners and formerly served as assistant general counsel at subprime mortgage giant Ocwen Financial. “These are such serious crimes and for everybody to get a pass like this, it just encourages them to think that they always will.” Also unclear is how far the agreement can go in helping borrowers who are trying to hold onto their home. In addition to granting principal reduction, the deal would offer struggling homeowners relief by changing the terms, or refinancing, loans. Those dollars amount to a pittance when you consider the millions of homeowners in need of help, Golant said. “If you do the math, that’s a few hundred million per state. That’s not enough to change anything.” Consumer advocates supportive of the deal argue that while the settlement dollars are small, the principal reduction piece is critical. A handful of lenders have already begun offering such assistance, but mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have fiercely resisted such a move. “This settlement could be a starting point for principal reduction,” said Ira Rheingold, president of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. “Hopefully it will demonstrate how principal reduction can and should benefit homeowners. If it is done well, maybe it will shame Fannie and Freddie into doing what it should have been doing all along.” Economists are also excited about the potential for principal reductions to boost the housing market. “If $15 to $20 billion is devoted to principal reduction modifications over the next year, that would significantly reduce the number of properties that ultimately end up hitting the market in a distressed sale, thus supporting housing prices,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. Included in the settlement are new rules designed to reform the policies and practices among the mortgage companies, mainly banks, that manage the loans on a daily basis and assist struggling borrowers. These new rules could finally shut down any excuses previously put forward by the banks for wrongful foreclosure — if the rules are adequately enforced, said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “The fact that the settlement has the state attorneys general behind it means that we really should see an end to some of these nefarious mortgage servicing practices,” he said. The states’ ability to enforce the deal remains one of the great unknowns. Nearly four years ago, 11 states signed an $8.4 billion settlement with Bank of America over predatory lending practices by Countrywide Financial. (Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.) Most housing experts agree that the deal has significantly underperformed in large part because the states didn’t have a good mechanism for holding the bank accountable. This settlement will be different because it has a “very robust enforcement mechanism,” said Patrick Madigan, Iowa assistant attorney general and one of the lead negotiators for the Countrywide settlement and the current deal. Banks will pay substantial cash penalties if they do not deliver the full amount of homeowner assistance agreed to under the deal, according to Madigan. North Carolina’s Banking Commissioner Joseph Smith will serve as the “independent monitor” to enforce the deal’s terms. “There’s no comparison between the enforcement and monitoring of this case and Countrywide,” Madigan said. It remains to be seen, however, if these enforcement mechanisms have any teeth. Settlement supporters have high hopes for the deal, though success has to be measured against very narrow expectations, cautioned Rheingold. “In the absence of sufficient federal action, sufficient regulatory action, sufficient congressional action, what we have left is a bunch of state attorneys general saying, ‘Our homeowners are getting hurt. We have to do something.’ “But the state resources are fairly limited, so you have to look at this in terms of what the attorneys general can accomplish within their own set of powers,” Rheingold added. “Does it provide the justice necessary? Clearly not. But will it provide an opportunity for homeowners to be treated fairly? I think it will.”

Read the full article →

Pamela Yellen: Five Tips for Relationship Fiscal Harmony

February 9, 2012

Money is the leading cause of marital and relationship troubles.  40% of married couples have serious, recurring arguments about money, according to Matt Bell, author of Planning for Fewer Fights with Your Spouse . 49% of those battles have to do with what to buy or not buy, 33% are about debt and 26% about savings. According to a survey by American Express , 27% of those who responded have lied about the amount of a purchase to their partner, and 30% have hidden purchases from their partner. And would it surprise you to learn that some people admitted to knowing their partner’s weight but not their salary? How compatible are you and your partner when it comes to money and finances? Many couples have different values where money is concerned and neglect to take the time to hash out issues that can potentially ruin their relationship. Just in time for Valentine’s Day, I’ve put together five tips for improving the fiscal harmony in your relationship… Tip #1:  Hold a monthly financial discussion night Since so many couples don’t talk openly about money, when money issues do come up, it becomes a sensitive subject and leads to conflict. The solution is to sit down with your partner every month and go over your spending and savings plan.  Look at everything you bought during the past month and everything you’re thinking of buying soon, and ask yourselves, “Is this really a need or a want”?   Awareness is the key to taking control of your spending habits, and asking questions like this one is very powerful. Also discuss and update your long-term and short-term financial and savings goals, and then ask yourselves if the purchases you’re considering will truly move you closer to those goals. Tip :  If you have children over age 6 or 7, include them in your monthly family finance night — it’s a great way to prepare your kids to be financially successful and responsible adults. Learn more about how to teach teens financial responsibility .  Tip #2:  Share responsibility It’s common today for one partner to play the primary role in managing finances.  But both partners should be aware and involved.  Make all decisions about major purchases together. Trap :  Allowing the partner with the biggest income to make major financial decisions alone. Tip #3:  Eliminate debt to outside financial institutions Debt is deadly to many relationships, and a top priority should be to reduce and eliminate debt to banks and credit card companies. One way to speed up that process is to make your spending decisions more consciously.  (See Tip #1 above.) Another key is building an emergency fund that can help you weather life’s emergencies. For tips on creating a rainy-day fund, including how much you should be setting aside, see the video, The Secret to a Financially Stress-Free Life .  Tip #4:  Have a “Plan B” One topic to be sure to cover during your family finance discussion night is what’s your back-up plan if things change.  What if one partner loses their job?  Or what if one partner wants to go back to school?  What if one of you gets a job in another part of the country? Tip #5:  How to take the first step There’s no time like the present to start or deepen the money conversation with your partner.  And here’s a fun, non-threatening way to do that… Begin by taking our Love and Money Financial Self-Assessment . I encourage you and your partner to take the 3-minute assessment , either separately or together, and see how your money values differ from one another.  I think you’ll find this to be eye-opening! As a consultant to financial advisors, Pamela Yellen investigated more than 450 savings and retirement planning strategies seeking an alternative to the risk and volatility of stocks and other investments. Her research led her to a time-tested, predictable method of growing and protecting savings now used by more than 400,000 Americans. Pamela’s book, Bank On Yourself:  The Life-Changing Secret to Growing and Protecting Your Financial Future is a New York Times Bestseller. Learn more at www.BankOnYourself.com

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Life & a Cheap Death at Wal-Mart

February 9, 2012

Ten months ago, Sprawl-Busters first reported the death of a Brazilian immigrant worker during a botched renovation job by an unlicensed crew inside a Wal-Mart in Massachusetts. Romulo de Oliveira Santos died at the age of 47 on the floor of a Wal-Mart vision center in Walpole, Massachusetts. His muscles were charred, his skin was coagulated, and one-fifth of his body suffered second and third degree burns. There were bruises and cuts on his face, back, arms and hands. According to an autopsy, Santos had been electrocuted. This week, the Boston Globe picked up the Santos story in its Business section, noting a similar job site injury and death at Wal-Mart elsewhere in the country. On the night of September 8, 2008, Santos was working as part of an inexperienced, unsupervised subcontract crew on a remodeling project at Wal-Mart store #2103 on Providence Highway in Walpole. There was no properly licensed supervisor watching over crew members from Italo Masonries, for whom Santos worked. Italo had never done demolition work before. Wal-Mart hired a general contractor to oversee the reconstruction of its Vision Center, and that contractor has subbed out the interior demolition to Italo. Santos was working without licensed supervision. In 2000, Santos came to America on a work visa to pursue a dream. He wanted to become an electronic technician. Santos enrolled in ESL classes to learn English, and began working on a cleaning crew. Santos would send some of his earnings back to the city of Volta Redonda, Brazil, where his family lived. He was 39 years old when he first entered the U.S. Eight years later, he was inside the Walpole Wal-Mart working a late hour shift — his last. The construction scene inside the Vision Center was a tangle of unlabeled wires and cords. Wal-Mart had insisted that the remodeling job would proceed while the store remained open. On Santos’ last night, the general contractor, electrical contractor, and Italo Masonry all left no supervisors at the site. But several light circuits were left on, because the renovations could be done quicker and easier by leaving the area “hot.” One junction box at the top of a wall was left “hot.” Santos arrived at the site just before 10:30 pm — a time when most Wal-Mart shoppers were home in bed. Santos and his coworkers were not warned that a 227-volt circuit powering the overhead lights in the Vision Center had been left live. Santos had no reason to expect that wires behind the walls were hot. It was normal practice that live wires would be clearly marked and labeled, to avoid lethal danger. One of Santos’ coworkers began tearing down a wall that had been marked for demolition. The crew member, wielding a reciprocating saw, cut through the live wire at the top of the wall. The lights went out, leaving the whole crew in the darkened Vision Center. The crew began to exit the site, when Santos came in contact with the live wire. According to witnesses at the scene, Santos moaned in pain, and fell to the floor in between a scissors lift and the wall. A crew member rushed to his side, but Santos died within minutes — badly burned from the trauma. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued Wal-Mart an immediate stop work order, and listed numerous violations of federal safety regulations. “Workers were exposed to hazards of arc-flash and arc blast while working on energized parts of the circuit breaker panels without proper personal protective equipment,” OSHA wrote. “Employees were exposed to electric shock hazards while performing . . . tasks without de-energizing the circuits.” Attorney Brian A. Joyce of the Joyce Law Group, the firm that is handling a civil lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of the Santos family, says that Romulo’s death could have been avoided if Wal-Mart had held its general contractor to its contractual obligation to permit only properly licensed and qualified subcontractors to demolish the Vision Center. Joyce notes that the general contractor has a rap sheet with OSHA for hiring unlicensed contractors. “Wal-Mart’s callous indifference to the safety of construction workers at the Walpole store is not an isolated incident,” Joyce told Sprawl-Busters. Similar construction-related deaths have occurred in Texas, Nebraska, and Indiana. OSHA has cited Wal-Mart in numerous other cases for its negligence in protecting workers. “In its ruthless quest to cut prices and maximize profits,” Joyce charges, “Wal-Mart allows cutting corners, especially when it comes to safety, and is willing to risk the lives of construction workers to save on costs. When the sadly predictable accidents occur, Wal-Mart remorselessly opposes attempts by the surviving family members to discover what happened, and to seek justice for their lost loved ones.” The family of Romulo de Oliveira Santos has waited for almost three and a half years to see justice done in this case. The sudden death of their son who traveled to America was tragic enough — but Wal-Mart’s response since the accident has made the family’s ordeal even harder to accept. On February 14, 2011, the Boston law firm hired by Wal-Mart acknowledged in a letter to the Joyce law firm that “an offer of $25,000 was made” to the Santos family by the retailer and its general contractor as compensation for Santos’ death. That was one year ago. There has been no movement by Wal-Mart since then. Attorney Joyce says Wal-Mart’s financial offer is a slap in the face to the Santos family: “If Mr. Santos — who was in excellent health when this tragedy occurred — had worked until his retirement age, he could have had another $1 million in salary alone. Apparently $25,000 is the value that Wal-Mart puts on this man’s life.” An everyday low price for a life — from the company that made its fortune on cheap imported products — like the labor of Romulo de Oliveira Santos. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters. For almost twenty years he has been helping community groups defend themselves against big box development. His most recent book is The Case Against Wal-Mart.

