nation

menafn.com…

(MENAFN) A report, issued by Japan’s Cabinet Office, showed that the nation’s core machinery orders jumped 14.8 percent in November from compared to October, KUNA reported. According to the …

More:
Japan’s machinery orders jump 14.8% in November

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

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

Chicago Hard Money Lenders Can Finance Your Real Estate Projects …

June 4, 2011

1 final reason for that elevated recognition of tough funds lenders Chicago as well as other areas of the nation are in what's referred to as a real estate slump. Sellers are possessing difficulty obtaining buyers. …

Read the full article →

ECG Management Consultants, Inc. Welcomes Mr. Robert S. Fries to Its Academic Healthcare Practice

June 2, 2011

BOSTON, MA–(Marketwire – Jun 2, 2011) – ECG Management Consultants, Inc., one of the nation’s premier healthcare management consulting firms, welcomes Mr. Robert S. Fries back to ECG as a Senior Manager within the company’s Academic Healthcare practice . The addition of Mr. Fries, who is based in Colorado, further strengthens ECG’s expertise in guiding leadership across academic medicine, health systems, and physician groups through the complexities of the tripartite mission.

Read the full article →

Federal Tax Rate At Lowest Level In Over 60 Years, Bartlett Says

May 31, 2011

Hearing some politicians talk about taxes, one might be convinced the United States has one of the highest tax rates in the world. But the reality is the federal tax rate, broadly measured, is the lowest it has been in 60 years, Bruce Bartlett writes in a new column. A look at the effective tax rate, which expresses taxes as a share of the country’s economic output, belies the stream of political rhetoric arguing that taxes are relatively high, says Bartlett, who was a senior policy analyst under President Ronald Reagan. Federal taxes will be 14.8 percent of the nation’s economic output this year, according to a recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office . That’s compared to a postwar annual average rate of 18.5 percent, Bartlett notes. With the nation’s gross domestic product at about $15 trillion, that low effective rate means the federal government is missing out on hundreds of billions of dollars every year. “Revenues have been at a historically low level for three years now, so we’ve probably left a trillion dollars on the table,” Bartlett said in an interview with The Huffington Post. He added that the most recent year when the federal government took less from the economy was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget. There’s no evidence, he said, that lowering taxes further would help stimulate the economy. The effective federal tax rate is “low by that historical standard, and it’s rarely been as low,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said in an interview. “It’s very hard to understand where the impression has come about that we currently have high taxes, or that our taxes are high in relation to those of other rich countries,” said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and a current fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washington. “These are low tax rates that we’re currently facing, in relationship to our incomes, in relationship to the size of the national economy.” The low effective rate, Zandi said, is the result both of the weak economy and recent tax cuts. While Americans suffering in the wake of the recession might feel heavily taxed, the federal government takes a relatively small portion of the country’s income. For American corporations, the tax situation could hardly be sweeter. Measured as a share of economic output, the U.S. enjoys the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Bartlett notes in his column. And yet, politicians and pundits insist that Americans are overtaxed. One way to do so is to use the statutory tax rate. That’s the number that lawmakers discuss when debating tax cut legislation, and it can be made to seem even bigger if combined with state and local statutory tax rates. But the more relevant measure, economists say, is the effective rate, since it takes the country’s income into account. Here’s Bartlett: The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains. Read the rest of the column here .

Read the full article →

Video: Chinese Go Under the Knife Seeking a `Prosperous Nose’: Video

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Rosalind Chin reports from Shenzhen, China, on rising demand for plastic surgery in the country. The popularity of cosmetic surgery underlines how much China has changed since 1979, when former leader Deng Xiaoping ditched predecessor Mao Zedong’s hard-line communism, opened the nation’s doors to the world and introduced pro-market policies. Then, most Chinese struggled for conformity rather than beauty. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Gasser Elected to Battelle’s Board of Directors

May 25, 2011

COLUMBUS, OH–(Marketwire – May 25, 2011) – Battelle , the world’s leading independent scientific research and technology development organization, today announced the election of an experienced global business executive to its Board of Directors. Effective immediately, Michael Gasser of Greif, Inc . ( NYSE : GEF ) ( NYSE : GEF.B ) joins some of the nation’s foremost business, military and scientific leaders serving on Battelle’s Board.

Read the full article →

Japan merchandise trade balance deficit confirms the nation into recession

May 25, 2011

Japan merchandise trade balance deficit confirms the nation into recession

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Note to Boeing’s Jim McNerney: All We Are Saying Is Give the Truth — and Your Union — a Chance

May 24, 2011

Back in 1969, John Lennon famously wrote, ” All we are saying is give peace a chance .” Well, here in May 2011, while labor peace is not always at hand, maybe we can at least give labor truth a chance. Unfortunately, telling the truth seems to be increasingly difficult for the CEOs of our multinational corporations when talking about “Making It In America” and saving and creating American jobs. And Exhibit A right now is Jim McNerney, who is the Chairman, President and CEO of the Boeing Company. The reason I am picking on Mr. McNerney is that he is defending Boeing’s decision to retaliate against its union workforce in Everett, Washington, by moving thousands of jobs to a non-union location in South Carolina, with statements that are among the most misleading and disingenuous by a major American CEO ever. And I’ve been around long enough to have heard a lot of statements by a lot of big company CEOs. Compounding my dismay with Mr. McNerney is that he also happens to currently hold a very senior economic advisory position in the Obama administration as head of the President’s “Export Council.” He holds this position of crucial influence despite the fact that for years he’s been exporting thousands of his American manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. The facts of this dispute are pretty simple. As reported by Hal Weitzman and Jeremy Lemer in the Financial Times , ” nineteen [Republican] Senators are threatening to block President Barack Obama’s two appointments to the National Labor Relations Board…after the organisation filed a complaint last month against Boeing that seeks to force the manufacturer to transfer 787 production from the non-union factory in South Carolina to its unionised facilities in the Seattle region .” The NLRB believes that Boeing selected South Carolina — a right-to-work state — purely in retaliation for a strike in 2008 at the Everett facility. To attack the NLRB’s conclusion, Mr. McNerney, in a preferentially placed op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , said the following (the underscoring is mine): ” We viewed Everett as an attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks with union officials to see if we could make the business case work. Among the considerations we sought were a long-term ‘no-strike clause’. “Despite months of effort…union leaders couldn’t meet expectations on our key issues. “We hold no animus toward union members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees are represented by unions – a ratio unchanged since 2003 .” Now, for the truth: The most important right any union has is the right to strike. Without this right, what real opportunity does it have to ensure fair and balanced treatment for workers? Thus it is at once irresponsible for McNerney to make this unreasonable demand and disingenuous for him to then say that union leaders couldn’t meet his ” expectations on key issues .” As Christopher Corson, General Counsel of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, wrote on May 9, “In every state in our nation, the law provides important protections for individual workers when they act together to improve their work lives for themselves and their families…If retaliation were permitted, there would be no protection.” McNerney says that ” Boeing never sought to threaten or punish [workers] for exercising their rights.” Yet the NLRB based its finding on the very specific comment by Boeing executives that ” avoiding strikes was a central reason for the decision .” Yes, ” 40% of Boeing’s [overall] U.S. employees ” today may be ” represented by unions “, and yes, this ratio may be “unchanged since 2003.” However, in the late ’60s when I was in college in Seattle and working nights as a Sheetmetal Workers journeyman, the number of Machinists and other union members working for Boeing in the greater Seattle-Everett area was around 22,000, and by the year 2000 it was around 50,000. Now just a decade later, with McNerney as CEO for the last five years, the number of union members at Boeing in the Pacific Northwest has shrunk to around 35,000, with at least 20,000 of these jobs having moved to China. In just 15 years or so, using an initiative benignly called “systems integration mode of production” which entails providing foreign suppliers and overseas subsidiaries with massive amounts of business knowledge, management practices, training and other intangible exports, Boeing has gone from producing nearly 100% of its commercial aircraft and parts in America to today producing only a small fraction of that work here. The workhorse 727 airframe, launched in 1963, had just a 2% foreign content; the 777 airframe, launched in 1995, has about 30% foreign content; the new 787 Dreamliner, officially launching this year, will have nearly 70% of its manufacturing content coming from foreign sources, with workers in Everett accounting for only about 4% of each aircraft’s value. This massive transfer by Boeing, and by almost every other American corporation committed to offshoring, of intellectual property that took decades to develop with internal investment and support from government-funded research laboratories will, with its massive ripple effects throughout our economy, ultimately be an even bigger ‘drain’ on America than even the direct offshoring of millions of American jobs over the last 15 years. Jim McNerney’s very public and cynical efforts, however, are just another egregious example of the broad opportunism that many American multinational corporation CEOs have embraced in their continuing efforts to offshore American jobs, cut the wages and benefits of the American workers whose jobs are not being shipped overseas, and, whenever they can, BUST UNIONS. As reported by David Wessel ( Wall Street Journal , 4-19-11), ” U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization’s effect on the U.S. economy. ” According to the Commerce Department, these companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the last decade while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, which is a big shift from the ’90s when they added 4.4 million jobs in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad. In just the year 2009, they cut 1.2 million, or 5.3%, of their workers in the U.S. but only 100,000, or 1.5%, of their workers abroad. Three highlights: Between 2005 and 2010, General Electric, the nation’s largest industrial conglomerate and #6 on the Fortune 500 list, cut 28,000 workers in the U.S. but only 1,000 workers overseas. This notwithstanding that GE’s Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, now heads President Obama’s “Council on Jobs and Competitiveness”, which is supposed to help create jobs in the United States and not ship them overseas. Cisco Systems Inc., the Fortune #62 company that makes networking gear, has also been creating jobs much more rapidly overseas. Over the past five years, it has added 21,350 employees overseas, but only 10,900 in the U.S. At the beginning of the last decade, 26% of Cisco’s work force was overseas; today, around 46% is. Oracle, the Fortune #96 company that makes business hardware and software, added twice as many workers overseas over the past five years as in the U.S. At the beginning of the last decade, it, like Cisco, had many more workers at home than abroad; today, however, around 63% of its employees are located overseas. McNerney and his fellow CEOs tout many global ‘differentials’ as the reasons why they’ve been economically ‘downgrading’ some jobs (with moves to South Carolina and other right-to-work states) and offshoring others (to China and elsewhere). Wessel further wrote that American multinationals repeatedly say in justification that it is the ” combination of the U.S. tax code, the declining state of U.S. infrastructure, the quality of the country’s education system, and barriers to the immigration of skilled workers [that is] making the U.S. less attractive to multinationals. ” Yet it is these very multinationals which every day support and maintain these differentials by: Fighting to preserve the corporate tax practices that favor overseas earnings and employees (read ” The Tax Man Cometh – Just Not For Everybody “); Resisting efforts to couple government infrastructure investments with ‘Made in America’ requirements that are no more demanding than every other member of the G-20 has for its own infrastructure investing; Fighting the adoption of our own Manufacturing & Industrial Policy, which we need in order to compete with the mercantilist practices of our major trading partners, often by blaming the relatively poor state of American public school education, which, while of grave concern, has absolutely no correlation; and Manipulating our immigration practices so that these companies can continue to hire employees from India, Taiwan and China at the expense of qualified American job seekers. At the end of the day, as I noted earlier, what’s really going on here is a massive, nation-wide attempt to bust unions in order to further enrich our nation’s multinational corporations. Yet this is happening at precisely the point in time when the United States needs millions more, not millions fewer, union jobs in order to stabilize our middle class. For our country to be ascendant again, American workers everywhere — at Boeing and hundreds of other major corporations — must be treated as the highly skilled, enormously productive and wealth-producing ‘assets’ they are. We need more union-made quality goods to sell abroad and many more union paychecks producing fair incomes here at home if we are to grow ourselves out of the dismal ongoing jobless recovery we are experiencing. Expanding union membership will be one of the surest signposts on the road back to a vibrant, consuming middle class, more income equality, and fairness in employment. And when we have all of this again, along with fairer trade practices, our nation will prosper as it did for the half century before unfair globalization and union-busting practices began to run amok twenty or so years ago. In all of our manufacturing industries — not just in aircraft manufacturing — we must ensure that American workers compete on level-playing fields. Right now, however, our workers are forced to compete against foreign workers, many of whom work for American multinational corporations, who are the indirect beneficiaries of illegal subsidies, massive currency manipulation and shameful environmental practices that swamp any measure of true country ‘comparative advantage’. All the while here at home, with very limited mobility in general but especially in this distressed economy, workers must confront the enormous power that multinational corporations’ almost unlimited geographic, capital and technology mobility gives them. The members of America’s unions are skilled, resilient and tenacious. They did not win the 40-hour work week, benefits and safer working conditions in one fell swoop. These integral pathways and others to the middle class lifestyle — a lifestyle that is now being challenged in so many of our cities and towns — were hammered out over years of negotiations with very powerful corporations. And sometimes these women and men had to strike to ensure fair dealing. But in exchange for their skills, hard work and productivity, these unionized workers produce real wealth that’s been shared for generations across our entire economy and society. I can’t envision a day when unions don’t represent the best path to fair and balanced dealing between companies and workers, for without union voices workers have little or no say in their future. And no worker anywhere should have to work without organizing protections, which is why Jim McNerney’s and Boeing’s demand that Boeing workers now agree to ” a long-term no-strike clause ” is so obviously unfair. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Solis Women’s Healthcare Names James Polfreman President and CEO