Read the full article →

Dennis M. Kelleher: More Unconscionable Wall Street Whining

February 8, 2012

I can barely write this as tears for the poor, picked-on Wall Street bankers fill my eyes as they are comforted by Obama’s campaign manager, who reportedly met yesterday with his big donors on Wall Street. Until we fix the sickening campaign finance system, I don’t like, but I understand that all fundraising politicians have to raise money and meet with donors and I understand why the campaign manager did, but how anyone on Wall Street could feel picked-on by Obama is beyond reason. Every single Wall Street bank would have been bankrupt, broken up and/or liquidated in 2008-2009 due to their recklessness, greed, incompetence and arrogance. The only reason that didn’t happen is because the US government, with taxpayer dollars, bailed them all out and, indefensibly, did so with no strings attached so they quickly began stuffing their pockets with billions in bonuses in mere months. Most of these “demoralized” Wall Streeters would have lost everything: their bank accounts, their multiple homes at the world’s hottest locations, their many sports cars, Italian designed wardrobes, yachts, club memberships, jets, helicopters, cooks and legions of house help and personal assistants and everything else they purchased with the tens of billions of dollars they sucked out of the economy as they created the bubble of toxic, worthless assets in the years before the financial collapse that they caused. True, they didn’t create it alone, but, in the hierarchy of those who caused the financial crisis, any fair-minded, unbiased list would put them at the top. That is particularly true if one looked at who benefited the most from the bubble and who was treated the best once the bubble popped. No one was treated better before, during and after the crisis that Wall Street. The government didn’t open the treasury and taxpayer pockets with no strings attached for anyone other than the financial industry (compare the demands and concessions forced on the auto industry). Anyone not directly or indirectly on the payroll of Wall Street or their ideological fellow travelers (who are almost all coincidentally also on the payroll) sees this and understands this. They see that no accountability only applies on Wall Street. They see that no-strings bailouts only apply to the already-rich Wall Street bankers. They see the unlevel playing field created and sustained by a federal safety net that looks a lot like a hammock for the filthy rich. (The Wall Streeters and their allies like to say such criticism is an attack on wealth, entrepreneurs and capitalism itself. That baseless, self-serving attempt to distract and distort the debate is laughable. No one is attacking Silicon Valley, Bill Gates, Apple, Caterpillar, Procter and Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, AT&A, IBM or the rest of the Fortune 500 — or celebrities, athletes or other super-wealthy people. No — the criticism is focused on the biggest Wall Street banks and bankers that enriched and engorged themselves at the expense of the rest of the country, that caused the crisis, got bailout out by taxpayers and just can’t stop claiming they are picked on, and that still benefit from a taxpayer-funded federal safety net that subsidizes their current too-big-to-fail operations.) It is also obvious to see that Main Street, not Wall Street, has paid and is paying for the costs of the financial crisis . They see a hollowed-out middle class struggling just to get by, having lost most of their stock value, home value, savings and retirement funds. These are the people living paycheck to paycheck with gnawing insecurity that at any moment it can all disappear and they too could join the ranks of the unemployed and, even, the homeless. Food stamp use is at an all time high and, most tellingly, the ramp up in use is in what used to be solid middle class neighborhoods. The same is true for free and subsidized school lunches. The distinction between the poor and the middle class is evaporating in far too many communities in America. Sadly, hope and the American Dream are also slowly receding from the horizons of too many hard-working American families. And, yet, in the midst of all this pain, suffering and wreckage, Obama’s campaign manager has to go to the oh-so-exclusive “Core Club in Manhatten” to reassure the bonus-bloated bankers that “Obama won’t demonize Wall Street as he emphasizes populist appeals in his re-election campaign ….” As if that wasn’t enough, this was reported to be “the latest in a series of hand-holding sessions.” It was also reported that one anonymous banker stopped going to these meetings because “the actual White House message of locking up fat cat bankers and raising their taxes never actually changes.” Er, ok, could anyone, please, identify a fat cat banker that got locked up? Nooooooooooooooo. There have been none. Not one. THAT actually is part of the problem . They are almost all still right where they were when they were creating the bubble or have departed Wall Street to the comfort of their billions or millions. (And, their taxes remain historically low.) Every single sane employed person on Wall Street should be sending a check to Obama — they would all be an empty shell of themselves but for him and the actions his administration took to stop the collapse of the financial system and our economy. Yet, ignoring all evidence and facts, Wall Street is reported to be “an industry that the White House has thoroughly and repeatedly demonized and demoralized” — what? That’s so ludicrous that it could be a “Seriously” skit on Saturday Night Live . Or an Onion headline. But, no, Wall Street, its bankers and its allies everywhere, including in the media, actually think that Obama has “thoroughly and repeatedly demonized and demoralized” Wall Street. Can they really be that thin-skinned? Can they really be that out of touch with reality? Can they really be that narcissistic to not see their “plight” relative to what is happening to the rest of the country ? Sadly, the answer to all those questions is yes. Wall Street and those who make fact-free assertions from their mahogany-line corner offices, 30,000 square foot mansions and spacious limousines about their plight live in a parallel universe that begins and ends in the mirror they gaze in and apparently mistake for the entire world. Until they look beyond their reflection in the mirror and until one of the titans on Wall Street actually becomes a statesman , then Wall Street’s whining won’t end and no amount of “hand-holding” meetings will satisfy them.

Read the full article →

Is The Dow Jones Still Relevant?

February 8, 2012

One day in October 2006, my editor gave me the same assignment that hundreds of other editors were giving their business writers. He told me to go to a trading floor to witness the magical moment when the Dow Jones Industrial Average passed 12,000 points. He may have envisioned cheers, shouts, balloons, traders cutting one another’s ties and (this being 2006) dousing one another in Cristal. Instead, the traders obliviously entered orders into their computers while I stood around looking for the story. It got me thinking: Why do we still care so much about the Dow?

Read the full article →

Barry Levinson: Don’t Know Much About Oil

February 8, 2012

I don’t know much about the business world, I don’t know much about economics. So you’ll have to take what I say with a grain of salt. It’s more about what I don’t know than what I do know. Here’s my question: why does the gasoline price at the pump vary from day to day? You see this change on the signs. Suddenly it’s up three cents. Up seven cents. Down four cents. It’s always in flux. Why? The answers we’re always hearing are, “Government upheavals in the Middle East,” or “Issues with super tankers.” Or, “Nervous about the economic health of the global economy.” All those issues may in fact be real, but why does the price of the oil at your nearby station suddenly jump at the first sign of oil company anxiety? The oil at the gas station is sitting under the pump. It’s been bought at a certain price. So why does it change daily, based on the fears of the oil company? If you went into a car dealership and you were interested in some Buick at a given price, the salesman doesn’t suddenly come in and say the Buick went up $36 today because they’re having difficulty with supplying enough grills to the front of the car. They bought the car at a certain price, therefore they sell it at a certain price. Sometimes at a lower price. But one thing is for certain, the price of the Buick does not go up and down throughout the course of the week. To take it one step further, the earthquake in Japan, which disrupted the entire Japanese auto industry, did not set off an uptick in the cost of a Nissan or Toyota or Honda. The oil industry doesn’t need a natural disaster to actually happen though. Just their anxiety over the possible disruption of the Straits of Hormuz can cause the gas to increase in your neighborhood by four or five cents overnight. Another analogy. You decide to go for a big purchase. You hear that art is a good investment. You gather your courage and you go to your local gallery. You see a painting, a Julian Schnabel that catches your attention. You’re interested in it. You see the price. You wonder if you could afford it. Suddenly the gallery gets a phone call. “Schnabel has sprained his thumb on the hand that holds the brush. He may or may not be able to paint full time.” Suddenly the gallerist quickly hangs up the phone, crosses the gallery, and increases the painting’s cost by $183. “Why?” asks the potential buyer. The gallery man responds, “We have anxiety over Julian Schnabel’s thumb.” And then the oil industry has the other gimmick they throw in there. Look carefully. Gas is $3.87.04. Or $3.87.05. It is the only commodity I know of that you pay a percentage of a penny on. You don’t go for a Big Mac and it costs $3.37.03. Whatever is happening in the cattle markets, cows coming down with diseases or what have you, does not shake the price of the Big Mac or the Big Whopper or whatever Wendy’s calls its beef patties on any given day. Same price. Every day. The fries do not fluctuate no matter what’s going on in the potato world. Coke and Pepsi hold the price line. Nothing fluctuates daily in price like oil. And for whatever reason, we have accepted it. One final thing: In your local area, why is all gasoline almost the exact same price? Exxon Mobil. BP. Shell. At the local pumps, almost identical price. Why is that? You would think one of them would be known as “The Low Price Oil Company.” Their slogan: “The highest performance gasoline at the lowest price.” As opposed to other types of companies, oil companies never have special sales. Never the “Winter Sell-Off.” Never the “Spring Clearance.” Never “The Back-to-School Sale.” All other businesses have some kind of sale celebrations going on periodically. Not when it comes to oil. Years ago there used to be price wars. One station undercutting another. But that’s when real people used to own the gas stations. That’s when hardworking men maintained their service station and provided services, like checking your tire pressure. Your oil. Cleaned your windows. Pumped your gas. And were happy to see you. And actually kept their toilets clean, just as a bonus. Just because they cared. That’s when gas was probably around 29 cents a gallon at the pump. Any way, these are just a few questions. Unfortunately, I have yet to find one intelligent answer. Or at least one that I can comprehend.

Read the full article →

Banks Paying Homeowners To Sell Houses, Avoid Foreclosure

February 7, 2012

Some struggling homeowners are getting paid by banks to sell their houses and stave off foreclosure. Many banks, including JPMorgan Chase, are offering delinquent borrowers as much as $35,000 to sell their houses for less than they owe on them, Bloomberg reports. Some banks are finding the transactions to be more cost-effective and efficient than the complex and multi-stage foreclosure process. The attempt to clear the deluge of delinquent properties awaiting foreclosure echos others, including so-called “cash for keys” programs in which banks pay homeowners and renters to vacate their homes without an eviction. Banks have had to get creative in dealing with a massive foreclosure pileup that confronts them. Overall, foreclosure filings fell dramatically last year in large part because banks were hesitant to rush the process , after investigations into robo-signing practices, which sped up foreclosures, indicated abuse. The foreclosure process now takes nearly triple the amount of time that it did in 2007 , according to LPS Applied Analytics. The extended time period for foreclosures means that millions of properties are sitting in the pipeline and weighing on home values. Homes that are in foreclosure drive down property values twice as much as vacant properties , according to an October study by the Cleveland Federal Reserve. The Justice Department lent support to another means of avoiding foreclosure last month. The agency argued that foreclosure mediation — or the process whereby struggling homeowners can negotiate with lenders so they don’t lose their homes — is worthy of a government boost in research and possibly funding . Ben Bernanke also lent his two cents on how best to fix the housing market last month, when he published a paper saying that relying heavily on foreclosures to deal with delinquent borrowers is “costly” and “inefficient” for the housing market. Foreclosures “can result in ‘deadweight losses,’ or costs that do not benefit anyone, including the neglect and deterioration of properties that often sit vacant for months (or even years) and the associated negative effects on neighborhoods,” the paper said . Bernanke also floated some alternatives including combing a deed-in-lieu — or a program where homeowners return their house to lenders without going into foreclosure — with a rent-back agreement. The Home Affordable Modification Program, an aim touted by the Obama Administration in February 2009 as having the ability to help 3 to 4 million homeowners modify their loans and avoid foreclosure, has only netted nearly 1.8 million trial modifications for homeowners so far, according to a recent government report.

Read the full article →

Taxing Casinos Could Help Detroit’s Financial Woes

February 7, 2012

The tentative agreement Mayor Dave Bing brokered with many of Detroit’s unions last Wednesday requires the city seek out new revenue sources in exchange for worker concessions. One of those provisions says the city should lobby the state to tax the casino winnings of non-Detroit residents. After agreeing to significant concessions less than two years ago , city workers are looking to avoid future cuts to their pay and benefits. The union side of the new bargain with Bing would include health care and pension concessions and a 10 percent across-the-board wage cut , the Detroit News reports. Police and firefighters have yet to come on board with the concessions, and the city is waiting for their support before finalizing the agreement. Proponents say a strengthened casino tax would allow the city to bring in revenue, rather than continue cutting to balance the budget. Interpretations of city and state laws currently exempt non-residents’ casino winnings from Detroit’s city income tax , according to Fox 2 News. AFSCME attorney Richard Mack, who represents city workers, told the TV station the law should be changed so Detroit can “do some long-term structural things to bring in revenue.” Looking at all available options, including new revenue sources, is necessary to avoid a state takeover of Detroit. The city is currently under financial review , and new sources of revenue could persuade the review board to recommend against a state-appointed emergency manager. State Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) believes an agreement between the city and its workers to seek out revenue could spark new life into a related bill she introduced last year that would increase the taxes Michigan cities can collect from casinos. House Bill 4648 would not affect casino winners, but would raise the casino’s business tax rate to 23 percent and would raise the city tax on casinos’ gross receipts to 12.9 percent. If the bill becomes law, Tlaib said the increased tax rate would raise about $28 million for the state — funding K-12 education — and $42 million for the city of Detroit. The bill is still in committee. Tlaib introduced the bill last May with co-sponsors Harvey Santana (D-Detroit) and John Olumba (D-Detroit). She told The Huffington Post she is a firm supporter of Detroit’s casinos, but she also expects them to pay their fair share. “Just like I expect my neighbors to pay their taxes, I expect corporate neighbors to pay their taxes, too,” she said. “I believe we need to say yes to Detroit and make this a true shared sacrifice.” This isn’t the first time politicians have tried to raise taxes on Detroit gaming houses. Mayor Bing unsuccessfully pushed for a casino tax increase in April of last year . He argued that gambling establishments in Michigan paid much lower taxes than other states, noting that Ohio had a 33 percent tax rate. In 2004, Public Act 306 raised Detroit casino taxes by 6 percent with 2 percent of the new revenue going directly to the city. While the city has struggled with its finances, Detroit’s three casinos had a record year of profits in 2011 . They earned a combined $1.42 billion in gross revenue , an improvement of 3.4 percent over 2010, according to Crain’s Detroit Business . The city took in $183 million in tax revenues from casino wagering in 2010 , including a $9.6 million back settlement on taxes owed by Greektown Casino.

Read the full article →

Journalist Recovers Video Of Arrest After Police Deleted It

February 7, 2012

A Miami journalist has recovered video of police officers arresting him after it was deleted from his camera. The man was covering a police effort to evict Occupy Miami protestors. He plans to file a complaint with the police department and with the United States Department of Justice.

Read the full article →

Bank Loan Rates Could Spike Following Money Market Rules

February 7, 2012

By Karen Brettell NEW YORK, Feb 7 (Reuters) – The cost for banks and other borrowers to raise funds in short-term markets could jump if regulatory proposals for money market funds result in large redemptions in the industry. The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was finalizing rules to stabilize the $2.7 trillion money-market fund sector, including a requirement that funds allow their net asset values to fluctuate. The proposals are vehemently opposed by the industry, which says they will effectively kill the business. “As soon as you introduce a floating NAV (net asset value), demand for the product is going to plummet,” said Mary Beth Fisher, an interest rate strategist at BNP Paribas in New York. “You have no additional security by being in a money market fund.” The new rules are designed to reduce risks of the large funds, which suffered an investor run after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. The run led one large fund’s share value to “break the buck,” which then intensified the crisis, leading to the SEC’s development of the proposed rules in 2009. Fund managers contend that allowing share prices to fluctuate will remove certainty from the investments and increase, rather than reduce, the risk of a loss of investor confidence. Money market funds provide billions in loans to banks through repurchase agreements, commercial paper and other loans. A pullback sparked by investor redemptions or from the funds simply closing down could have large market ripples. Fidelity Investments, the largest money-market fund manager, recently warned regulators that a floating NAV would result in large redemptions, “leading to unintended consequences for the financial markets and U.S. economy.” Shares of Federated Investors, one of the largest money fund managers, fell 3.9 percent on Tuesday on the report. The Pittsburgh-based firm’s Chief Executive Christopher Donahue told the Journal he would sue the SEC if the new rules affect Federated’s ability to do business. European banks were left scrambling for dollar-based funds in the last half of 2011 as money funds withdrew loans, a large factor that led to global central banks coordinating offers of low-cost loans to banks to fill the funding gap. Investors have pulled around $50 billion from money market funds since January 11, according to the Investment Company Institute. That in recent weeks helped increase the cost to finance overnight loans backed by Treasuries in the repurchase agreement market. The cost of overnight repo loans backed by Treasuries traded at around 10 basis points on Thursday after rising to the high 20-basis point area last week. “If there are further fund redemptions, overnight funding for Treasuries will probably go back up,” said Raymond Gilmartin, head of repo trading at Bank of Nova Scotia in New York. A key question is where cash will move if money funds become less attractive. Money funds have won investors who want a guarantee that their money will be returned. Other mutual funds that invest in short-term instruments but do not guarantee the full investment return could gain at least part of the funds. “There’s still a huge amount of demand for short-term liquidity, people will put their money in a T-bill fund instead of a money market fund and not pay the extra fees,” said BNP’s Fisher. Banks, on the other hand, have been reluctant to take large deposits from investors flocking to safety as they need to pay a fee to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp to insure the deposits. An insurance cap of $250,000 per depositor per bank is also scheduled to come into force in December. “It is unclear how much of the ($1.6 trillion) institutional money held in money funds would ‘go elsewhere’,” Barclays Capital analyst Joseph Abate wrote in a recent report. “Banks are not eager to be on the receiving end of all this cash.”

Read the full article →

Neeta Pal: Foreclosure Dispatches: Views From Around the Country

February 7, 2012

Foreclosures aren’t going away. By now, the abuses that brought us to this point and continue to sink us further into the crisis — predatory lending practices, hastily securitized loans and mortgage servicing errors — are well known. Accountability for these abuses, however, remains an open question. As we await the outcomes of the 50-state attorneys general settlement and the Obama administration’s new federal Financial Crimes Unit led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, we must not lose sight of the homeowners and communities who suffer the collateral damages of foreclosure. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law teamed up with the National Coalition for the Civil Right to Counsel and independent producer Sarah Reynolds to create a multimedia video series entitled Fighting Foreclosure: Why Legal Assistance Matters that tells the stories of homeowners around the country. The series focuses on the perspectives of people who have seen or experienced firsthand what happens when homeowners go up against banks and mortgage servicers without an advocate at their side. Time and again, with counseling and legal representation , homeowners are able to catch documentation fraud, lending violations and other unlawful practices, and negotiate a fair settlement to stay in their homes. Community groups, legal aid lawyers, and housing counselors continue to act as first responders in a slow-moving foreclosure disaster that, according to the Center for Responsible Lending, is not even half-way over . Fighting Foreclosure: Charles Guider from TheBrennanCenter on Vimeo . Dispatch #1 : Sarah Ludwig and Josh Zinner, Co-Directors, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP) in New York City NEDAP — a financial justice resource and advocacy center based in New York City — recently released a report showing that 345,435 mortgages were at risk of foreclosure in New York State in 2011. NEDAP’s analysis confirms that the state has a long way to go before the foreclosure crisis is over. The report shows that neighborhoods of color continue to be disproportionately affected. From where you’re sitting, what, in your view, is one of the main challenges facing homeowners in foreclosure? Servicers, servicers, servicers. We are years into the foreclosure crisis, and banks, through their mortgage servicers, continue to present serious obstacles to homeowners, resulting in millions of foreclosures that could and should have been averted. The problem should perhaps come as no surprise, since servicers generally continue to make more money from foreclosing on homes than from modifying mortgages, and public policy response has been slow at best in terms of requiring meaningful accountability by the industry. People who seek to negotiate effective loan modifications with servicers continue to get the major runaround, experiencing maddening delays and unreasonable denials of their loan modification applications. Meanwhile, the financial industry has spent millions upon millions of dollars lobbying against even the most basic reforms — to the profound detriment of families, communities, and the country. What is one aspect of the foreclosure crisis that has been overlooked by the media? The media, in general, have failed to address the fact that so little has been done to hold banks accountable — notwithstanding general consensus that banks and Wall Street caused the foreclosure crisis (enabled in no small measure by their regulators), and notwithstanding what we now know was a multi-trillion dollar bank bailout. Similarly, most media have categorically avoided core questions regarding the restructuring of our financial system to ensure fairness and equity going forward. Another glaring gap is coverage of the millions of people who’ve unfairly lost their homes to foreclosure. What’s happened to them? Where are they now? Where’s the redress? By some estimates, we are only halfway through our nation’s foreclosure crisis. What is the biggest change we need to make in addressing this problem going forward? Broadly speaking, we need to forge a coherent, comprehensive federal housing policy that is grounded in principles of fairness and equity, and that emphasizes non-speculative housing models, such as community land trusts, mutual housing, and limited equity cooperatives. It is also vital that we address pervasive unemployment, underemployment, and the lack of a living wage. In terms of the mortgage industry, servicers should be held to strict rules and legal standards, such as a fundamental duty to work in good faith with distressed homeowners. The rules should require servicers to reduce principal for people underwater on their loans, for example, and include meaningful enforcement mechanisms and strong penalties for non-compliance.