May 24, 2011

ADDISON, TX–(Marketwire – May 23, 2011) – Solis Women’s Health, the nation’s largest independent provider of screening and diagnostics for breast cancer, is pleased to announce that James Polfreman has been appointed President and CEO.

Read the full article →

CHART: When Will Tax Cuts Become The Public Debt’s Biggest Problem?

May 20, 2011

If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation’s public debt — “the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses” — according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities . These tax breaks for the nation’s top earners, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP’s analysis shows. Even the cost of the economic downturn, combined with the cost of the legislation passed to stem the damage, won’t be as burdensome as the weight of the Bush-era tax cuts, the chart below suggests. See if you can find the debt associated with the Trouble Asset Relief Program and the rescue of Fannie and Freddie: Tax cuts for the highest earners were renewed late last year, as part of a deal that extended tax breaks for middle earners and reauthorized unemployment insurance. In an April speech , President Barack Obama laid out a plan to reduce the nation’s deficit and debt, suggesting that he would strive to make sure the Bush-era tax cuts expire naturally in 2012. If tax cuts do expire as scheduled, that would win significant debt relief for the government, CBPP says: [S]imply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade. While we’d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment.

Read the full article →

Video: Naguib Sawiris Calls U.S. Aid for Egypt `Disappointment’

May 20, 2011

May 20 (Bloobmerg) — Billionaire Naguib Sawiris, former chairman of Orascom Telecom Holding SAE and a founder of the Free Egyptians Party, talks about President Barack Obama’s promise of $2 billion in loan guarantees and debt forgiveness for Egypt. Sawiris, speaking with Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack,” also discusses the political environment in Egypt since the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak and the nation’s economic outlook. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Michael A. Siegel: A Decade Later "New Markets" Continues to Build Opportunity in an America Left Behind

May 18, 2011

The idea, in it’s purest form, was called “community capitalism” as think tanks along with many of the nation’s top economists began pushing a revolutionary idea that began to take hold in late 1990s — the solution for economic revival in impoverished America stretched beyond traditional anti-poverty programs. The answer, they maintained, to creating sustainable and measurable economic opportunity throughout these regions “left behind” rested in private investment. With national unemployment at 4% and the federal surplus continuing record gains, as America had all but erased it’s national debt, President Clinton signed the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act into law in December 2000 including a critical provision to help bring opportunity to severely distressed low-income urban, older suburban and rural communities which had failed to enjoy in the prosperity boom of the 1990s: The New Markets Tax Credit . Working closely with then-Speaker Dennis Hastert and GOP Senate leadership, the Clinton administration crafted this business-based solution designed to stimulate private economic growth in neglected regions throughout the nation. At the time of its introduction, the program marked a decidedly different and bold approach to helping “America’s forgotten neighborhoods” replacing models of the past that relied exclusively on federal grants with a commercially oriented plan to direct private dollars into areas where employment was scarce; investment non-existent. A decade later the innovation behind the “New Markets” public system/private sector approach has become a policy standard and continues to enjoy Republican and Democrat support based on its record of success as recently evidenced by the latest joint effort of Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) who urged Congress to renew the program last week introducing S996: a five year extension of the program. How it Works At its core, “New Markets” is designed to encourage private investments from corporations and individuals who might never consider buying into so-called “high-risk areas” of America where unemployment and poverty rates can soar by as much as twice the national average. As both Senators Rockefeller and Snowe have attested, the program is geared to provide much needed capital so that all qualifying locals — from urban to rural — can benefit, consequently improving the quality of life and building employment opportunities for people in these areas through lasting investments in local businesses. Administered by the Department of Treasury, investors receive a seven‐year, 39 percent federal tax credit for New Markets investments: a five percent credit in each of the first three years, six percent annually in the last four years. These investments are made to spur community and economic revitalization. The statute requires that investments be located in census tracts where the individual poverty rate is at least 20% or median income does not exceed 80%. Today, $50 billion of capital is flowing in under-served communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Yet unlike many other tax credit programs the “New Markets” program has required renewal during each session of Congress since its introduction. New Markets Success There are and will always remain those who will attempt to discredit the “New Markets” program by delving into what some call “the less than 2%” arena — pointing to a handful of projects out of some 3,000 which, while approved and in qualified areas, may not seem worthy of recognition. But taken on the whole, the “New Markets” program has made significant improvements in distressed communities throughout the country, creating opportunity and jobs while defraying costs to the taxpayer and federal government. In fact, The New Markets Tax Credit Coalition conducted an independent audit of the program as it reached its 10th Anniversary. Some of the key findings include: Between 2003 and 2009 the New Markets Tax Credit leveraged $8.00 in private investment for every $1.00 of cost to the government. Demand for funds far exceeds availability. To date, community enterprises have requested a total of202 billion in allocation authority since 2003, a demand of more than seven times the credit available. The vast majority of “New Markets” investments (89.5%, of the dollars invested) have been made in communities with at least one factor of higher economic distress than required by law (unemployment rates at least 1.5 times the national average, poverty rates greater than 30%, median income less than 60% of area median). And then there is this: According to the website for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act , the cost to taxpayers to create one job requires approximately $90,000 in federal dollars. In contrast, “New Markets” programs — fusing public incentives with private funds — have created nearly 500,000 jobs at a cost to the federal government of less than $12,000 per job. By any definition the New Markets program has exceeded expectations. Not only has it created a successful model of for-profit, business-driven expansion of investment, job creation and economic opportunities in distressed communities with government and the community partnerships playing key supportive roles — it has done so in tough times when private capital has been hard to find due to the credit crunch and slowing economy. Continuing this program is in the best interest of businesses, taxpayers and communities hit hard by recent economic conditions. Let’s hope Congress agrees.

Read the full article →

Confidential Federal Audits Accuse Five Biggest Mortgage Firms Of Defrauding Taxpayers

May 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — A set of confidential federal audits accuse the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans, four officials briefed on the findings told The Huffington Post. The five separate investigations were conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general and examined Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial, the sources said. The audits accuse the five major lenders of violating the False Claims Act, a Civil War-era law crafted as a weapon against firms that swindle the government. The audits were completed between February and March, the sources said. The internal watchdog office at HUD referred its findings to the Department of Justice, which must now decide whether to file charges. The federal audits mark the latest fallout from the national foreclosure crisis that followed the end of a long-running housing bubble. Amid reports last year that many large lenders improperly accelerated foreclosure proceedings by failing to amass required paperwork, the federal agencies launched their own probes. The resulting reports read like veritable indictments of major lenders, the sources said. State officials are now wielding the documents as leverage in their ongoing talks with mortgage companies aimed at forcing the firms to agree to pay fines to resolve allegations of routine violations in their handling of foreclosures. The audits conclude that the banks effectively cheated taxpayers by presenting the Federal Housing Administration with false claims: They filed for federal reimbursement on foreclosed homes that sold for less than the outstanding loan balance using defective and faulty documents. Two of the firms, including Bank of America, refused to cooperate with the investigations, according to the sources. The audit on Bank of America finds that the company — the nation’s largest handler of home loans — failed to correct faulty foreclosure practices even after imposing a moratorium that lifted last October. Back then, the bank said it was resuming foreclosures, having satisfied itself that prior problems had been solved. According to the sources, the Wells Fargo investigation concludes that senior managers at the firm, the fourth-largest American bank by assets, broke civil laws. HUD’s inspector general interviewed a pair of South Carolina public notaries who improperly signed off on foreclosure filings for Wells, the sources said. The investigations dovetail with separate probes by state and federal agencies, who also have examined foreclosure filings and flawed mortgage practices amid widespread reports that major mortgage firms improperly initiated foreclosure proceedings on an unknown number of American homeowners. The FHA, whose defaulted loans the inspector general probed, last May began scrutinizing whether mortgage firms properly treated troubled borrowers who fell behind on payments or whose homes were seized on loans insured by the agency. A unit of the Justice Department is examining faulty court filings in bankruptcy proceedings. Several states, including Illinois, are combing through foreclosure filings to gauge the extent of so-called “robo-signing” and other defective practices, including illegal home repossessions. Representatives of HUD and its inspector general declined to comment. The internal audits have armed state officials with a powerful new weapon as they seek to extract what they describe as punitive fines from lawbreaking mortgage companies. A coalition of attorneys general from all 50 states and state bank supervisors have joined HUD, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in talks with the five largest mortgage servicers to settle allegations of illegal foreclosures and other shoddy practices. Such processes “have potentially infected millions of foreclosures,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair told a Senate panel on Thursday. The five giant mortgage servicers, which collectively handle about three of every five home loans, offered during a contentious round of negotiations last Tuesday to pay $5 billion to set up a fund to help distressed borrowers and settle the allegations. That offer — also floated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in February — was deemed much too low by state and federal officials. Associate U.S. Attorney General Tom Perrelli, who has been leading the talks, last week threatened to show the banks the confidential audits so the firms knew the government side was not “playing around,” one official involved in the negotiations said. He ultimately did not follow through, persuaded that the reports ought to remain confidential, sources said. Through a spokeswoman, Perrelli declined to comment. Most of the targeted banks have not seen the audits, a federal official said, though they are generally aware of the findings. Some agencies involved in the talks are calling for the five banks to shell out as much as $30 billion, with even more costs to be incurred for improving their internal operations and modifying troubled borrowers’ home loans. But even that number would fall short of legitimate compensation for the bank’s harmful practices, reckons the nascent federal Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. By taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, the nation’s five largest mortgage firms have directly saved themselves more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the agency and obtained by The Huffington Post in March. Those pushing for a larger package of fines argue that the foreclosure crisis has spawned broader — and more costly — social ills, from the dislocation of American families to the continued plunge in home prices, effectively wiping out household savings. The Justice Department is now contemplating whether to use the HUD audits as a basis for civil and criminal enforcement actions, the sources said. The False Claims Act allows the government to recover damages worth three times the actual harm plus additional penalties. Justice officials will soon meet with the largest servicers and walk them through the allegations and potential liability each of them face, the sources said. Earlier this month, Justice cited findings from HUD investigations in a lawsuit it filed against Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world’s 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by “repeatedly” lying to FHA in securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages. In March, HUD’s inspector general found that more than 49 percent of loans underwritten by FHA-approved lenders in a sample did not conform to the agency’s requirements. Last October, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said his investigators found that numerous mortgage firms broke the agency’s rules when dealing with delinquent borrowers. He declined to be specific. The agency’s review later expanded to flawed foreclosure practices. FHA, a unit of HUD, could still take administrative action against those firms for breaking FHA rules based on its own probe. The confidential findings appear to bolster state and federal officials in their talks with the targeted banks. The knowledge that they may face False Claims Act suits, in addition to state actions based on a multitude of claims like fraud on local courts and consumer violations, will likely compel the banks to offer the government more money to resolve everything. But even that may not be enough. Attorneys general in numerous states, armed with what they portray as incontrovertible evidence of mass robo-signings from preliminary investigations, are probing mortgage practices more closely. The state of Illinois has begun examining potentially-fraudulent court filings, looking at the role played by a unit of Lender Processing Services. Nevada and Arizona already launched lawsuits against Bank of America. California is keen on launching its own suits, people familiar with the matter say. Delaware sent Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, a subpoena demanding answers to 75 questions. And New York’s top law enforcer, Eric Schneiderman, wants to conduct a complete investigation into all facets of mortgage banking, from fraudulent lending to defective securitization practices to faulty foreclosure documents and illegal home seizures. A review of about 2,800 loans that experienced foreclosure last year serviced by the nation’s 14 largest mortgage firms found that at least two of them illegally foreclosed on the homes of “almost 50″ active-duty military service members, a violation of federal law, according to a report this month from the Government Accountability Office. Those violations are likely only a small fraction of the number committed by home loan companies, experts say, citing the small sample examined by regulators. In an April report on flawed mortgage servicing practices, federal bank supervisors said they “could not provide a reliable estimate of the number of foreclosures that should not have proceeded.” The review of just 2,800 home loans in foreclosure compares with nearly 2.9 million homes that received a foreclosure filing last year, according to RealtyTrac, a California-based data provider. “The extent of the loss cannot be determined until there is a comprehensive review of the loan files and documentation of the process dealing with problem loans,” Bair said last week, warning of damages that could take “years to materialize.” Home prices have fallen over the past year, reversing gains made early in the economic recovery, according to data providers Zillow.com and CoreLogic. Sales of new homes remain depressed, according to the Commerce Department. More than a quarter of homeowners with a mortgage owe more on that debt than their home is worth, according to Zillow.com. And more than 2 million homes are in foreclosure, according to Lender Processing Services. Rather than punishing banks for misdeeds, the administration is now focused on helping troubled borrowers in the hope that it will stanch the flood of foreclosures and increase consumer confidence, officials involved in the negotiations said. Levying penalties can’t accomplish that goal, an official involved in the foreclosure probe talks argued last week. For their part, however, state officials want to levy fines, according to a confidential term sheet reviewed last week by HuffPost. Each state would then use the money as it desires, be it for facilitating short sales, reducing mortgage principal, or using the funds to help defaulted borrowers move from their homes into rentals. In a report last week, analysts at Moody’s Investors Service predicted that while the losses incurred by the banks will be “sizable,” the credit rating agency does “not expect them to meaningfully impact capital.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 917-267-2335.