Read the full article →

Twitter, Facebook Are Least Used Sources Of Political News

February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — In this campaign season, the social networks have nothing on the news networks. A new survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds cable news most frequently cited as a regular source of political campaign news, followed by local TV news, network news, the Internet and finally local newspapers. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook were at the bottom of the list. But with only Republicans choosing a presidential nominee this time around, fewer people are interested in following campaign news in any medium. This year’s poll marks the first time that cable news topped the list of campaign news sources, with 36 percent of those surveyed reporting that they regularly learn something about the campaign or the candidates from pay TV news. Cable has not gained as a source since early in the 2008 cycle, when 38 percent identified it as a top source. But the share who said they regularly get news from other TV sources or newspapers has declined. Asked where they get most of their campaign news, 74 percent cited television, in keeping with findings over the past few election cycles. Thirty-six percent said the Internet is their main source, up 10 points from this point in 2008, and newspapers provided most of the news for 23 percent, down 7 points. Use of the Internet as a regular campaign news source has held steady at 25 percent, on par with the 24 percent who regularly turned to the web in 2008. Pew attributes the lack of growth to declining interest in campaign news overall, particularly among younger adults, the primary users of online news. In January 2008, 34 percent of adults said they followed election news very closely. But that dipped to 29 percent this year, with the steepest declines among those under age 30 and Democrats. The 2008 campaign saw a relatively slim, 8-point difference in strong election interest by age. This year, however, senior citizens are twice as likely as those aged 18-29 to say they are following campaign news very closely. Among older age groups, the share saying they turn to the Internet regularly for campaign news has held steady or climbed, but among those under age 30, that figure has dropped sharply, from 42 percent in December 2007 to 29 percent now. A majority of those surveyed said they use social networking sites like Facebook, but most do not use them for news. Just 6 percent regularly turn to Facebook for campaign updates, and 2 percent go on Twitter. But the low standing of social networking sites doesn’t mean they aren’t a news source with potential for broader appeal. In early 2000, just 6 percent of survey recipients said they got most of their campaign news from the Internet. That grew to 13 percent by the start of the 2004 campaign and has nearly tripled, to 36 percent, in the eight years since. Among current Twitter users, 41 percent said they turn to the site at least sometimes for news, among users of other social networking sites, 36 percent sometimes or regularly use Facebook for news. Those using online news sources this cycle are most likely to turn to traditional news sites, such as CNN and Yahoo News, and aggregators, such as Google, over the candidates’ websites or social networking sites. CNN (24 percent) and Yahoo News (22 percent) top the list of online sources, followed by Google (13 percent), Fox News (10 percent), MSN (9 percent) and MSNBC (8 percent). All other sites were named by 5 percent or less, including Facebook, Twitter, the Drudge Report and Huffington Post. Interaction with a candidate’s online campaign is generally not seen as a key source of information. Just 2 percent who use the Internet for campaign information say they turn to candidate websites for news, but many more have had online contact with a candidate. Among registered voters, 15 percent say they have visited a candidate’s website and 16 percent have received email from campaign or political groups. Six percent say they have followed a candidate on Twitter or Facebook, rising to 12 percent among those under age 30. But whether online, on TV or in print, few Americans find it fun to keep up with politics. Overall, just 23 percent said they deeply enjoy following campaign news. The number dips to 17 percent among political independents, and to 13 percent of those under age 30. The Pew Center’s campaign news survey was conducted Jan. 4-8 and included interviews with a random national sample of 1,507 adults contacted by landline and cellular telephone. Results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. ___ Online: Pew Research Center: http://www.people-press.org

Read the full article →

Chrome For Android Finally Here … Sort Of

February 7, 2012

Google has released a long-awaited beta version of its Chrome web browser for Android-powered phones and tablets, but the software only works on devices running the latest version of Android. The test version of Google’s popular Internet browser was made available for download today in the Android Market . Notable features of the software include the capacity for tabbed browsing, the option to browse the web in “incognito mode,” accelerated page loading, and the ability to sync bookmarks and passwords between users’ other devices on which they use the Chrome browser. Unfortunately, the acceleration technology these features require means the browser is limited to the few Android mobile devices that currently use Ice Cream Sandwich, the latest version of the Android operating system. Those devices include the Galaxy Nexus, Nexus S and Asus Transformer Prime, Business Insider reports . But experts expect Google Chrome to dominate Android devices in the future as users upgrade their phones to ones capable of running the newest Android operating system. “Even in beta, it’s a compelling browser at least on the Galaxy Nexus I tried it on, and it’s and a much better match for Apple’s Safari on iOS,” Stephen Shankland wrote in a review of the software for CNET . “And eventually, its success is all but assured when it simply becomes what ships with Android.” Today’s beta release caps off a three-year effort on the part of Google engineers to converge Android and Chrome , the company’s two fastest growing products, according to Mercury News . Both products were launched at the end of 2008 and soon became favorites of many users and developers. Android is currently the world’s most popular mobile operating system, while Chrome recently shot past Mozilla Firefox to become the second most popular Web browser behind Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Early feedback from users reviewing the software on Android Market has been largely positive, with the first 500 commenters giving the software an average rating of 4.3 stars out of five. Check out a slideshow of screenshots below: WATCH:

Read the full article →

Google Fiber Rollout Ready To Begin

February 7, 2012

It reportedly suffered a slight delay due to some disagreement with local officials over just how its thousands of miles of wires would be hung, but Google announced today that it’s finally ready to begin the rollout of its Google Fiber network in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri.

Read the full article →

Ben Bernanke: Long-Term Unemployment Crisis Altering Job Market For The Worse

February 7, 2012

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that record levels of long-term unemployment will alter the U.S. job market for the worse for the foreseeable future. Bernanke said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the natural rate of unemployment — or the level of unemployment that results when the economy is supporting as many jobs as it can — has risen from about four percent in the early 2000s to more than five percent because so many Americans have been out of work for so long. In the process, they have lost skills and have become less likely to return to work. “We are concerned that over the past few years that there has been some modest increase in the sustainable long-run rate of unemployment,” Bernanke said. “I hope Congress will consider ways to address that problem.” Though the unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent in January, many Americans have stopped looking for work and have therefore been pushed out of the workforce, perhaps permanently. The labor force participation rate fell in January to 63.7 percent — its lowest level since January 1982. More than 40 percent of those currently unemployed have been without work for more than six months, Bernanke noted. That’s roughly double the share during the housing boom of the early and mid-2000s, he said. That adds up to 5.5 million Americans who have been out of work for six months or more, not to mention three to five million more people who have dropped out of the labor force because they have given up looking for work. Bernanke said that the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee estimates that the natural rate of unemployment is now between 5.2 and 6.0 percent. The actual unemployment rate in 2006 was just 4.6 percent, and in 2000 it was even lower at 4.0 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The long-term unemployed are in more danger of experiencing years of unemployment because it becomes steadily harder for a job-seeker to find work the longer they’re unemployed. Many employers ask for their applicants to be currently employed , a stipulation President Barack Obama is trying to make illegal. Firms also are less prone to hire the long-term unemployed because of the perception that their skills and professional networks deteriorate while they are out of work. Bernanke has previously warned about the prolonged economic harm of long-term unemployment. In September the Fed chairman called long-term unemployment a “national crisis.” “This has never happened in the post-war period in the United States,” Bernanke said in September. “They are losing the skills they had, they are losing their connections, their attachment to the labor force.” Bernanke said on Tuesday that the Federal Reserve can do only so much to bring down unemployment. “We’re only saying that monetary policy really can’t do much to bring unemployment in a sustainable way below those levels,” Bernanke said of the natural rate. Bernanke said that in order to bring down the natural rate of unemployment further, the U.S. government needs to focus on projects that provide the country long-run value, especially those focusing on education, worker skills, and research and development. “We don’t want to build useless monuments,” Bernanke said. With many more people no longer considered part of the workforce, Bernanke said that January’s 8.3 percent unemployment rate “no doubt understates the weakness of the labor market in a broader sense.”

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Settlement’s Deadline Passes

February 7, 2012

* Dozens of states meet deadline to join mortgage deal * Many states won’t comment about their participation * Deal faces another setback after banks balk at NY suit * California angling for more control over relief By Aruna Viswanatha and Karen Freifeld Feb 6 (Reuters) – A proposed mortgage settlement in the works for more than a year will move forward with more than 40 states joining the deal before a Monday deadline, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said in a statement. States had been given two weeks to assess a proposed settlement, under which top U.S. banks would pay up to $25 billion in exchange for resolving civil government lawsuits about misconduct in servicing home loans and pursuing faulty foreclosures. “The sign-on deadline for the proposed joint state-federal mortgage servicing settlement passed Monday with more than 40 states signing on. This enables us to move forward into the very final stages of remaining work,” Miller said. “Federal and state officials, as well as representatives from the banks, continue to address matters that they must complete before finalizing any settlement,” Miller added. Officials had hoped to announce a final settlement as early as this week. It is unclear if the Obama administration and a group of states will move ahead with a smaller settlement if holdouts continue to drag their feet. Some states and activist groups have been concerned the proposed deal would release banks from too many claims and does not provide enough relief to homeowners. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose participation would grow the size of the settlement by some $6 billion to $8 billion, was not expected to issue any statement on Monday, a person familiar with the matter said. On Friday, Harris told Reuters she was “less concerned with the timeline than the details” of the settlement. A New York lawsuit filed on Friday against JPMorgan Chase , Bank of America and Wells Fargo has also become a stumbling block, according to a person briefed on the negotiations. This person said on Monday that the banks are balking at a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that accuses them of fraud in their use of the electronic mortgage registry MERS. The lawsuit is based on claims that were expected to be resolved through the settlement. The multi-state settlement talks are focusing on the three banks named in Schneiderman’s suit, as well as Citigroup and Ally Financial. Schneiderman has been a key opponent of the proposed settlement. However, Schneiderman said Jan. 27 that the liability releases in the draft settlement had become narrow enough so that a full investigation by a new mortgage crisis unit that he will help lead could move forward. Jennifer Givner, press secretary for Schneiderman, declined to comment on Monday. HOLD OUTS Other states continued to weigh the details until the last minute. In a statement, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Masto said her office is continuing to review the settlement and is advocating for improvements to address Nevada-specific needs. Masto sued Bank of America last year and accused it of violating an earlier agreement meant to resolve mortgage-related claims from its Countrywide unit, and lawyers for the office are in discussions about what impact the settlement will have on the lawsuit, people familiar with the matter said. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Tom Horne of Arizona said on Monday afternoon that Horne was still evaluating the settlement and “may decide by the end of the day.” Even Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who has been on the committee negotiating the deal has not publicly committed to the settlement. A spokeswoman said in a statement that Bondi “remains involved in the settlement discussions in order to reach the best resolution for Floridians and all Americans.” And a spokesman for the attorney general in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, who has been a critic of the proposed settlement, said her office would not have a comment on Monday. Coakley separately sued the same banks in December and accused them of deceptive foreclosure practices, but she has not ruled out joining the multi-state settlement. Her office has been in discussions to carve out certain foreclosure issues specific to her state, people familiar with the matter have said. In particular, Coakley does not want the settlement to allow banks to avoid a look back at past foreclosures after Massachusetts’ highest court voided two home seizures saying the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed. California’s Harris, too, has expressed state-specific concerns that the relief provided in the settlement go to those “most distressed” in her state, and has pressed for some certainty that the relief is regionally proportionate, according to people familiar with California’s concerns. The state has faced some of the worst foreclosure rates in the country. One in every 31 housing units in California received at least one foreclosure filing last year, according to RealtyTrac. Meanwhile, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan has been pushing hard in recent weeks to close and sell the deal. He spoke to left-leaning bloggers in a conference call over the weekend to convince them of the merits of the settlement. Representatives of several other state attorneys general either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

Read the full article →

Daniel Burrus: How to Save the Manufacturing Sector

February 6, 2012

Like most industries, the manufacturing sector is transforming rapidly. Because of recent technological advances and globalization, U.S. manufacturing is facing intense international competition, increasing market volatility and complexity, a declining workforce, and a host of other challenges. Yet we know that in order to have a strong economy, we need a strong manufacturing base. So what’s the answer? Today’s manufacturers must transform along with the rest of the world by adopting six advanced next generation manufacturing principles. They are: Anticipate customer needs: Look at your customers’ future and focus on what you DO know rather than what you don’t know. Ask, “What are the hard trends, the things that will happen, versus the things that might happen? What are the industries that are converging around our customers that our customers currently don’t see?” Then you can start seeing both needs and opportunities before they happen. Innovate around the core: What are your core competencies? Are you still using your core competencies? In the past, manufacturers could go decades between innovations. That strategy doesn’t work anymore. Today you cannot just innovate now and then: to survive and thrive in a time of vertical change, you have to be innovating around your core competencies continuously . So what is your core, and are you using it? Focus on collaboration: Collaboration is much different than cooperation. Cooperation is based on scarcity and it contains within it the assumption that your interests and mine are inherently in conflict; however, we will temporarily set aside those cross-purposes to find some cautious tactical common ground. In contrast, collaboration is when we co-create the future together. It’s about working with everyone else, even your competitors, to make a bigger pie for all. It’s based on abundance and requires working together under higher levels of trust and connectivity. Pre-solve problems: The best way to avoid problems is to predict and pre-solve them. How? Use hard trends to look into the visible future and ask, “What are the problems that we can see based on anticipating customer needs?” Get that down to a short list that’s aligned with your core competencies. Then that’s where you focus because you can see which problems are coming. Additionally, look at your own company in the same manner to determine the problems you’re about to face. Solve them before they happen so they don’t occur in the midst of rapid change and transformation. That’s the only way to stay ahead of the curve. Inform and communicate: Informing is one-way. It’s static and doesn’t always cause action. Communicating is two-way. It’s dynamic and usually causes action. Social media is a good example of engagement in communication, which is why it’s spreading so rapidly and becoming a business tool. Next generation manufacturers understand that you don’t just inform; you also communicate, develop that strategy, and move it out internally as well as externally. Do continuous de-commoditization: The minute you come up with something new, a competitor will copy it. As they do so, your innovative product or service slowly becomes a commodity. The margins get thinner as time goes on. But instead of letting the margins get thinner and riding them down, you can wrap a service around a product or wrap a service around a service to add new value. You can think creatively about your product or service so you can repackage it, redefine it, revamp it, or somehow make it unique in the marketplace again. When you do continuous de-commoditization, you’ll find yourself with good margins and a growing business. In a competitive global economy that is becoming more tightly connected every day, U.S. manufacturers can no longer do things the way they’ve always been done. Adopting these next generation manufacturing principles is the only way to obtain the talents, capabilities, and resources necessary to build a highly effective enterprise that thrives in a global marketplace.

Read the full article →

Former Bank Of America Employee Picks New Fight With Banking Giant

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — Jackie Ramos, whose 2009 video detailing her termination from Bank of America became a viral hit, is back on YouTube with another bone to pick with the banking giant. Ramos, 26, recently posted a video titled “Bank of America Stole My House!” In the video, she says she lost her home following the death of her four-year-old son’s father, Tim Woods, last April. While the foreclosure process was still underway in mid-December, Ramos said the bank put locks on the home. Unfortunately for Ramos, her name was not on the mortgage. Further muddying the picture, she had already moved out of the Fairburn, Ga., home at the time of Woods’ death. According to Ramos, Woods purchased the home in 2008 after receiving a fixed-rate mortgage from Bank of America. But by the end of 2009, Woods and Ramos began to notice increases in their monthly mortgage payments. Eventually, Ramos said, the bank explained that the extra charges were premiums for a mortgage life insurance policy. According to Ramos, Woods agreed to keep paying for the insurance with the understanding that the policy would cover the balance on his loan in case of death. Ramos said she was listed as the beneficiary on this policy. “I was there when he spoke with Bank of America,” she told the Huffington Post. “They said, ‘Okay, we’ll enter into the paperwork so if anything happens, [the house] will go to her.’” At the time of Woods’ death, Ramos had moved out of the home and begun dating another man. On the night Woods died, Ramos said, Woods confronted her and her boyfriend. “He found out I was dating someone new and he attempted to harm both me and my friend,” Ramos said. Fairburn police told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the shooting occurred during a scuffle over a gun. Authorities had attempted to subdue Woods with a Taser before the gun went off. Police later determined Woods’ death was not considered the result of a “police-involved shooting” because the officer involved in the scuffle did not have possession of the gun, but Ramos says Woods committed suicide. Ramos said the bank then denied the existence of the policy and refused to speak to her because she and Woods had not been married. Woods, Ramos said, had no will and did not designate an executor of his estate. She is not on good terms with his family, who say the house shouldn’t go to her no matter what. She and her son have since moved into a home she purchased in September. In a statement to the Huffington Post, Bank of America declined to comment on Ramos’ case as a matter of policy. “Due to Bank of America’s privacy policy, we have not discussed the Borrowers Protection Plan or the loan with Ms. Ramos, because she is not a borrower on the loan,” said Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens. “The Georgia State Probate court has appointed an Administrator for Mr. Woods’ estate and Bank of America has communicated directly with that Administrator … [we] cannot discuss the specific details of our customers’ benefit requests.” According to Bank of America’s Borrowers Protection Plan , “Suicide or intentionally hurting yourself” are not protected causes of death, nor is “Death that occurred during or as a result of breaking the law.” A former employee of Bank of America, Ramos was fired after taking a stand against what she felt were unfair lending policies. The video she made detailing her experience led to a story on the Huffington Post and an appearance on “The Daily Show.” “You guys stole my home, you guys stole my memories and you guys stole something from my four-year-old,” she says in the new video. “You guys are a bunch of crooks, and I will let everyone know.” Watch the video: Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.

Read the full article →

Crucial Reform Seen As ‘Ferociously Difficult’

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — Tax reform sounds like a good idea to lots of people, but where to start? Eliminate the popular deduction for home mortgages? End the write-off for charitable contributions? How about expanding the Social Security payroll tax? Not likely. Politicians of all stripes in this presidential election year are clamoring for simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes. But that would mean Americans would lose some of their prized deductions. Not that Congress actually is likely to end tax breaks for home loans or religious and charitable contributions anytime soon. President Barack Obama and his chief Republican challengers – Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – certainly aren’t advocating that. In fact, recommendations to trim the mortgage deduction made in 2005 by a tax-overhaul panel convened by then President George W. Bush and again in 2010 by a deficit-reduction committee set up by Obama were ignored by both those presidents. Overhauling the complex U.S. tax code could mean that for everyone who would pay less someone else would pay more. And every existing provision in the code has its advocates. “Tax reform is ferociously difficult. If you tackle it straight up, the likelihood of success is rather small,” said Henry Aaron, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “Whenever you try to take money away from somebody, they will fight harder to keep it than will those who stand to gain.” And if deficit reduction is also a goal, it makes the job even harder. Most recently, a bipartisan deficit-reduction congressional “supercommittee” failed to meet a Thanksgiving 2011 deadline and had to disband when it could not find common ground on tax changes. None of the major tax overhaul proposals now on the table seems likely to be enacted given the current political rancor in Washington. Of course, a lot could depend on the outcome of the November elections. For now, the urgency for both parties is focused on the Bush-era tax cuts, scheduled to expire at year’s end. Republicans generally want to make them permanent. Democrats would like to raise taxes on the wealthy but keep them at present levels for all others. The income tax as we now know it has been around for nearly 100 years, and it’s had only a few major overhauls. The last major restructuring came in 1986, when Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill were able to put aside their political differences to strike a grand deal that both simplified the tax code and lowered rates on most individuals. “To get comprehensive tax reform, you have to have tremendous presidential leadership. There’s no way around that to be successful,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005 and now heads the American Action Forum, a conservative public policy institute. In addition to being a hot issue on the campaign trail, tax reform is also being closely studied by congressional leaders who oversee tax-writing, Holtz-Eakin said. “So with all the key players all saying `Let’s do it,’ I think that’s promising.” “Now the next issue is, what is `it’?” There, we don’t have a consensus,” he added. Obama has proposed ending tax breaks for U.S. companies moving jobs or profits to foreign countries. He also would create a minimum tax on their overseas earnings. And he has suggested new tax breaks for businesses that move jobs back to the U.S., for domestic manufacturing and for companies that invest in towns that have suffered major job losses. But getting most attention is his plan to tax personal incomes above $1 million – including investment income – at a rate of at least 30 percent. “Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires,” Obama said in his State of the Union address. “Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.” Obama also wants to see corporate taxes lowered but hasn’t said by how much. The White House has signaled he’ll unveil details on Feb. 13 when he submits his budget for the fiscal year that begins Sept. 1. The nominal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, the highest in the world after Japan. However, few companies pay that much after taking various deductions. Because of recent special deductions in the government’s stimulus programs, including the ability to write off the full cost of purchases of new equipment, corporations last year paid just over 12 percent on average. That is expected to rise to about 26 percent this year, according to Congressional Budget Office calculations. Romney would make permanent most Bush-era tax cuts and would eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for those earning under $200,000. He would lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Jobs and tax reform have been leading issues in the GOP primaries so far. Most Americans believe that the tax system is unfair and would like to see it changed, recent polls suggest. The polls show a majority believe upper-income Americans pay less than their fair share, although far more Democrats believe this than Republicans. There is also a big political divide over whether to keep the current system of taxing investment income – such as dividends and capital gains – at lower rates than wages. Far fewer Democrats than Republicans want to keep things the way they are, polls show. Romney, one of the richest presidential candidates ever, recently disclosed that he paid federal taxes at an effective rate of around 15 percent because most of his income came from investments that are taxed at that rate, compared to a top rate of 35 percent for wages. That disclosure has helped fuel the recent surge of interest in tax reform. Gingrich would let people choose whether to file under the current system or pay a 15 percent “flat” tax while preserving the mortgage interest and charitable deductions. He would eliminate the capital gains and estate taxes and would cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would reduce the number of tax brackets to two – 10 percent and 28 percent, exempt domestic manufacturers from the corporate tax and halve the top rate for other businesses. He would triple the personal exemption for dependent children. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, would eliminate the federal income tax altogether. Also the Internal Revenue Service. He would vote for a national sales tax, and he supports certain excise taxes and certain tariffs. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has said that the wealthy would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Romney, Gingrich and Santorum tax plans. The center did not evaluate Paul’s plan The Tax Reform Act of 1986 backed by Reagan and O’Neill reduced the number of tax brackets and lowered the top marginal tax rate to 28 percent from 50 percent (it’s now 35 percent). The reduction in individual taxes was in large part paid for by repeal of the investment tax credit, which effectively raised corporate tax payments to the Treasury by 25 percent, or about $100 billion a year in today’s terms. But the political climate was far difference in 1986. Reagan was a popular second-term president with a good working relationship with Congress. The deficit was under control and the economy was growing, not limping like now. Economist Bruce Bartlett, author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take,” is not optimistic for major tax reform no matter who wins the election. “I think the most we can hope for is a modest improvement to fix some glaring problems in the code,” he said. As to those calling for starting from scratch with a whole new tax system such as the so-called fair tax or flat tax, “I don’t believe that’s going to happen,” Bartlett said. “I think that’s just a political non-starter.” ___