Read the full article →

Joseph A. Palermo: The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

May 15, 2011

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T’s favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous. When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the “founders” intended. It’s kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the “little guy” denouncing “elites” who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the “little guy.” The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to “the law,” not to “the Constitution,” not to “calling balls and strikes,” but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige. The serfs toiling on the corporate plantation can only continue to pay Chase and Bank of America for their underwater mortgages, ExxonMobil and Chevron for their $4 a gallon gas, and AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and the rest for the privilege of communicating in a modern society. And if the serfs seek redress the High Court will slap them down before they can get anything substantial off the ground. With Citizens United placing a stranglehold of corporate power over our state, local, and federal system of elections, we cannot turn to our political “leaders” for redress, we can’t turn to the courts, and we certainly can’t turn to trying to morally persuade sociopathic non-human entities called corporations — so where does that leave us? In the current context of unrestrained corporate dominance it’s unconscionable that the Obama administration has not done more to blunt its disastrous effects. The Justice and Treasury Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, etc. could be doing a hell of a lot more in bringing balance to the equation of corporations versus people. The administration’s lagging performance in holding Wall Street accountable is well known, but it won’t even lift a finger to block grotesque mergers like the one between Comcast and NBC Universal, and AT&T and T Mobile . In all these mergers and acquisitions it’s always the consumers and the employees who lose, while the CEOs and a select few of shareholders and financiers make out like the bandits they are. Nothing illustrates the corruption rampant in Washington more than the recent resignation of Federal Communications Commission member, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who Obama appointed to show how “bipartisan” he can be, who is now going to work as a lavishly paid shill for the very industry she was supposedly “regulating.” Ms. Baker will now make the big bucks serving Comcast/NBC Universal after she voted for the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Sweet. And few in the Beltway see anything unsavory about it. Our political leaders, our Supreme Court, our captains of industry and finance, are so out of touch it’s going to be a long, long time before ordinary working people see any relief. All of our institutions, political, economic, even religious, social, and cultural, all of them, are failing the people miserably in pursuit of the Almighty Buck. The cunning game of appointing young ideologues to the bench has paid off handsomely for the corporate power structure. Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the “founders” that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

Read the full article →

William S. Becker: Big Oil’s Political Ploy

May 13, 2011

Whatever else we might say about Big Oil in the United States, we have to give the industry credit for one thing: it has mastered the art of scamming us with a perfectly straight face. The scam has been underway for decades. This year’s example is the debate about repealing $21 billion in federal subsidies for big oil companies over the next decade.To their credit, President Obama and several Democrats in Congress are pushing the idea. Oil executives have launched a counteroffensive reminiscent of Gordon Gekko’s argument that “greed is good.” Requiring taxpayers to subsidize America’s biggest oil companies is in the best interest of the country, they say, and anyone who disagrees is playing politics. ExxonMobil, for example, said that President Obama and congressional Democrats are engaging in “political theater” on this issue. Perhaps. But the real plot line is that big oil companies are fighting once again to keep largesse they don’t need and the nation can’t afford. Here are some examples of the time-tested arguments we’re hearing from Big Oil: Eliminating their subsidies will force oil companies to increase the cost of gasoline. Even some oil executives acknowledge this is not true. Unless the industry uses subsidy reform as an excuse to gouge consumers, reducing its tax breaks will not affect energy prices. The handful of subsidies under scrutiny here are the proverbial drop in the oil barrel. They are a fraction of the special favors oil companies receive from the federal government, usually at taxpayer expense. And oil company revenues are so high, even counting the cyclic nature of the market, that subsidy reform will not make a difference in energy prices. The bigger misdirection is the industry’s stubborn assertion that encouraging more domestic production with taxpayer subsidies and permission to drill everywhere will have a meaningful impact on consumer prices. Legions of experts have pointed out in the past that petroleum prices are set by a world oil market so large that more domestic drilling and subsidies won’t much matter. Two fresh examples illustrate how little we control the factors that influence the global petroleum market. Last December, a vegetable vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest harassment by police. His self-immolation and subsequent death triggered the “Arab Spring” — a chain reaction of protests across the Arab world fueled by frustrations ranging from high food prices to chronic unemployment, and suppression of freedoms to government corruption. Oil prices rose just because of the fear that Arab unrest would threaten world supplies. The second example is the historic flooding along the Mississippi River. Hopes have been high that high oil prices will flatten demand and lower the cost of gasoline. But gasoline prices may rise anyway because the river is threatening to disrupt oil barges, pipelines and refineries. It’s unfair to cut subsidies for big oil companies when other companies and industries get taxpayer support. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, made this statement when oil company executives testified before Congress on May 12. The corollary is that if oil companies get tax breaks, so should all other companies and industries. The last time I checked, we can’t afford that. More seriously, Hatch’s point is valid within the oil industry. Current proposals would cut some subsidies for big oil companies, but not smaller oil producers. The equitable solution is to phase out all federal subsidies for oil, regardless of the size of the company producing it. Applied to the energy sector in general, however, Hatch’s point is bogus. The oil industry has been getting federal subsidies for nearly a century, far longer and in far greater amounts than alternative energy industries. Rational public policy would recognize there’s a big and legitimate difference between subsidizing mature and wealthy industries such as coal and oil, and subsidizing emerging industries that are critical to national security, such as solar and wind energy. Fossil energy subsidies are classic corporate welfare; renewable energy subsidies help these vital young industries get across the “valley of death” and into the marketplace. The American people don’t want shared sacrifice. They want shared prosperity. This interesting statement came from Chevron CEO John Watson at the same congressional hearing. If Watson really supported the idea of “shared prosperity,” he’d volunteer to give his company’s tax breaks back to the American people. Rather than reducing federal budget deficits, cutting oil subsidies will have the opposite effect. Jobs and investors will disappear and government tax revenues will fall. This argument has been raised by Jim Mulva, chief executive of ConocoPhillips, among others. It’s ludicrous to believe that cutting these few subsidies will drive investors away from oil. So long as there are profits to be made, oil companies will drill and investors will invest. In a world in which populations are growing, consumerism is surging and emerging economies are injecting oil like steroids, there are ample profits to be made. Eliminating a few subsidies won’t change that. Cutting these subsidies is a tax increase for Big Oil. The “tax increase” argument is an all-purpose fear phrase routinely rolled out by fiscal conservatives and corporations. It’s not clear to me that eliminating a tax break qualifies as a tax increase, strictly speaking. Yes, removing subsidies would result in big oil companies paying higher taxes, assuming their accountants don’t find other ways to escape the obligation. But taking away subsidies merely results in oil companies paying what they should pay without favored treatment. Look at it this way: Big Oil is subsidized not only by access to public lands, low royalty fees and special breaks in the federal tax code. It also is subsidized every day by every one of us who pays taxes, buys gasoline or purchases a petroleum-based product. Our tax dollars pay the enormous costs of protecting overseas oil supplies and shipping lanes. The gas taxes we pay at the pump help build and maintain the highways that promote the use and sale of oil. More than 154 million Americans live in places where coal plants and petroleum-powered vehicles contribute to pollution that makes the air too dangerous to breathe . Families bear the medical costs and lost wages associated with that pollution. It’s difficult to feel bad about the taxes paid by Big Oil. Oil subsidy reform is election-year silliness and political posturing by Obama and reform advocates on the Hill. Ken Cohen, the vice-president of public and government affairs at Exxon, told the Financial Times the subsidy debate is merely “the kickoff for the 2012 presidential campaign and congressional elections.” So what? The 2012 election cycle is an excellent time for presidential and congressional candidates to differentiate themselves on national energy policy. Our oil addiction is one of the biggest national, environmental and economic security issues of our time. We need an electoral intervention. Cutting subsidies by $21 billion over 10 years will make little difference in reducing the federal deficit. That’s true. As of May 12, the national debt was more than $14 trillion — the largest in the world, about $46,000 for every citizen. But we have to start somewhere. To paraphrase the late Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, “Twenty billion here, twenty billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” The oil subsidy debate has greater significance than $21 billion, however. It is a litmus test of conservative sincerity about reducing the federal deficit — a test the Tea Party should watch closely. So far, the spending cuts proposed in the Republican-controlled House have been driven by naked ideology, using deficit reduction as an opportunity to attack environmental regulations, climate science and government services for the poor and middle class. In the words of ExxonMobil, the votes have been pure political theater. Last February, shortly after he became Speaker of the House, John Boehner said this : “It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our children’s future and make them beholden to China. No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily.” With that level of moral conviction, it should be a no-brainer for Republicans to vote in favor of eliminating oil subsidies. If conservatives are not willing to harvest this low-hanging fruit, it’s doubtful they’ll make the far tougher choices that meaningful deficit reduction will require. Congress should take up oil subsidy reform another time, as part of overhauling the nation’s tax system. There’s no reason to wait on reforming such an obvious and equitable target for deficit reduction. And there’s no reason to believe that a Congress so deadlocked by partisanship and its own rules will succeed at reforming the tax code anytime soon. This isn’t the first time we’ve had this debate. In the past decade alone, oil executives were called before Congress to justify excessive profits in November 2005 when oil cost $60 a barrel; again six months later when a barrel of oil cost $75; again in April 2008 when oil hit $100 a barrel; and again this week, with crude back in the $100 range. For the past 40 years of oil crises, oil wars and oil-induced recessions, it has been Groundhog Day on Capitol Hill. The questions reform-minded members of Congress asked oil executives over the years remain relevant and unresolved today: Why should oil companies get tax breaks when their profits are so high and consumers are so broke? Why isn’t Big Oil investing more of its profits to develop the alternative energy resources that would keep the industry and the nation secure in the long-term? If it were up to me, all fossil energy subsidies would be shifted to a rapid buildup of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in the United States. But if deficit reduction provides the only sufficient leverage for subsidy reform, so be it. However we use the revenues, we should resolve the indefensible perversities of national energy policy once and for all, starting with the elimination of federal subsidies for Big Oil.