Read the full article →

Executive Accused Of Fraud: Ponzi Scheme Was Costing Him His Health

February 6, 2012

HOUSTON — Attempts to cover up a massive Ponzi scheme alleged to have taken billions from depositors at Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford’s Caribbean bank grew increasingly frantic as federal authorities closed in on the fraud, the financier’s top money man testified Monday. Ultimately, all of the efforts to hide the more than 20-year fraud were futile, James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford’s companies, told jurors during his third day of questioning by prosecutors in Stanford’s fraud trial. “The writing was on the wall,” said Davis, who has pleaded guilty in the case. Prosecutors claim Stanford bilked investors out of more than $7 billion in a massive Ponzi scheme centered on the sales of certificates of deposit, or CDs, from the bank on the island nation of Antigua. Stanford’s attorneys contend the financier was a savvy businessman whose financial empire, headquartered in Houston, was legitimate. They have suggested Davis, who worked 21 years for Stanford, is behind the fraud. Davis, the prosecution’s star witness who began testifying last week, told jurors Monday that by 2007, he wanted to quit working for Stanford, unable to handle the stress. “The fraud that I was participating in was killing me,” he said. Authorities allege Stanford used depositors’ money to operate his businesses, pay for his lavish lifestyle and bribe regulators and auditors. They also say he lied to depositors by telling them their money was being safely invested. Stanford is on trial for 14 counts, including mail and wire fraud, and faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. At the end of 2007, the bank owed depositors $6.6 billion, Davis said, but it had only enough funds to pay back $1.5 billion. New sales of CDs had for years been able to cover withdrawals. In 2008, sales dramatically dropped and customers were withdrawing their CDs in droves, sparked by the Great Recession, he said. By December 2008, the bank had only $88 million in cash. Even as the bank was crashing, Davis said, Stanford was telling the holders of CDs in a December 2008 monthly report that he had put in more than $541 million of his own money into the bank to increase its value to more than $1 billion. He reassured investors that the bank was “strong, safe and fiscally sound,” Davis testified. “How concerned were you becoming?” asked prosecutor William Stellmach. “I was very concerned, probably near emotional and mental extreme stress level concerns,” Davis said. In an effort to hide the fraud, Stanford resorted to creative bookkeeping, Davis testified. Stanford spent $63.5 million for land in Antigua for an ultra-exclusive island resort he had been proposing, Davis said. The financier then inflated the land’s value to $3.2 billion as a part of a proposal to include that with the bank’s assets, he said. By January 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wanted proof of all of the bank’s assets and investments. Davis said by February he falsified documents that showed the bank had $6.3 billion in assets related to real estate and investments in private companies. “It was a lie,” he said. Davis testified that later that month, he threw a computer and thumb drive into a lake at his home in Mississippi in an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence. The evidence was later recovered by authorities. Stanford’s bank and other companies were seized by authorities later in February. Davis pleaded guilty to three fraud and conspiracy charges in 2009 as part of a deal he made with prosecutors in exchange for a possible reduced sentence. Stanford was once considered one of the United States’ wealthiest people, with an estimated net worth of more than $2 billion. He’s been jailed without bond since being indicted in 2009. ___ Follow Juan A. Lozano at http://www.twitter.com/juanlozano70

Read the full article →

Federal Official: ‘We’ve Got To Stay Focused On Mine Safety’

February 6, 2012

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — If there’s one lasting cultural change Mine Safety and Health Administration Director Joe Main wants to make in both the federal agency and the industry it regulates, it’s ending the cycle of intensity and complacency. After every high-profile disaster, regulators step up their enforcement and most coal operators take a second look at safety. Then, over time, both grow complacent. Until the next disaster. “You look away for a second, you let your guard down for a second, and bad things can happen here,” Main said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We’ve got to stay focused on mine safety. It has to be the priority every minute of every day, and we have to be out there with a find and fix mentality — find it and fix it before it hurts somebody.” When the Sago Mine exploded near Buckhannon, W.Va., in 2006, trapping and killing 12 men, MSHA had a different leader and a shortage of inspectors. It’s since hired and trained hundreds, and it was about to begin retraining them when Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine exploded near Montcoal in 2010, killing 29 men. “You can’t go through these phases where enforcement intensifies and then slacks off. You pay for those things,” Main said. “These past events have happened when there’s been a slacking off, and it takes time to reset the stage.” Though MSHA has been criticized for its handling of Upper Big Branch before the blast, Main insists inspectors used the tools they had and were trying to correct problems. In the year before the blast, MSHA issued more violation orders there than at any other U.S. mine. It shut the mine down 48 times but had to let it reopen when problems were fixed. Main said his agency has made many changes since then, including creating an impact inspection system for mines with a history of violations, and he plans to make more once an audit of MSHA’s performance at Upper Big Branch is completed. He’s also hoping for tougher tools from the three mine-safety bills pending in Congress. MSHA helped craft the one proposed by Rep. George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee. Whatever version ultimately passes, Main wants it to address critical issues such as: giving workers a voice and protecting them when they use it; giving MSHA federal subpoena power in investigations rather than forcing it to rely on state laws; and holding people accountable for criminal conduct. “I do not believe in treating people who are not criminals like criminals,” Main said. “But I do believe that people that engage in that kind of activity need to be dealt with accordingly. And we have to have a law in place that contains that kind of respect.” Ultimately, keeping a mine safe is the operator’s responsibility, and Main said he’s disappointed by those who didn’t get the wakeup call from Upper Big Branch, the nation’s worst coal mining disaster in four decades. “It’s like people passing a wreck on the highway: Just how does that impact folks? And this should have impacted folks bigger,” he said. Even shortly after the tragedy, his inspectors found mines with so much explosive coal dust hanging in the air that they could barely see the cutting machines. “It goes to show we have a serious problem here,” he said. Preliminary data for 2011 show signs of at least short-term improvements: The total number of mining citations and orders were down, and there was progress at 14 mines notified in 2010 that they might be designated potential pattern violators. Main said his agency is also in the process of rewriting the inspectors’ handbook, consolidating and clarifying policies that may be confusing or contradictory “to say exactly what we mean.” That, he said, should help them do their jobs better and make enforcement efforts more consistent.

Read the full article →

Vivian Weng: The Death of an American Tradition

February 6, 2012

If you were a teenager growing up in suburban America in the ’90s, chances are your social life revolved around the mall. It’s no secret that the relevancy of this American tradition has plummeted with the rise of e-commerce, but the question still remains: What will happen to the vacant shells that previously housed America’s most beloved stores? Of the 7 billion square feet of real estate dedicated to American shopping centers, a significant percentage — particularly stores carrying food and household products — will continue to operate without much change, at least in the next 10 years. Another percentage will likely be repurposed into office space and apartments, as has been done during previous economic downturns. To me, the most interesting part of this question is how space will be transformed to serve customers even better by complementing, not competing with, the online shopping experience. Here are four of the most promising possibilities that have emerged in the past year: 1. “Inventory light” stores Korea’s Tesco has reinvented grocery shopping by leveraging Korea’s 91 percent mobile broadband penetration, the highest in the world. Tesco has set up ” virtual grocery stores ” in metro stations by plastering walls with posters of supermarket shelves, stocked with “virtual goods.” Rather than physically purchasing a box of cereal, for example, a customer just needs to scan the QR code next to the image of the cereal to add it to her shopping list. Once she has finished shopping, she pays through her phone, and the groceries are delivered to her house the next day. Now, let’s apply this idea to the department store. In the past, department stores have bought and allocated products on a store-by-store basis. This process caused all types of inefficiencies, since demand for specific items and sizes is difficult to forecast on a store level. In the future, however, imagine this: Each store carries just 1 size of each item. Customers can try on pieces and, if they wish to make a purchase, can scan the item with their phone (or text the item’s code to a dedicated number). The customer pays online, and the item is delivered to the customer’s house the next day. This “inventory light” retail model reduces the need for storage space in the department store, which allows the store to allocate more space to displaying goods. Inventory management also improves, as the buying function is centralized and all items are stored in a central warehouse, available to fulfill demand from anywhere in the country. 2. Pop-ups The idea of pop-up stores — temporary stores that literally “pop up” and close down within a short period of time — have been growing in popularity since 2009. Pop-ups are useful for a number of reasons: to introduce a new product, to try out a particular location before committing to building a permanent store, to temporarily expand to meet increased demand during the holidays. What we saw in 2011, however, was that brands are increasingly looking at pop-up stores more as a discovery tool to drive brand awareness, rather than as an actual sales channel. For example, eBay launched physical shops this past holiday season in London, San Francisco, and New York, where customers could browse physical products and purchase those products on their phones. The goal? To remind shoppers that eBay also sells new products; the pop-ups were in line with eBay’s “Buy It New” marketing campaign. 3. Delivery hubs Amazon recently launched “Amazon Lockers,” self-service locations where you can have your Amazon goods delivered for pick-up at your convenience. The program is being marketed as a convenient alternative for customers who can’t receive packages at their homes; my guess, however, is that Amazon is testing this bulk-shipping method that could potentially be much more cost effective than shipping individual orders to customers’ homes. Currently, Amazon Lockers are primarily located in convenience stores; but, if and when the program expands (or when other retailers decide to follow suit), vacant mall space may be the perfect location for these delivery hubs. For clothing retailers, in particular, this idea of a “delivery hub” could potentially be expanded to serve as fitting rooms and exchange/return hubs. A customer, for example, could visit a hub to pick up her online order and try on the items. If she needed to return or exchange an item, she could do so at that location by placing the item in a bin, which would aggregate returned items and be shipped back to the warehouse once per week. 4. Retail experiences Brands are quickly realizing that amazing in-store experiences, particularly those that can’t be replicated online, are a recipe for success. The best example is probably Apple, whose 326 stores attract more visitors in a single quarter than Walt Disney’s four biggest theme parks attract in a full year. From the Genius Bar, which offers on-hand technical help, to the complimentary iPhone training sessions, Apple stores have become a destination for customers to fully experience the Apple brand. Similarly, yoga lifestyle brand Lululemon offers free in-store yoga classes, which allow customers to test out yoga mats, mingle with other yogis, and truly understand what the Lululemon lifestyle is all about. Even uber-luxury players are paying attention: Louis Vuitton has rolled out a number of luxury emporiums , complete with art collections, one-of-a-kind vintage pieces, and “handbag bars,” where shoppers can customize their bags from the comfort of a bar stool. Vivian Weng is the co-founder of FashionStake, a venture-backed online marketplace for independent fashion. She is a recent graduate of Harvard Business School.