Read the full article →

Government: Bad Economy Has Shortened Life Of Social Security, Medicare

May 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — The bad economy has shortened the life of the trust funds that support Social Security and Medicare, the nation’s two biggest benefit programs, the government reported Friday. The annual checkup said the Medicare hospital insurance fund will now be exhausted in 2024, five years earlier than last year’s estimate. The Social Security trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than before. The trustees who oversee the two programs said the worsening financial picture emphasizes the need for Congress to make changes soon. The longer lawmakers wait, the more likely they will be forced to impose steep tax increases, deep benefit cuts, or both, to save the programs. By acting sooner, the trustees said, Congress can impose gradual changes that don’t hurt current beneficiaries and give future retirees time to prepare. “Larger, more difficult adjustments will be necessary if we delay reform,” said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, chairman of the trustee panel. “And making reforms soon that are phased in over time would help reduce uncertainty about future retirement benefits.” The trustees said that they moved the expected date for the Medicare hospital trust fund to be exhausted from 2029 to 2024 because of a weaker economy, which means fewer people working and paying payroll taxes into the fund, and continued increases in health care costs. Last year’s report had extended the life of the Medicare fund by 12 years to reflect the savings that were included in the massive overhaul of health care that President Barack Obama pushed Congress to pass in 2010. Without the changes in health care law, the administration said, the Medicare trust fund would be exhausted in 2016. The savings in the health care legislation are still included in the trustees’ projections but have been updated to reflect data on the economy and health care costs over the past year. Many experts believe that the outlook for Medicare is actually worse because the trustees’ projections assume deep cuts in payments to doctors that Congress has routinely waived, and because other cost savings from Obama’s health care law will be difficult to realize. The Social Security trust fund was projected to be exhausted one year earlier than the previous projection of 2037. The trustees said in 2036 the government will be taking in enough in Social Security payroll taxes to pay only about three-fourths of existing benefits. The new report projected that the millions of Social Security recipients would receive a small – 0.7 percent – cost of living increase in their benefit checks in 2012. In 2010 and 2011, there were no cost of living increases in the checks because inflation was low. A 0.7 percent increase would not be seen by many beneficiaries because the extra money would be eaten up by higher insurance premium payments for Medicare. The actual benefit increase will be determined based on the performance of the government’s Consumer Price Index. That figure will be released in October. Democrats and Republicans agree that Medicare must be addressed soon, but the consensus ends there, even as a bipartisan group of lawmakers headed by Vice President Joe Biden is holding talks on ways to tackle the nation’s mounting debt. Most Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have said they won’t vote to increase the government’s ability to borrow without significant spending cuts. The government is expected to reach its borrowing limit of $14.3 trillion soon. Geithner said Friday that Congress should “move as quickly as possible” to raise the borrowing limit. He has told lawmakers that he can take steps to delay until Aug. 2 what would be an unprecedented default on the debt. Changes to Medicare, the government health insurance program for older Americans, could be part of an agreement to increase the debt ceiling. But Social Security appears to be off the table. Many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have been adamant that they will not support cuts in Social Security benefits, even if they target only future retirees. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged on Thursday that changes to Social Security won’t be part of any agreement. Democrats and Republicans are sparring over how to fix Medicare. House Republicans have passed a plan that would replace Medicare with a voucher-like payment system for future retirees, but GOP leaders in Congress have acknowledged that the plan is unlikely to pass the Democratic-led Senate. Nearly 55 million retirees, disabled people and children who have lost parents receive Social Security benefits, which average $1,077 monthly. More than 46 million people are covered by Medicare. Six trustees oversee Social Security and Medicare, including Geithner, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue. ___ Associated Press reporters Martin Crutsinger and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Video: Paller Says Obama Cybersecurity Plan Is `Just in Time’

May 13, 2011

May 13 (Bloomberg) — Alan Paller, co-founder and director of research at the SANS Institute, talks about the growing threat of cyber attacks in the U.S. and an Obama administration proposal for protecting computer networks that run the nation’s critical infrastructure. Paller speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness with Margaret Brennan.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

The Missing Energy Piece

May 13, 2011

Peering into the future, the federal Energy Information Administration recently released a kaleidoscopic collection of 57 computer-generated scenarios for how the nation might produce and consume energy over the next 25 years.

Read the full article →

John M. Eger: Business and Education Need to Talk

May 12, 2011

More than two years ago, The Conference Board, a major international business research organization, issued a report called “Ready To Innovate: Are Educators and Executives Aligned on the Creative Readiness of the U.S. Workforce?” The report was the first time that the vital link to a creative and innovative economy was made clear, and the road to America’s success and survival was spelled out for all to see — particularly in the business community. In summary, the report asked three questions: “Are U.S. businesses and K-12 school systems making the link between creative skill sets in the workforce and innovation? Are businesses finding the creative talent they need to generate the innovative solutions and products demanded by the marketplace? And what efforts are both of these groups making to train employees in the needed creative skills?” The survey revealed that “both the superintendents who educate future workers and the employers who hire them agree that creativity is increasingly important in U.S. workplaces (99 percent and 97 percent, respectively), and that arts-training — and, to a lesser degree, communications studies — are crucial to developing creativity. Yet, there is a gap between understanding this truth and putting it into meaningful practice. Our findings indicate that most high schools and employers provide such training and studies only on an elective or ‘as needed’ basis.” It also found that “when the discussion turns to instilling creativity in the workforce, the conversation often begins and ends with education…new curricular and teaching approaches are needed…(and) the results from our survey suggest that this responsibility should in fact be shared broadly — by educators, employers, and other interested individuals.” Because of the worldwide spread of technology — particularly the Internet — and the globalization of markets, it is a new ballgame. As Business Week Magazine said almost six years ago: “The game is changing. It isn’t just about math and science anymore. It’s about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation.” The fact is, most of the manufacturing jobs were lost over the last 20 years. Now with globalization in full bloom, America is beginning to see the outlines of yet another out-migration of American jobs. Unlike the earlier shift of manufacturing jobs to less developed East Asian countries, the loss of the latest round of high-tech software and service jobs will have dramatic, some say devastating, impacts on America’s economic wealth and well-being. Twenty years ago, it was fashionable to blame foreign competition and cheap labor markets abroad for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States, but the pain of the loss was softened by the emergence of a new services industry. Now, it is the service sector jobs that are being lost. This shift of high tech service jobs will be a permanent feature of economic life in the 21st century. Today, the demand for creativity has outpaced our nation’s ability to create enough workers simply to meet our needs. Our schools and our businesses need to rethink the needs of the nation, and rethink the important roles of creativity and innovation. Are we ready to innovate as the Conference Board asks? Frankly, I have been following these issues for several years — more acutely lately. I have seen some action and heard some concerns but, as they say, the jury is still out. I guess I am one of those “glass-is-half-full” guys and am guardedly optimistic.

Read the full article →

Patrick Sharma: Farm Subsidies: A Useful Sacrifice in the Budget Debate

May 12, 2011

Amid continuing debates over how to reduce the federal deficit, recent proposals to cut farm subsidies present an important opportunity to bridge partisan divides. By reforming our antiquated farm support system, Congress can exercise some much-needed fiscal discipline and give the country an agricultural policy for the 21st century. Doing so, however, will require putting the national good over the interests of a powerful few, as well as confronting some enduring myths about American farming. Farm subsidies have long been recognized as ineffective. Since being introduced to help small farmers cope with the Great Depression, the federal farm support program has devolved into a hodgepodge of price supports, direct payments, insurance programs, tax loopholes and low-interest loans that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy farmers and large agricultural businesses. According to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in recent years the largest 10 percent of American farms have received almost 75 percent of total agricultural subsidies, while a whopping two-thirds of farmers have obtained no government support at all. In addition to rewarding millionaires and agribusinesses rather than small farmers, farm subsidies have encouraged environmentally destructive agricultural practices. By promoting production in areas that would otherwise remain fallow, farm supports have led to habitat destruction and land degradation, as well as increased pesticide and fertilizer use. Subsidies have also had a devastating impact abroad: when shipped to developing nations, cheap American foodstuffs tend to glut local markets and put indigenous producers out of business. Indeed, U.S. agricultural subsidies have been a key factor in derailing the recent Doha round of international trade negotiations. In other words, farm subsidies are bad foreign and domestic policy. But because the program is relatively cheap (estimated to cost around $16 billion in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office) and its impacts felt indirectly, subsidies have been allowed to remain on the books. Five-year re-authorizations of the farm support program have historically been dominated by rural congressmen and the agribusiness lobby, and as a result we have a system that lacks oversight and focus. Although Congress made some important reforms in 1996, farm subsidies continue to be a drain on the nation’s coffers, diverting taxpayer dollars away from much-needed investments in education, infrastructure and other productive endeavors. Fortunately, the current preoccupation with the federal deficit has put farm subsidies on the chopping block. Eager to find savings wherever they can, members of both parties have proposed reexamining the way the nation supports agriculture. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has called for cutting direct payments to farmers by $30 billion over ten years, while Democratic Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan have indicated their willingness to reform the nation’s farm support system. Importantly, these representatives all hail from agricultural states. Going forward, it is vital that Congress look to reform the farm support program in the most thoughtful way possible. At present, discussions over altering farm subsidies are focused almost entirely on curtailing direct payments to farmers, in which the government automatically pays farm owners a fixed amount of money per year regardless of whether or not their land is being cultivated. Yet direct payments represent just a fraction of total farm supports, and other subsidies, such as price supports, do more to distort the market. If Congress is truly interested in achieving budget savings and developing a modern agricultural policy, it should put all farm subsidies (including supports for ethanol) on the table. This would mean not only curtailing payments to wealthy farmers and agribusinesses but examining whether the government should be in the business of American farming in the first place. For while agriculture accounted for a significant percentage of the U.S. economy in the 1930s, today farming constitutes less than one percent of GDP, and the notion that government support helps struggling family farmers is little more than a myth. Of course, reforming the farm support program will not solve the nation’s fiscal problems. Even eliminating all agricultural subsidies would barely dent the deficit, where meaningful action will be confined to reforming taxes and entitlement spending. But the current budgetary environment does present a chance to rethink our agricultural policies and, in the process, discard a relic of the past.