Read the full article →

Commentary: Was Chrysler’s Super Bowl Ad Pro-Obama?

February 6, 2012

For the second straight year in the Super Bowl, Chrysler took a big chance, spending millions of dollars to advertise a message that doesn’t have a lot to do with selling cars, but rather an idea, or ideal, and a message about the city of Detroit.

Read the full article →

Gun Seller: If Komen Won’t Take Our Donation, We’ll Give It To American Cancer Society

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — A gun seller thrust into the spotlight last week over its alleged ties to the Susan G. Komen Foundation is launching another production run of its pink “Hope” handgun and donating proceeds to a different cancer organization. Discount Gun Sales released an open letter on Monday clarifying that it never had a business partnership with Komen, which also vehemently denied such a partnership last week in the face of reports that said otherwise. The two have had a loose relationship, but nothing formal, said the gun seller. “In a statement to the press, Komen’s spokesperson explained that the foundation does not have partnerships with companies in the firearms industry,” the letter stated. “Discount Gun Sales and Komen are ‘teammates’ only in the sense that we support cancer research. We apologize to our customers and the Susan G. Komen Foundation for any confusion.” That doesn’t mean Discount Gun Sales never donated any money to Komen, however. And if it did, it won’t be doing it anymore. “We respect Komen’s decision to disassociate itself from the firearms industry, and we will instead donate the proceeds from our P-22 ‘Hope Edition’ to the American Cancer Society,” the letter said. “We have decided to produce a limited run of 250 units using the latest revision of the Walther P-22, the ‘Q Edition.’ The pistols will sell for $449.99, and Discount Gun Sales will donate $50 to the American Cancer Society for every one that is sold.” A Komen spokeswoman didn’t seem to have any hard feelings. “Like so many companies, Discount Gun’s owners and employees are hoping to end a terrible disease, and we’re thankful for their support of cancer causes,” said Komen communications director Andrea Rader. Andrew Becker, director of media relations for the American Cancer Society, said he had no comment on Discount Gun Sales’ plan since since he hadn’t even heard about it. “We have no knowledge of this announcement, and we have not been contacted by this company,” he said. It remains unclear whether Komen ever received donations tied to sales of the “Hope” handgun. Discount Gun Sales at least originally planned to donate proceeds from sales of the gun “to a charity that people would recognize, and Susan G. Komen is very well known in the Seattle area as a result of their ‘Race for the Cure,’” according to the letter. A source at Discount Gun Sales, who requested anonymity, told The Huffington Post that the company did donate proceeds from sales of the “Hope” gun to the Seattle affiliate of Komen a couple of years ago. “Yeah, yes, we cut them a check,” said the source, who said the company had donated a portion of the sales of 25 to 35 of those handguns, which were priced at $429.99 apiece. But representatives for Komen’s Seattle chapter and national headquarters say they have no record of any donation from Discount Gun Sales. “We checked our records again, and I can categorically state that the Puget Sound affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure has never received a donation from Discount Gun Sales,” said spokesman Jim Clune. A customer service representative at Discount Gun Sales headquarters said Monday that no one was readily available to discuss providing a copy of the alleged check made out to Komen. Komen, the largest breast cancer charity in the nation, made waves last week for cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood, before ultimately reversing course on Friday and stating that the family-planning organization will remain eligible for grants. Emails later proved that Karen Handel, Komen’s staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make the decision look nonpolitical. The publicity surrounding Komen and the pink handgun has been a boon to Discount Gun Sales. An employee at one of the gun retailer’s stores in Seattle, who requested anonymity, said Saturday that he had been swamped with calls from people interested in the gun and had been collecting names in the event that Discount Gun Sales decided to make more of them. By Monday, the company announced it was launching a second production run after a gunsmith who survived Stage IV cancer read about the Komen dust-up and proposed making a new edition of the gun. Update : 4:50 p.m. — This story has been updated to reflect a response from the American Cancer Society.

Read the full article →

Amanda Feinberg: From EA to Anywhere: How to Get Promoted From Assistant-Level

February 6, 2012

We all dream of snagging a glamorous, high-paying job right out of college — not necessarily answering phones or scheduling meetings all day. But many of us do start our careers at the assistant-level, and if you think it’s a job that’s going nowhere, think again. I’ve found that starting your career as an executive assistant can be a great way to make connections, gain experience, and get promoted. All it takes is a little time, hard work, and willingness to step out of the box. Here’s how to make the most of your job as an assistant — and use it to get wherever it is you really want to be. See the Bigger Picture Your position as an assistant allows you to see an industry and a company at a higher level than many people in entry-level jobs get to. Use this to your advantage: Treat everything that comes across your desk as a learning experience. Take time to thoughtfully read the reports, projects, and memos that you handle. When you work with people from different departments, ask questions about what they do and what they’re working on. Think about career paths within the company you’d be interested in, and use your role to find out as much about them as you can. Be the Girl Everyone Wants to Know Depending on who you’re supporting, the exposure you get to people, places, and knowledge can be tremendous, and you can quickly become the person to know in the office. You have the authority to schedule meetings and make exceptions. You ultimately are the one who decides who gets face-time with the boss and who can wait in line. Use your power as the gatekeeper wisely. If you’re the reliable, responsive, and competent assistant everyone wishes they had, others will want to know you (or even poach you!). The more good contacts you can make, the better off you’ll be when you want to look for that next step. Prove Your Worth Chances are, your role will require you to frequently interact with a variety of people. Leverage this and offer to take on tasks outside your role to test the waters on different aspects of the industry or company. Ask to help with a project in an area that’s understaffed or to take the lead on a task no one else is keen on. Use your exposure to other teams as a key opportunity to augment your resume and to show your current boss and potential employers what you’re capable of. Become a Trusted Confidante Bottom line: Be the best employee you can be to your boss. You will likely be trusted with confidential projects or information — don’t betray that trust. Also, your role may occasionally blur the line between personal and professional — for example, selecting gifts for a spouse or family member, or helping out with a personal real estate acquisition. But instead of getting frustrated, look at it as an opportunity to become close with your boss — an opportunity that most people won’t get. If you think your boss is taking advantage and using you more as a personal assistant, then by all means, sound the alarm. But, start with the mentality that no task is too small or too big, and you’ll be seen as a team player. Working as an executive assistant can get you unique exposure to an industry and can be a great way to help set your career in motion. Think broadly, learn as much as you can, and establish a good relationship with your boss. The experience you gain can catapult you toward your dream job — or one you hadn’t even known about. This post was originally featured on The Daily Muse .

Read the full article →

William K. Black: A "Capitalist Tool’s" Defense of Apple Morphs into an Anti-Obama Screed

February 6, 2012

Forbes’ (which bills itself as the “Capitalist Tool”) publisher, Rich Karlgaard, writing in the Wall Street Journal , defends Apple’s creation of a criminogenic environment that produces endemic anti-employee control fraud by its suppliers and unlawful and brutal working conditions that Apple refuses to stop. How does a defense of Apple’s suppliers driving their workers to suicide end up attacking Obama? Here’s Karlgaard’s clumsy but brazen effort. He relies on the January 21, 2012 New York Times article, which recounts Obama’s February 2011 dinner meeting with Steve Jobs and other executives. This is Karlgaard’s version of the conversation between Obama and Jobs as reported by the New York Times. It turns out Apple employs 40,000 workers in the U.S. but has 700,000 workers in China. Last year President Obama asked Mr. Jobs why that was so. “Those jobs are never coming back,” Mr. Jobs reportedly said, then turned the heat back on Mr. Obama’s anti-business policies. Sadly, Mr. Cook [Jobs' successor] is not allowed to display this kind of cheek, even if his sweet soul wanted to. Except that this is not what happened. Here is what the actual article reported about the exchanges between Jobs and Obama (and other executives). Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas. Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked. Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest. [Much later in the article.] At dinner, for instance, the executives had suggested that the government should reform visa programs to help companies hire foreign engineers. Some had urged the president to give companies a “tax holiday” so they could bring back overseas profits which, they argued, would be used to create work. Mr. Jobs even suggested it might be possible, someday, to locate some of Apple’s skilled manufacturing in the United States if the government helped train more American engineers. First, Obama did not ask why Apple did not employ American suppliers and American workers. He asked the right, constructive question: how can we reverse that situation. Jobs responded that it hopeless. American suppliers could not compete with Asian suppliers. Obama was the “can do” guy seeking information from an expert. Jobs was the counsel of hopelessness. Note a subtle matter, if Karlgaard was accurate about his second point — that Jobs negative response was based on “Mr. Obama’s anti-business policies” — then Apple’s failure to hire American suppliers would not have been a hopeless situation. Obama would simply have to reverse his (purported) “anti-business policies” and all (or at least much) would have been well. Second, Jobs did not respond to Obama’s question about how to help get Apple find it desirable to hire American suppliers by “turn[ing] the heat back on Mr. Obama’s anti-business policies.” Jobs was not “cheek[y]” to President Obama. His response was that it was hopeless. Karlgaard indulges in a personal fantasy that demonstrates how small a person he is. He would love to be rude to the President of the United States by showing him a great deal of “cheek.” Jobs did not share Karlgaard’s pathetic fantasy. Third, the executives did not criticize or ask for an end to “Obama’s anti-business policies.” Here again are the policy changes they suggested. [T]he executives had suggested that the government should reform visa programs to help companies hire foreign engineers. Some had urged the president to give companies a “tax holiday” so they could bring back overseas profits which, they argued, would be used to create work. Mr. Jobs even suggested it might be possible, someday, to locate some of Apple’s skilled manufacturing in the United States if the government helped train more American engineers. The executives did not complain about any “anti-business policies” or ascribe such policies to Obama. They made three suggestions: increased visa quotas allowing foreign engineers to work in the U.S., a “tax holiday” on repatriating overseas profits, and increased government subsidies to “train more American engineers.” Our visa policy favors admitting engineers and students who wish to study engineering. The H-1B visa program primarily admits engineers and scientists. The H-1B visa quota was expanded greatly under President Clinton to the point (in 2000) that not all H-1B visas were used. In 2004, President Bush and a Congress controlled by Republicans allowed Clinton’s increased quotas to expire, which substantially reduced the H-1B visas. Taxing corporations is not an “anti-business” policy, and all modern presidents have taxed corporations. A “tax holiday” is an extraordinary subsidy to corporations that already pay an exceptionally low effective income tax rate. Increased government support for training U.S. engineers was the third suggestion. Once more, Jobs was not criticizing an “anti-business” policy, much less “Obama’s anti-business policies.” The government already subsidizes the training of U.S. engineers. The federal and state governments have numerous specialized programs supporting the training of engineers and scientists. Jobs wanted larger governmental subsidies for training engineers. Obama has proposed larger governmental subsidies for training engineers. Obama warned that the Great Recession would devastate state and local finances. States used to provide the great bulk of the funds for public universities, which train most of our engineers. Obama proposed to avoid the devastation of state finances by providing a large revenue sharing component to the stimulus bill. Revenue sharing provides the states with unrestricted funding that they can use to protect their priorities (e.g., educating more engineers) from cutbacks. Revenue sharing was a concept developed originally by Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans and “blue dog” (conservative) Democrats announced their opposition to the funds for revenue sharing. Even more unfortunately, Obama caved to their demands rather than risk their threat to kill the entire stimulus bill. If any party is an obstacle to greater federal and state spending to train American engineers it is the Republican Party. President Obama is a strong proponent of increased federal and state spending to train engineers and scientists.

Read the full article →

Radcliffe: The Rich Should Subsidize Poorer People ‘Who Work Just As Hard’

February 6, 2012

Daniel Radcliffe has already defeated Voldemort. Now he’s moving on to the tax rates of one percenters like himself. The actor, best known for his starring role as Harry Potter and worth an estimated $47,448,000, said he’s dropping his support for the U.K.’s Liberal Democratic party in large part because of their stance on taxes , according to an interview with Attitude Magazine slated to be published this week, cited by the Guardian . “I think, if you make a lot more money than most people — like I do — you should pay more tax and subsidise people who work just as hard as you, but don’t earn as much,” Radcliffe said . Radcliffe joins some of his super-wealthy counterparts in the U.S. who are advocating for a tax boost on the wealthy, an issue that has become central to the presidential campaign. Warren Buffett first highlighted the issue in an August op-ed in The New York Times , where he argued that the super-rich should be taxed at a rate that is at least the same or higher as that of the middle class. Buffett’s proposal inspired President Obama to create the “Buffett Rule” and touted it as part of his American Jobs Act, as well as during his State of the Union address last month. Meanwhile, Republican front runner Mitt Romney fueled the debate over taxing the wealthy, when he revealed his 2010 tax returns after mounting pressure from opponents. Though Romney and his wife make hundreds of millions combined, they paid a tax rate that is the same as that of many middle class households. Many prominent super-rich Americans are taking up Buffett’s cause and arguing that tax breaks for the wealthy are unfair. Comedian Chris Rock said in an interview earlier this month that he’d be willing to pay higher taxes , while billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said late last year that he’s “generally in favor of the idea that the rich should pay somewhat more” in taxes than everyone else. Other notable people to support higher taxes for the rich include former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the American people themselves. More than half of Americans say capital gains — or profits from investments and property — should be taxed at the same rate as work , according to a recent CBS/ NYT poll. The wealthy typically benefit most from capital gains.

Read the full article →

Records Complicate Newt’s Lobbyist Denial

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says his consulting group never lobbied for clients. But his business hired state and federal lobbyists to work with clients, and some staff left to take lobbying jobs, according to lobbying disclosures and corporate reports. Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation hired a former Georgia lobbyist to help develop business in that state; a former Missouri state agency director who was a registered lobbyist before joining Gingrich’s group; and a Washington lobbyist hired from a firm led by former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, a Gingrich supporter. Gingrich’s center also paved the way for some employees to leave for lobbying jobs, turning their experience with his group into a selling point for clients. One former vice president started his own Washington lobbying firm, attracting clients also represented by Gingrich’s organization. Two other center employees left to manage Washington lobbying operations for trade associations. Gingrich’s consulting business has been the focus of claims by Republican rival Mitt Romney, who paints the former House speaker as a Washington insider who peddled the influence he acquired in Congress to hundreds of corporate clients after he left the House in 1999. Gingrich stressed that he was not lobbying when he created his business and rented space along Washington’s K Street corridor known for its high-dollar lobbying firms. And he’s criticized Romney in the campaign for characterizing him as a lobbyist. The center’s website notes “we do no lobbying for clients” and says the staff hired constitutes “a team of experts in strategic thinking, policy, planning, research, coalition building, training, writing, communications and analysis.” Avoiding the label of Washington lobbyist is a common practice, made even more popular after President Barack Obama vowed to distance his administration from them. The result was a drop in the number of actual registered lobbyists. In Washington, the legal definition of a lobbyist requires certain narrow criteria to be met, including being paid by a client to spend at least 20 percent of the time attempting to influence “the formulation, modification or adoption of federal legislation.” But that leaves out a lot of activity that would fall under a common-sense description of “lobbyist.” Gingrich last year cut ties to his Center for Health Transformation and the Gingrich Group, although he’s still owed between $5 million and $25 million for his share of the business, his financial disclosures show. His group created the center in 2003 to focus on health-related initiatives like improved health care technology, Medicare changes and Obama’s health care overhaul. The center won’t identify its clients, citing confidentiality concerns. The Gingrich Group and the center have acknowledged generating $55 million between 2001 and 2010, serving more than 300 companies and organizations, including $1.65 million from the government-supported mortgage company Freddie Mac. The Associated Press has identified more than 200 companies and associations that paid Gingrich’s group about $42 million since 2003, according to lists of clients and client fees the group posted in the past on its website. Two dozen of the nation’s largest health care companies and businesses with major health-related costs paid Gingrich’s group nearly $21 million during the period, or almost half of the $42 million in client fees identified by the AP. They included pharmaceutical companies like Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline; insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health Group and WellPoint Inc.; hospital networks like Sutter Health and Cancer Treatment Centers of America; medical equipment manufacturers like GE Healthcare and Siemens; health benefit manager MedImpact; and other businesses like Gallup Organization, UPS, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. Six of the major health care companies and Booz Allen Hamilton, a large Washington government contracting and consulting firm, paid more than $1 million each to Gingrich’s group since 2003. Seventeen others paid more than $500,000 each over the period, according to their membership levels identified by the center and the center’s listed annual membership costs. Most of the 24 companies paid the top annual fee of $200,000, which provided the most access to Gingrich through private telephone conference calls, personal appearances, and regular updates and opinions that he offered members on national health issues and legislation. Gingrich’s 2010 tax return shows he earned $2.4 million of his total $3.1 million in income from his various businesses, but he’s declined to show how much of that income came from clients at the Center for Health Transformation and the Gingrich Group. Gingrich was the major draw for businesses paying his center. The Missouri Hospital Association paid $20,000 in 2007, but the money wasn’t for a particular project or purpose, said David Dillon, an association vice president. “When you have the Center for Health Transformation in the biggest city in your state, you want to be engaged,” he said. The Indiana Health Care Association paid $70,000 in 2008 to become a client of Gingrich’s group, which offered regular newsletters, website access, position papers and staff contacts. “The only benefit that we were aware of is that we were able to have Mr. Gingrich as a speaker at our convention,” said Kate Vaulter, an association spokeswoman. Booz Allen Hamilton paid Gingrich’s center to help sponsor health-related events, where Booz Allen consultants spoke and offered position papers on issues, spokesman James Fisher said. Gingrich didn’t work alone. He hired others, including lobbyists, to help serve the clients and develop state projects that Gingrich would later promote as model programs. Robert Egge worked as a Washington lobbyist for J.C. Watts Companies, focusing on Medicare in 2005 before joining Gingrich’s firm as a project director in March of that year. At the center, Egge “worked extensively with the Congress, executive branch and state governments on key policy initiatives related to Alzheimer’s disease, as well as cancer, diabetes and long-term care,” according to a bio produced after he joined the Alzheimer’s Association, where he now works as vice president in the Washington public affairs office. The association became a client of Gingrich’s group in 2010. Wayne Oliver left his chief lobbyist job in 2006 with the Georgia Pharmacy Association, where he worked for 19 years, to join Gingrich’s group. He’s a vice president at the center now working on pharmacy issues and promoting changes at the Food and Drug Administration. But he also has worked on the center’s Georgia Project, one of the state-based initiatives Gingrich’s organization started to promote health care improvements and increased technology. Julie Eckstein led Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services, a cabinet position that required her to register as a state lobbyist before she joined Gingrich’s group in 2007. She worked as a vice president at the Center for Health Transformation, overseeing state projects, including an office in Missouri that she helped create. She left last year to become managing director of health care services at St. Louis-based Guidon Peformance Solutions, another Gingrich group client. Jim Frogue turned nearly six years working at Gingrich’s firm into a new Washington lobbying business. Frogue, who served as a congressional legislative director for two House members before going to work with Gingrich, left the firm in late 2010 to start his own lobbying business, FrogueClark. His Washington office is in the same K Street building as the Center for Health Transformation. Some of Frogue’s first lobbying clients were health care reimbursement company Qmedtrix Systems and pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, who also were clients of Gingrich’s group. Frogue said he wasn’t aware of anyone who lobbied before or during their time at Gingrich’s center. “As far as I know, nobody was lobbying,” Frogue said in a telephone interview while campaigning for Gingrich last week. He joined a number of other Washington lobbyists in December for a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for Gingrich’s campaign. Jill Randolph left her job with Gingrich’s group in 2007 to run Washington lobbying efforts for the American Benefits Council and to manage the political action committee for the trade association representing employee benefit programs. Randolph, a project director at Gingrich’s firm, was hired by the American Benefits Council to “draw upon her extensive legislative experience,” according to the 2007 news release announcing her hiring. ___ Associated Press writer Ray Henry in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Olive Garden Owner Targeted In Race Discrimination Suit

February 6, 2012

Last week, Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC), an advocacy group dedicated to equality for restaurant workers, filed a federal employee discrimination suit against Darden Restaurants , the Orlando-based owners of Olive Garden, Red Lobster and five other full service dining chains. ROC claims that Darden systematically favors white workers over minorities at its Capital Grille chain of steakhouses and is seeking compensation for what it is calling an illegal system of discrimination. ROC specifically alleges that minority workers at the Capital Grilles in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. are shunted away from front-of-house jobs like waiters and hosts and towards lower-paying jobs in the kitchen. The suit also claims that many workers have been forced to work without pay and that tips were distributed to workers in positions ineligible for tipping. The advocacy group has also organized protests outside Capital Grille locations to support its cause, part of what it is calling the ” Dignity at Darden ” campaign. Sandra Pelicini of the Orlando Sentinel argued that Darden is an unlikely target for a racial discrimination suit . Its CEO, she notes, is black, and the company has a well-established history of promoting minority workers to managerial positions. Moreover, some have problems with the ROC’s methods. Its best-known case was a highly public suit against B&B Hospitality, Mario Batali and Joe Bastianach’s group of New York restaurants. Batali secured a restraining order against the ROC after its protestors became a serious nuisance . Of course, reputation only gets you so far — if the ROC can prove that Capital Grille acted improperly, it could win the case. Not that Darden seems all that worried. Representatives from the company, contacted by Crain’s New York , described the ROC’s allegations as ” baseless .”

Read the full article →