Read the full article →

HSBC Continues Freeze On Home Seizures

May 11, 2011

HSBC North America Holdings, the ninth-largest U.S. bank by assets, told investors Wednesday that the bank’s moratorium on home seizures continues in some jurisdictions and it will be “a number of months” before the bank fully resumes foreclosing on defaulted borrowers. The lender did not specify in filings with federal regulators where it continues to restrict home repossessions or how many borrowers have been affected. HSBC handles more than 892,000 home loans, making it the 12th-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., according to the Federal Reserve. The foreclosure freeze, which started last autumn, came on the heels of months-long criminal and civil probes by federal and state regulators into lenders’ faulty mortgage practices. The nation’s largest lenders voluntarily halted home repossessions when flawed document practices — like so-called “robo-signing” — came to light and erupted into a nationwide scandal. Officials subsequently found that the nation’s largest mortgage firms illegally seized the homes of at least dozens of borrowers and engaged in shoddy practices that allegedly deceived local courts, broke numerous state laws and federal rules, and short-changed distressed borrowers. HSBC, though, did not halt home seizures until after Nov. 5 , according to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of its competitors froze new foreclosures a few months earlier. HSBC’s two major U.S. subsidiaries, HSBC Finance Corp. and HSBC Bank USA , disclosed that its moratoria continue in certain parts of the country due to defective foreclosure practices. “We have resumed foreclosures on a limited basis in certain geographies,” the two divisions reported to investors. “It will be a number of months before we resume foreclosures in all jurisdictions as we need to ensure we are satisfied that applicable enhanced processes have been implemented.” HSBC initiated more than 43,000 home foreclosures in 2009 and 2010, according to the Fed. HSBC’s admission underscores the difficulty firms face trying to weed out faulty practices that went on for years before they were recently discovered. By taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, the nation’s five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the nascent Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and obtained by The Huffington Post in March . That estimate, which did not measure HSBC’s savings, suggests that the nation’s largest banks reaped tremendous benefits by under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint that appeared frequently enough that federal regulators finally acknowledged the industry’s fundamental shortcomings and took action. “We have already made several key procedural improvements to enhance our foreclosure processes as a result of our own internal reviews,” HSBC’s U.S.-based units disclosed in securities filings. Spokesmen for the firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In April, the lender was one of 14 mortgage firms to be sanctioned for their sloppy practices by the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. State attorneys general, Obama administration officials and representatives from the nation’s five largest mortgage firms — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — are meeting this week outside Washington, D.C. to discuss standards governing their treatment of delinquent borrowers and remedies for past abuses. Some state and Obama administration officials want to levy fines approaching $30 billion — a few officials want even larger fines. The targeted banks said Tuesday they’d collectively pay $5 billion to settle all claims . Government officials balked at the offer, according to sources involved in the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Read the full article →

Inder Sidhu: Pharma’s Surefire Formula: Simultaneous Optimization and Reinvention

May 11, 2011

Do you have fireproof shoes? If you work in the pharmaceuticals industry these days, you’ve probably thought about buying a pair. Rarely has there been a time when so many legal, demographic and scientific changes have occurred at once. Taken as a whole, they constitute a burning platform that the industry cannot stand on much longer. Take prescription drugs. Between now and 2016, nearly a dozen top-selling, brand-name pharmaceuticals will lose their patent protection, meaning other drug makers will be able to sell generic equivalents of Lipitor, Plavix, Zyprexa and other products at greatly reduced prices. According to a report from EvaluatePharma, more than $267 billion worth of sales are at risk for drug makers Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck and others. Talk about an impetus for change. Throw in healthcare reform, increased regulation and other factors and you can understand why the pharmaceutical industry is feeling the heat all around it. So why aren’t the nation’s largest drug distributors sweating bullets? The answer has a lot to do with the management of these organizations, and the dual ways they react to business challenges and opportunities, in particular. McKesson , Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen are three of the nation’s largest drug distributors and each is enjoying a strong year despite the upheaval. How? By successfully navigating the ups and downs of their industry through a coordinated series of efforts to optimize and reinvent their businesses simultaneously. Doing both is extremely difficult, especially for companies that have market share, a revenue stream or a business model to defend. Companies tend to do whatever it takes to preserve these — often through a series of process and product refinements. While vitally important for improving efficiencies and correcting mistakes, optimization exercises can consume a company and prevent it from recognizing moments that call for greater transformation. Despite the discomforts, an organization must step outside its comfort zone every now and then. This is precisely what the Big Three in drug distribution have done and why they are prevailing in the market and on Wall Street. Shares of all three companies trade near or at their 52-week high. And each has posted recent quarterly earnings that have exceeded expectations. How? By simultaneously fine-tuning and transforming. Take Cardinal , the United States’ 19th-largest industrial company, according to Fortune Magazine . Last year, the company racked up $98.5 billion in sales of drugs and related products and services. Not bad for a company that started off in another industry altogether — food distribution. For nearly a decade in the 1970s, the company focused on the low-margin food distribution business before entering the pharmaceutical business through an acquisition. Since then, the company has acquired scores of companies, broadening its product portfolio and expanding its geographic reach. In the past two years, the company made two moves that will reshape it significantly. The first was the 2009 spin-off of the CareFusion medical technologies business, which has allowed Cardinal to focus on its supply chain operations. The second was the 2010 purchase of Zuellig Pharma China, the largest pharmaceutical importer in the world’s fastest-growing drug market. During its various reinventions, Cardinal has continually optimized its operations with a series of process and technology improvements that have made the company one of the most inventive, responsive and competitive drug distributors today. Ditto for AmerisourceBergen. Like Cardinal, AmerisourceBergen has grown through a series of acquisitions that have transformed the company from a sleepy Valley Forge, Pa., wholesaler into an industry powerhouse. Last year, AmerisourceBergen racked up nearly $78 billion in sales, which put it No. 27 on the Fortune 500 . To bolster profitability, AmerisourceBergn has invested heavily in “specialty drugs.” These advanced medications for treating chronic or rare conditions such as cancer or multiple sclerosis require more sophistication to sell and more expertise to administer. Like McKesson and Cardinal, AmerisourceBergen expanded its capabilities through new training and education. It’s also developed new business models that differ significantly from its traditional, branded-products business. As a result, the company has been able to move from the industry’s burning platform in a bold way. And changes continue. Later this year, company president and COO Steve Collis will replace current CEO R. David Yost when he retires in July. A longtime company veteran, Collis has already made significant changes in an effort to streamline decision making and better coordinate product development. Among other things, he’s consolidated the company’s reporting structure and eliminated many of the silos that separated different business functions. So are the big drug distribution companies done reinventing? Hardly. The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is major catalyst in the drug distribution business, one that will usher in even more change. “With 1,083 pages of legislation in the final bill to interpret and implement, this legislation marks the beginning of the reform process, not the end,” says Cardinal chairman and CEO George Barrett. His response? Bring it on. Like his peers in the drug distribution business, he’s not afraid of a little reinvention now and then. Along with ongoing optimization, it makes life more interesting, not to mention more rewarding. Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco , and the author of Doing Both: Capturing Today’s Profits and Driving Tomorrow’s Growth . Author proceeds from sales of Doing Both go to charity. Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu .

Read the full article →

New Report: Nearly Half Of Chicago Mortgages Are Underwater

May 10, 2011

Newly released statistics show a mortgage crisis that is only deepening in the nation’s third-largest city, with staggering numbers of homeowners in dire straits. Almost half of mortgages in the greater Chicago area are now “underwater,” according to the study by Zillow. That means that homeowners owe more than the value of their homes, a product of plummeting housing prices. The proportion of underwater mortgages in Chicago, 45.7 percent, is eighth-highest among the nation’s 25 largest metropolitan areas, and pales in comparison to the devastating 68.4 percent of underwater mortgages in Phoenix, Arizona, the nation’s highest among big cities. But the speed with which underwater mortgages have grown in the area is much more disconcerting. Just last quarter, the figure was only 38.6 percent; a year ago, it was just under 32, reports Chicago Real Estate Daily . “Home value declines are currently equal to those we experienced during the darkest days of the housing recession,” Zillow Chief Economist Stan Humphries said in a press release accompanying the report. Prices were buoyed temporarily by the federal home-buyer tax credit, but with that credit’s expiry, the floor has again fallen out from under the market. Indeed, the Chicago Tribune reports that both home sales and prices dropped sharply in the first quarter . Sales were down 9.9 percent from a year ago, and the median price of a home was down to $155,000, down 11 percent from the same time a year ago.

Read the full article →

Payday Loan Kingpin Praises Elizabeth Warren

May 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — The CEO of the nation’s largest payday lending outifit is making the rounds in the nation’s capital to praise consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren and the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). The mini-press-junket is part of a concerted lobbying effort from payday loan giant Advance America aimed at pushing the CFPB to crack down on the overdraft fees charged by mainstream banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America, to the benefit of payday lenders. Overdraft fees and payday loans are widely reviled by consumer advocates, who view both as unfair and deceptive products that directly target the poor. But they are also big business — both overdrafts and payday lending represent multi-billion-dollar markets . They also directly compete with each other: Every payday loan customer could be padding bank profits by overdrawing, and vice versa. Warren is charged with setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but she is not formally director of the nascent agency. President Obama must put a formal CFPB director in charge by July 21 or the bureau will lose authority over payday lenders and other “nonbank” financial operators, like mortgage brokers and check-cashing firms. With that deadline fast approaching, Advance America CEO Billy Webster is doing everything he can to make sure that whoever gets the top CFPB job will steer consumers who need quick cash away from overdraft fees and into payday loans. “People . . . might think we’re opposed to CFPB, and we’re not,” Webster told The Huffington Post. Webster explicitly praised Warren’s background and said she would make a good candidate for the CFPB Director position. Independent Community Bankers Association President Cam Fine made similar comments last week . “I like Elizabeth Warren,” Webster said. “She’s got incredibly relevant life experience for this job: She comes from a working middle-class family, she knows how working middle-class families think and what pressures they’re under. That’s good.” Webster says Advance America supports CFBP because the agency could fairly evaluate payday lenders’ and big banks’ products to the benefit of consumers. “We think that, as Elizabeth Warren has talked about, we should evaluate all these nonbank lenders on criteria around transparency, disclosure, understandability to the consumer, hidden fees. We think those are right criteria to evaluate all the products,” he said. Webster objects to criticism of payday loans’ high annual percentage rate (APR), noting that competing products offered by big banks are not subject to the same analysis. A typical Advance America loan, Webster says, amounts to $300, with $45 in fees. It must be repaid within 18 days, and carries an APR of over 300 percent — far above the 36 percent maximum that consumer advocates cite as a fair. Webster says banks have only avoided scrutiny for overdraft programs because overdraft costs are measured in one-time fees rather than APR. But Webster pointed to a recent report from the Pew Charitable Trusts which finds the equivalent APR on the average overdraft fee to be more than 5,000 percent. But Susan Weinstock, project director Pew Charitable Trusts’ Safe Checking in the Electronic Age program, said Webster is taking the wrong lesson from the report. She said both payday loans and overdraft fees are predatory. “5,000 percent interest is too high and so is 400 percent interest,” Weinstock told HuffPost. “We want to see financial products that minimize risk, that are transparent, that are safe. It’s like curing obesity — do you feed them cake or do you feed them cookies? Neither of them are going to get you any better. Let’s feed people fruits and vegetables.” Other consumer advocates agree. Choosing between overdraft fees and payday loans is “a false choice,” said Kathleen Day, spokesperson for the Center for Responsible Lending. “Both are abusive. These are abusive products. We don’t think consumers should have to choose between two abusive products.” Instead, “people should be given reasonably priced overdraft products, and payday lending should be limited to 36 percent APR,” she said. Webster says bank customers who overdraw their accounts do so an average of 14 times a year, but a March report from CRL finds that payday loans are “designed to to keep [borrowers] indebted for extended periods.” The report calls this a “treadmill of debt” that results in much higher costs than Advance America’s $45 fee. According to the report, payday loan recipients are indebted to payday lenders for an average of 212 days during the first year after they take out their first payday loan — the same loan which Advance America touts as an 18-day debt. Borrowers routinely “roll over” their first payday loan into another larger loan when they find themselves unable to pay off the initial loan. A full 44 percent of borrowers in the CRL study defaulted on their payday obligations within two years of taking out their first payday loan. Every major U.S. bank offers some form of overdraft “protection,” which adds up to big money for those banks. According to financial research firm Moeb’s Services, banks accrued $36.5 billion in overdraft fees in 2010. The entire banking industry’s 2010 profit was $87.5 billion, according to the FDIC. Big banks say their overdraft profits are fair, pointing to a recent federal regulation that requires customers to “opt in” to overdraft programs, rather than being automatically enrolled without explicit consent. A Wells Fargo spokesperson noted that the company lost $270 million in revenue during the fourth quarter of 2010 alone, thanks to the new rules, and expects to lose $215 million to $240 million each quarter of 2011. The spokesperson said Wells Fargo now offers a “protection” service that links a customer’s checking accounts to a savings account, rendering a fee of just $12.50 in the event of an overdraft. But traditional overdraft fees run $35 per charge, and Wells allows up to four overdrafts per day — up to $140. A Bank of America spokesperson said the bank no longer permits overdrafts for in-store purchases, limiting them to ATMs in an effort to eliminate “unwanted” overdrafts. The bank does not disclose its overdraft revenue, but the spokesperson said it anticipates a negative impact on earnings from the new policy. CFPB declined to comment for this article.

Read the full article →

Groupon Teams Up With Live Nation For Ticket Deals

May 9, 2011

Local deals juggernaut Groupon and Live Nation have a formed a joint venture to develop a new online ticketing deals channel dubbed GrouponLive.

Read the full article →

Deborah Frett: Make Your Mother Proud

May 8, 2011

Each May, we are inundated with advertising from jewelers, florists, and other retailers promising the “perfect” Mother’s Day gift. How did Mother’s Day morph into a shopping spectacle that rivals any other holiday of the year?!? It all seems so inadequate — and absurd — when I consider the many, many sacrifices my own mother had made for me over the years, sacrifices that mothers make for their children on a daily basis without even stopping to think. This week’s headlines turned my thoughts to the tens of thousands of courageous mothers who are members of our nation’s military. These selfless women have made the ultimate sacrifice — not just for their own families, but for all of American’s children — by choosing to serve in America’s Armed Forces. Women now make up 15 percent of the United States military, and they are the fastest-growing segment of the veteran population. According to a 2009 report by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, more than 40 percent of women on active duty have children, and more than 30,000 single mothers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Try finding the “right” gift in a department store to thank these mothers!! There is no question that these mothers’ military service comes at a cost to their families. According to the California Research Bureau, active duty military mothers report higher rates of emotional problems and mental illness than servicewomen without children. Women in the military divorce at a rate higher than their male counterparts, and are significantly more likely to be single parents. Across all ages and segments, women veterans are more likely to suffer from mental illness, experience homelessness, and to commit suicide than women who choose not to serve in the military. And, not surprisingly, their children also pay a huge price for their mothers’ commitment. The Rand Corporation recently reported that children whose parents have been deployed for over 19 months are more likely to experience academic difficulties and exhibit emotional and behavioral problems in school settings. Despite their willingness to make these sacrifices on behalf of our nation, it is both heartbreaking and frustrating to realize that these women often leave their military service only to face daunting challenges when they re-enter civilian life. They are frequently denied recognition and unable to access the benefits and services they have more than earned — and require to successfully reintegrate. BPW Foundation research pinpoints a critical piece of this puzzle: Too many women veterans fail to self-identify as veterans and miss the opportunity to learn about, much less participate in, the broad range of support services for which they are eligible. And, since many public and private sector tools, services, and programs for veterans are still largely designed with men in mind, women veterans are further “penalized” for their service to our nation. This year, find a truly meaningful way to show Mom how much you appreciate all the sacrifices she made for you. Take a pass on the flowers, jewelry, and myriad other “perfect” Mother’s Day gift ideas. Choose instead to recognize and thank the women veterans in your community. And together join BPW Foundation’s Joining Forces for Women Veterans, and help provide support and resources for women veterans and their families as they return to civilian life. Last month, the White House officially launched Joining Forces , a national initiative to mobilize private and public sectors of our society to help military families and veterans access the opportunities and support they have earned. At the invitation of First Lady Michelle Obama, I attended the April 12th announcement of this initiative. It was an honor to be recognized by the White House for BPW Foundation’s efforts on behalf of women veterans and we are grateful to be able to participate in this important endeavor. A major objective of our Joining Forces program is to enable women veterans to find and utilize the diverse benefits due them, helping them connect with other women veterans through scholarships, a career center, Connect-A-Vet resources, Facebook , and Twitter . We will soon be implementing a mentoring program for military spouses and women veterans, and we invite you to play a role in this project. To read a blueprint for our Joining Forces for Women Veterans campaign, visit the BPW Foundation website . To hear first hand from women veterans, check out our recently posted YouTube video from our Joining Forces for Women Veteran’s Summit . Visit www.womenjoiningforces.org to find out what you can do to support women veterans on this Mother’s Day. Your mother will be proud–just as we are proud of the incredible women who serve our nation in the US military.

Read the full article →

Eric Ehrmann: New Tango Argentino… Peronism and Globalism Hook Up

May 3, 2011

In a nation that still measures democracy in decades, the period between Easter and May Day evokes memories of food riots and coup attempts triggered by runaway inflation. But when Argentina chose Nestor and Cristina Kirchner to play Juan and Evita in the nation’s never ending political drama, the land of the tango finally revealed its love affair with the yankee dollar. It’s election season in Argentina, and in spite of strikes slowing the oil industry and 100,000 Peronist workers marching down Avenida 9 de Julio to protest low wages, consumer spending is healthy enough for Goldman-Sachs to predict that annual growth this year will be higher than the 6 percent central bank estimate. Official inflation ran at 9.7 percent in March but many private sector analysts argue that the government is grossly understating that figure to assuage the international financial community over a peso that is being weakened by inflation. Fears of recurring inflation remain so deeply embedded in the national psyche that Argentines line up daily at local cambista shops to change pesos to dollars. The agro-export business that helps drive the economy is done in dollars. And billions in flight capital that leave Argentina find happy homes in Manhattan banks. In 2009 nearly $40 billion vanished from the Argentine economy, more than twice the amount of the 2008 goods and services trade that moved between the US and Argentina. Argentina started dancing for dollars big time four decades ago when Juan Peron and his new wife, Isabel (an ex-night club dancer), returned from exile in fascist Spain. Their coterie included Jose Lopez Rega, known as El Brujo (the warlock). Linked in to the Propaganda Due loggia , El Brujo sought solace in the stars instead of the stats; his policies as Peron’s top adviser launched an era of astronomical inflation, the Dirty War, and helped trigger the first Latin debt crisis. With the Peronist government able to freeze savings and other assets by decree, anyone who could afford to buy a few dollars and stash them under the mattress did so. They still do. As sometimes happens during election season, flight capital returned home to support Nestor’s victorious 2002 bid. The power couple from Patagonia then put a new spin on Peronist politics. They engaged young upscale voters who see the world beyond the entitlements provided to dedicated followers of justicialismo (the official name of Peron’s party, an Argentine-Spanish acronym for social justice). The old Peronist concept of the mobilized community morphed into a more inclusive movement and the nation marched forward under the banner of Kirchnerismo . But in Argentina, like Brazil, the collectivisms of the right and the left have been slowed by the strong headwinds of globalism. Instead of a dirty war, Argentina is fighting a war against food price inflation, a war on drugs and syndicalists, and free market technocrats are battling over the spoils as big government sells assets into a dollarized economy. Cristina fell back on the old school Peronist tactic of dipping into central bank resources to drive the economy, creating new inflation and more flight to the dollar. Agribusiness and local oligarchy recoiled and after a contentious debate, Argentina’s political class came down on the side of globalism and Kirchnerismo lost its luster. If inflation-fighting wasn’t enough, Cristina-bashing by the nation’s largest daily, Clarin , reopened old dirty war wounds linked to kidnappings of members of the Graiver family to pressure them to sell off the nation’s newsprint industry, and the death of prominent Peronist party fundraiser, Dudy Graiver. Dudy, who once served as an adviser to junta the junta government of general Alejandro Lanusse and financed publications edited by Jacobo Timerman. He became a powerful international banker active in global flight capital operations and had a close relationship with New York attorney Theodore Kheel. The Graiver family continues to issue conflicting statements on the events. Business publications, including the Economist charged that Argentina is understating inflation and poverty rates. Le Monde Diplomatique questioned the sustainability of syndicalist politics. Neoconservative public diplomacy assets continue to associate Cristina with Washington’s favorite rogue nations, Venezuela, Syria and Iran. But the same globalist media who bully Argentina watched from the sidelines as bankers and business leaders ignored the warning signs that led to the current crisis. Advised by a solid team, including foreign minister Hector Timerman , a dedicated Peronist with close ties to the New York financial community, Cristina has moved her image to the political center to attract dollar investors. New evidence of Cristina’s globalist tilt came on the heels of Friday’s big populist rally along the Avenida 9 de Julio. Cristina named the scion of one of Argentina’s most influential and internationally connected companies to head YPF, the powerful state oil company. Now, as candidates jockey for position in October’s presidential elections, her main competition seems to be Ricardo Alfonsin of the opposing Radical Civic Union (UCR). Ricardo is the son of former president Raul Alfonsin who led the nation’s transition from dictatorship to democracy, only to be forced out of office early by bloody food riots, some of which were orchestrated by Peronist labor thugs. Polls by influential Buenos Aires daily Pagina 12 continue to indicate that, for now, Cristina remains the odds on favorite to win reelection.

Read the full article →

Video: UBS’s Haslem Says RBA May Raise Benchmark Rate in August

May 3, 2011

May 3 (Bloomberg) — Scott Haslem, chief economist at UBS Australia, talks about the nation’s economy, central bank monetary policy and currency. Haslem speaks with Mark Barton on Bloomberg Television’s “Global Connection.” (Haslem spoke before the Reserve Bank of Australia announced a decision to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged today. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Starbucks To Help Pinkberry Achieve Global Frozen Yogurt Domination

May 1, 2011

If you have plans to vacation in Britain, Turkey, Morocco, and the Philippines this year, you might just find a tart, cold reminder of home. By the end of 2011, Pinkberry is planning to to be in 17 different international markets, according to Nation’s Restaurant News.

Read the full article →

Video: Havenstein Says SAIC Prepared for Pentagon Budget Cuts

April 29, 2011

April 29 (Bloomberg) — Walter Havenstein, chief executive officer of SAIC Inc., talks about the importance of science, technology and engineering skills for the nation’s youth, and planned Pentagon budget cuts by the Obama administration. SAIC is a government contractor that supplies scientific and technical services for the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. military. Havenstein speaks with Carol Massar at a FIRST event in St. Louis on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Public Pension Funds Recovering, But Many Still Too Weak To Keep All Promises

April 28, 2011

A fresh annual survey of the nation’s public pension plans released Thursday revealed that government employee retirement funds plunged in value by a stunning 24 percent in 2009, before recovering many of those losses last year. The snapshot of the nation’s retirement savings underscores how the financial crisis and the Great Recession combined to assail national fortunes, imperiling future generations of retirees. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, state retirement systems lost nearly a quarter of their value, or $641.3 billion, according to new data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. This left $2.0 trillion in the nation’s public pension funds. The new data comes from the Census Bureau’s 2009 Annual Survey of Public Employee Retirement Systems, which details the state of the nation’s public pension plans on June 30, 2009. “June 30, 2009 was very near the bottom of the market’s decline,” said Keith Brainard, research director at the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. “A lot, quite a bit really has changed since that time.” By the end of calendar year 2010, public pension plans had managed to regain most of their lost value according to a separate report released by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators in April. “They remained invested,” said Brainard. “As confidence in markets has improved and as global equity values have improved and also real estate and private equities have improved, so have the fund balances. That’s what’s fed this growth.” The health of the nation’s public pension funds affects not just the 7.5 million workers who have retired from state and local government jobs but the communities where they live. Public benefit funds pay out a total of $15 billion per month or $180 billion per year to people living in every city and county around the nation. Retirees use that money to cover the cost of everything from health care and shoes to housing and Early Bird Special dinners. It is a key source of spending that helps to drive local economies. The U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting information about the nation’s public pension fund balances since 1957. But fund balances are just part of the story. Most states are legally obligated to pay public employees retirement benefits. By fiscal year 2009, 31 states around the country had underfunded pension plans. These states were collectively $1.26 trillion short of what is needed to continue to make good on promises to pay public employee pensions and other retirement benefits. Pension plan shortfalls widened in some states and spread to new ones in 2009 because market activity ate away at pension fund values at the same time that states faced declining tax revenue. The problem was made worse in some states when they slashed their contributions to employee retirement funds in an effort to address budget gaps. States such as Colorado and Minnesota decided to cut something different, Brainard said. They reduced promised cost-of-living increases for future and current retirees. Lawsuits related to these changes are pending.

Read the full article →

Pat Panchak Joins STACK Media as Editorial Director

April 27, 2011

CLEVELAND, OH–(Marketwire – Apr 27, 2011) – Pat Panchak, an award-winning journalist with 20 years of experience in publishing and journalism, has joined STACK Media, the nation’s leading producer and distributor of sports participant information and services. As STACK’s Editorial Director, Panchak will manage the company’s overall content strategy and execution on all platforms, including the STACK Media network, STACK Magazine, STACK TV, the STACK blog and a profusion of partner sites, such as the Gatorade Performance Center, that feature STACK articles and video.

Read the full article →

Robert Auerbach: Bernanke’s Press Conferences Will Not Remedy the Fed’s Corrupt and Deceptive Public Records Policies

April 25, 2011

Chairman Ben Bernanke’s public press conferences are intended to open the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, to needed public sunlight. Bernanke may well dodge any questions on Fed policies, the only policies the Fed has authority to alter. He will be eager to talk about fiscal and budget policy over which the Fed has no direct control except for Fed loans. Some of these loans were forced into public view by the recent Fed audit required under the 2010 Chris Dodd-Barney Frank Act. What is needed is a complete record of the discussions at the Fed meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC (12 members), and its Board of Governors (7 governors when all seats are filled). These unelected officials determine the size of the nation’s money supply and the payment of billions of dollars of interest to private sector banks that currently (4/20/2011) hold $1.486 trillion in reserves at the Fed. Bernanke has said he may raise the rate of interest on these reserves, as he will be forced to do if market interest rates rise. The transcripts of the FOMC meetings should be published within six months, ending the practice of a five-year delay. The Fed should not destroy the original FOMC transcripts that were formerly sent to the National Archives and Records Administration after 30 years. The Fed does publish minutes of its FOMC meetings with about a month delay. The minutes are a poor and inaccurate substitute for transcripts. The minutes currently released were created by Fed Chairman Arthur Burns in 1976 as a substitute for the transcripts which the Fed publicly said would no longer be made. The 17-year lie ended in 1993. During a House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez investigation the Fed was forced to show to me the 17 years of transcripts which they had kept secret, avoiding Freedom of Information requests. The transcripts were in an office around the corner from Greenspan’s office. Unlike the FOMC transcripts, the minutes contain no attributions of FOMC members’ views except on final recorded votes where all but an occasional few members display unanimity. The interpreters of the Fed’s minutes should read what Fed Chairman Burns said to his staff about padding the minutes and not giving the public too much information. Researching Burns’ papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, I was able to obtain and include in my book his instructions to the Fed staff about the FOMC minutes. Bernanke’s press conferences will not replace the FOMC transcripts that establish individual accountability for the Fed officials who discuss and vote on important national policies. Bernanke may give some insight into his views but this can be misleading without the transcripts. There is a clear episode in the Greenspan Fed where public statements about monetary policy were completely different from what was said by the chairman at a number of the then secret FOMC meetings. As Bernanke surely knows, a Fed chairman can make a dangerous mistake at a press conference that dramatically affects equity markets and bank customers. This kind of information can be edited from the published FOMC transcripts in conjunction with professional archivists from the National Archives and Records Administration. When it came to public questioning of Fed chairmen, Greenspan was the master of garblements as I well learned from preparing questions for members of the Financial Services Committee to ask Fed Chairmen Arthur Burns, William Miller, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan. Greenspan even told the FOMC (10/5/1993) members how to play the congressional committee members during the very month that the Fed officials were required to be witnesses at a Gonzalez hearing on Fed records: “… it would be quite easy to say: And by the way, this reminds me of an incident in 1936 in Sacramento or something like that.” Some members of the press may be reticent to ask pointed questions on Fed polices and operations because of the need for access to the Fed chairman and to avoid retaliation. The Fed has a history of retaliation to members of the press. My book includes a picture of an internal memo about the treatment of a member of the press, Nicholas von Hoffman who was a columnist at the Washington Post and had segments on 60 Minutes . A Fed official sent an internal memo (12/6/1974) to Fed Chairman Arthur Burns “concerning our conversation yesterday about Nicholas von Hoffman. Bart Rowen [Hobart Rowen, former financial writer at the Washington Post ] thinks it would be an excellent idea for you to discuss the matter with Katherine Graham [Katharine Graham]“, the owner of the Post, apparently to get Hoffman fired or warned. Although this memo may not have played a part in Hoffman leaving the Post , the following warning about the Post editor is an interesting tribute to free journalism. The Fed official warned Burns to be careful of the editor, Ben Bradlee: “Additionally, Ben Bradlee’s reaction to an approach of this nature might be: “Washington’s officialdom is squirming; keep up the good work.”

Read the full article →

Increased Lamb Prices Help Sheep Farmers Prosper

April 22, 2011

LUBBOCK, Texas — In his 33 years raising sheep in West Texas, Glen Fisher has never seen it so good. Demand by U.S. consumers is up, imports are down and prices have soared. “You have almost what you can call a perfect storm,” said Fisher, 64, who has about 3,100 animals on his acreage near Sonora. “The great part is we have record prices for lambs – the highest ever by a whole lot.” Last year’s May delivery of lamb fetched about $1.39 a pound; this year the price is around $2.20 a pound, said Fisher, the immediate past president of American Sheep Industry Association. Lamb numbers far outstrip those for mutton. In 2010 about 156 million pounds of lamb was slaughtered at federal and state inspected plants, compared with about 11 million pounds of mutton. About 30 percent of lamb is purchased near Easter and Christmas, and consumers this year likely have noticed the increased cost at supermarkets and nontraditional markets that cater to people of Hispanic decent and those from Middle Eastern and African countries who live in urban areas of the Midwest and Northeast. The price is so high that Abbas Ammar, whose family owns two restaurants and a meat market in Dearborn, Mich., won’t carry it in the market. And he tells the restaurant’s wait staff to steer customers away from lamb. “Eat something else, pay less, enjoy,” said Ammar, who refuses to sell it in his market at $7 a pound. “I want to give a quality product for a low price,” he said. “I know it sounds weird. It’s really difficult to keep our (high-quality) standard and keep it at a low price, so I prefer to say I’m just out of it.” Still, Mazen Munaser, who father owns the Islamic Village Market in Dearborn, said demand remains strong. “It’s the busiest thing that we have in the store,” said Munaser. “It’s at a point that it’s very, very big sales. About 5.5 million sheep are raised in all 50 states, with Texas and California leading the nation. Roughly 35 percent of lamb and mutton are imported to the U.S. About one-third of U.S. sales are through nontraditional markets, which use smaller processing plants, farmer’s markets, direct sales off farms and through local butcher shops. The other two-thirds go through larger commercial plants and supermarket chains. Lately, nontraditional markets have grown more quickly. “The growth of the nontraditional markets has surprised everybody,” said Robert Oreck, executive director of the American Sheep Industry Association. “And it hasn’t peaked.” Higher prices have put meatpackers in a bind, said Greg Ahart, director of producer relations for Superior Farms, one of the nation’s larger lamb processors. If Superior raises its prices, it runs the risk that stores won’t buy and sales could plummet. “We need more product in front of the consumer so if they’re thinking about it they can easily find it,” Ahart said. “There’s got to be a happy medium where everyone can make money and the consumer can still find it.” That increased demand has come amid a drop in supply, in part due to decreased production in Australia and New Zealand, two of the world leaders in production and large exporters to the U.S., Orwick said. Australia has about 70 million sheep, down from 170 million 20 years ago. The drop has been blamed on the ending of a government support program and extended drought followed by recent flooding, Orwick said. In New Zealand, sheep numbers have dropped from about 70 million to 40 million, and many producers have switched to dairies and beef production. Drought also has hurt some producers in Texas, but others in states such as Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio have picked up the slack, Orwick said. There also has been increased interest in buying from U.S. producers, most notably demonstrated by a decision by Super Wal-Mart to sell only domestic lamb for the next two years. “It’s great,” Fisher said. “It’s going to be significant and should tip the demand curve up.” The worldwide drop in sheep populations also has created a tighter supply of wool, which is sold in a separate commodity market. That comes amid near-record prices for cotton and synthetic fibers, which are oil-based. It’s combined to push wool prices to a 20-year high. The sheep association has developed a plan to increase sheep numbers by adding two ewes per operation or by two ewes per 100 by 2014. The group also wants producers to increase the average birthrate per ewe to two lambs per year, and to raise the lamb slaughter rate by 2 percent. The program would mean 315,000 more lambs and 2 million pounds of wool for the industry to market. It also would add $71 million in lamb sales and about $3 million for wool, according to the group’s website. “If we can achieve that that’s a lot,” Fisher said.

Read the full article →

Municipal M&A: Budget Woes May Force Cities To Combine

April 22, 2011

As cities grapple with continuing declines in revenue, some are considering merging with other strapped localities or sharing services in a bid to cut costs. Local officials in Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California and other states are considering municipal mergers, which some see as the only way to preserve services amid a historic economic downturn. Zionsville, Ind., combined with two townships last year, and political and economic pressures are pushing other communities in that direction. In California, some cities are outsourcing services to their counties. In Michigan, politicians in Detroit and neighboring Hamtramck say merging the two governments might save the dollars needed to stay afloat. In short, struggling governments are employing a strategy familiar to corporate chiefs and Wall Street investment banks: the merger or acquisition. Just as the recession has spurred companies to pair up, the persistent economic stagnation has made some cities see municipal M&A as a tempting, if incredibly complicated, method of cutting costs while still providing services to taxpayers. Jobs can be lost when such combinations take place, and thickets of obligations have to be reorganized. But municipal experts and local politicians say M&A is some cities’ best hope for fiscal survival. “This is, I think, going to happen nationwide. Not just in Detroit suburbs or New York suburbs or Chicago suburbs, but in effect everywhere,” said veteran municipal strategist Thompson Dyke, founder of the Chicago-based urban planning firm Thompson Dyke & Associates. “They’re approaching the concept of consolidating their governments reluctantly,” he continued. “They don’t want to do it, I don’t think. But they see this as something the electorate is going to increasingly ask for.” The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has left many governments struggling to perform the most basic of functions. Tax receipts have withered as property values have fallen and residents have cut back on spending. Pension fund assets plunged as the stock market tumbled, with many municipal pension plans now requiring outsized contributions from taxpayers. And with states desperate to fill their own budget holes, many localities have gone without crucial portions of state aid. Awash in red ink, governments have laid off crossing guards and dismissed teachers. Others have delayed repairs to pothole-ridden streets or crumbling buildings. Still others have slashed bus service , preventing residents from accessing tens of thousands of potential jobs. And some of the nation’s statistically most dangerous cities have axed sizable percentages of their police forces. But there may be another way. Over the course of centuries, the U.S. has developed tens of thousands of local governments, designed to be responsive to citizens’ needs. There’s now one local government or public school system for every 3,500 Americans, according to Census data. But in today’s economic slump, not all of these small governments can survive on their own. With politicians reluctant to raise taxes to a level commensurate with other developed countries, localities are casting about for help. Frank Shafroth, director of the State and Local Government Leadership Center at George Mason University, speculated that in the next 20 years, one in four local governments will dissolve or merge into other governments. “It’s going to have to happen, and it’s going to be very, very hard,” said Shafroth, who was formerly director of government relations for Arlington County, Virginia. “There’s going to have to be change. The issue is who can be really creative and innovative in thinking how to make it work.” Local officials will likely look to history for guidance. In 1963, Nashville, Tennessee, merged with Davidson County. Six years later, Indianapolis, Indiana, combined with Marion County. And in 2003, Louisville, Kentucky, consolidated its government with Jefferson County’s. Consolidations are also happening on a service-by-service basis. Last summer, officials in Maywood, California, fired all municipal employees, and outsourced services to Los Angeles county. In Costa Mesa, every firefighter was issued a layoff notice last month, but nearly all of them had been offered jobs by the Orange County Fire Authority. If that deal goes through, Costa Mesa would cede control of its fire department, allowing the county to manage any future labor negotiations. The city would shed payroll costs, but it would pay the county for fire protection. Elsewhere, officials are itching to engage in some outright governmental M&A. Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, has made the elimination of township government one of his priorities. Last fall, Indiana voters approved a constitutional amendment that capped local property taxes. Given that restraint, local governments might be going the way of Zionsville, which combined with its townships last year. With fiscal pressures mounting, such mergers are likely necessary for many localities’ financial survival, said Matt Greller, executive director of the advocacy group Indiana Association of Cities and Towns. Combinations might also be in the works in Michigan, where local officials are mulling over the possibility of a merger of cities. A cluster of municipalities in the Detroit area faces severe strains, and a combination could potentially bring much-needed relief, some politicians say. Last year, Detroit and Hamtramck , an independent city located entirely within Detroit’s borders, were locked in a dispute over tax revenue. A General Motors plant — the one that produces the Chevrolet Volt — straddles the cities’ border, and the two governments agreed decades ago to share that property tax revenue. But then Detroit started withholding payments, critically weakening Hamtramck’s budget, the tiny city claimed. Desperate, the city of 20,000 people attempted to enter bankruptcy. As part of a deal struck last month, Detroit agreed to pay Hamtramck $3.2 million for the lost tax revenue, and Hamtramck agreed to pay Detroit for water and sewer charges it owed. But both cities still face myriad woes. Hamtramck, for its part, will remain solvent only for the next 10 months, estimates Bill Cooper, the city manager. Detroit, too, faces trouble. The decline of automobile manufacturers has put thousands out of work, and an exodus of residents has left the government scrambling to fill its coffers. Whole neighborhoods of buildings are decaying. The most recent Census numbers showed Detroit’s population had dropped by a fourth over the last decade. Making matters worse, Detroit’s population has officially dipped below a legal threshold, now preventing the city from collecting a tax on electricity, heat and phone lines, and forcing the government to reduce its income tax rate. Mayor Dave Bing has taken the matter up with the state, and significant portions of the city’s tax collection now hinge on whether the state legislature passes certain bills. In the meantime, the city stands to lose more than $100 million this year. Residents of Detroit and Hamtramck have talked about a possible merger for years. Last month, Michigan passed a law empowering state-appointed managers to take over the finances of troubled local governments, a scenario that local officials are striving to avoid. With budget strains mounting, local politicians now see a municipal merger as a potential way to resolve fiscal difficulties without state intervention. Outside city hall, Detroit politicians have quietly considered the idea of combining their city with Hamtramck and Highland Park, another municipality surrounded by Detroit. Councilman Kenneth Cockrel informally proposed taking a potential combination even further, merging Detroit with the suburbs of Ecorse and River Rouge. “It would automatically solve the population issue,” Cockrel said. “But it’s not like you can just go out and do an annexation next week. There’s a process you’ve got to undertake, and, I’ll admit, I’m not totally familiar with that process.” Even if a merger could solve some of Detroit’s problems, Hamtramck might resist. Hamtramck residents see their city as a relatively safe haven within Detroit, which, according to an analysis of FBI data, is the nation’s third most dangerous city. The police in Hamtramck pride themselves on fast, thorough service, and some officers and residents doubt that Detroit police would be able to provide the same level of protection. What’s more, a merger would likely require a reworking of payrolls, potentially resulting in layoffs. Dan McNamara, president of the local Detroit firefighters’ union, wouldn’t speculate about what might happen in a merger, but expressed support for the Hamtramck firefighters. The president of the Hamtramck firefighters’ local didn’t respond to requests for comment. But almost certainly, some jobs would be eliminated. At the very least, Cooper, the city manager, would be out of work, he said. “If a community can’t afford to provide the services that it should provide to its citizens, then you’ve got to look for alternatives,” Cooper said. “If that means combining communities, then that may be what has to happen.” Any combination of cities would be complicated, likely requiring the cities to hire outside consultants. Urban planners would serve the role of bankers in a corporate merger, poring over records in search of ways to maximize efficiency. But municipal M&A presents its own set of challenges. In Milwaukee, a local think tank released a study last year examining the consequences of a potential dissolution of Milwaukee County government. A county-city merger could yield efficiencies, the Public Policy Forum’s study noted, but the county’s pension and health care liabilities would present a potentially major challenge. Those benefits have to be paid, but the question is: if the government no longer exists, who will pay them? The study authors proposed a plan where the state would administer the benefits, but only the former county residents — the taxpayers who originally were on the hook — would be responsible for paying them. And, of course, a merger might not succeed in strengthening a city’s budget. Local governments across the nation are saddled with ballooning pension obligations, which are protected by state constitutions. Combining governments might just amount to rearranging the deck chairs. “Talking about merging entities will start to flush out some of the cost problems that you have,” said David Johnson, a partner at the Chicago-based ACM Partners, a boutique financial firm that advises municipalities. “But that’s not going to move the dial nearly as much as restructuring pension obligations would.” A successful merger, moreover, would have to better provide services to residents, said veteran bankruptcy lawyer James Spiotto, who has decades of experience in municipal restructuring. That’s the metric that local officials will use, he said. “The more local you get, the more responsive the government likely will be,” said Spiotto, who heads the bankruptcy division at the law firm Chapman and Cutler. If a merger doesn’t provide residents with the service they’re used to, he added, “it isn’t going to last.”

Read the full article →

Mike Green: No Excuses: Galvanizing Black Innovation and Capital

April 20, 2011

I’ve listened with great interest to intellectual minds like Dr. Cornel West , politically savvy leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson , and informed media personalities like Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner . All have uniquely insightful perspectives — and all have outspoken views about the job the president is doing. Yet, Black America — which has remained consistently rutted within a channel of economic depression since Dr. Martin Luther King marched the segregated streets of Selma, Alabama — was quite familiar with the aforementioned names long before it ever pinned all of its hopes on the name Barack Obama. I’m not quite sure if any of the outspoken critics expressing disappointment in this administration have articulated specifically how Black America ought to have already experienced the change hoped for in 2008. The most extraordinary notion I’ve gleaned from some expressions is the implication that President Obama should accomplish — within the span of four years — what Black Americans have failed to accomplish collectively over the past three decades. Allow me to be clear on the point. Black America is currently experiencing double the unemployment rate of the nation’s overall jobless rate. That double-the-overall-jobless-rate statistic is virtually unchanged from the days when little Barack was in diapers. Black America has watched the ever-widening chasm between Black wealth and White wealth quadruple over the past couple of decades. But the real insight is inherent in the fact that Black wealth in the 1960s was 25% of White wealth … quadruple what it is today (6%). So, what has President Obama prescribed for the economic ills of Black America? The exact same prescription he’s written for the nation as a whole: Investment in STEM education Investment in technological innovations Investment in high-growth entrepreneurship The refrain ought to be sung by the whole choir: Investment. Investing in Black America Where is the Black investment in STEM education? Given that STEM literacy is the passport to a bright future in the increasingly competitive and global 21st century innovation economy, there’s a real need to focus on black student preparation and achievement in STEM at the k-12 and post-secondary levels. Recognizing that large numbers of black students are educated in public school districts located in our major urban centers, we need not look any further than Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Baltimore… as examples of failure where high schools have served as drop out factories rather than STEM magnets that prepare black youth for the promise of the innovation economy. In Philadelphia, for example, less than 1 percent of its students graduate and go on to finish college at a 4-year university in any form of a STEM major. Less than 1 percent. Philadelphia serves as a microcosm and is indicative of a widespread problem in all of our urban centers that have failing public school systems … where a majority of African-American students are educated. What future does a system of education hold for our students when it cannot effectively prepare them for an increasingly competitive market? Where is the Black capital investment in high-growth entrepreneurs? There are many exciting business incubators and accelerators, like Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley, TechStars in Colorado, Jumpstart, Inc. in Ohio and many more across the nation. But where is such training, mentoring and investment within Black communities? Where is the investment in channels of access to capital for entrepreneurs? There are more than 500 angel and venture capital groups within the developed mainstream national infrastructure. But there are very few Black American groups. The Minority Angel Investment Network is such an effort. But where are collaborators to help it grow? A recent rising star, H360 Capital , aims to address this virtually vacant space by raising $100 million in venture capital. How much more effective would its Black principals be in generating the funds they need if they received eager investments from thousands of high net worth Black Americans and collaboration with other like-minded groups? Black Americans MUST be willing to invest in Black America. How embarrassing is it to beg White power brokers in government and corporate America to do exactly what we are not willing to do? Investment Capital Infrastructure Allow me to be clear on the point. The Kauffman Foundation is the nation’s largest nonprofit focused on investment in entrepreneurship. It reports that all net new jobs since 1980 were the result of companies less than five years old. That sort of high-growth entrepreneurship is the direct result of capital investment from private sector angels and venture capitalists. The high-risk private capital investment industry is relatively new. Angel groups that invest in seed stage and early stage companies have just one main trade organization: Angel Capital Association . It’s only six years old. The venture capital industry, which traces its beginning back 65 years, really sprang up as a viable investment industry in the 80s. It, too, has one main trade organization: National Venture Capital Association . In 2008, venture capital-backed companies produced nearly $3 trillion, roughly 21% of GDP. In 2007, all of the nearly two million Black-owned businesses combined produced $137.5 billion, less than 1% of GDP. Since 1970, venture capitalists have rained torrential buckets of cash ($456B) into more than 27,000 companies. Black Investment Required There are three things we know: Private equity capital investments did not rain down upon Black entrepreneurs to any appreciable degree over the past three decades. Black America was, and is, disconnected from the private capital equity investment infrastructure and high-growth entrepreneurial ecosystem. Black America has failed to develop its own investment infrastructure and high-growth entrepreneurial ecosystem. There are three main reasons I believe Black America has remained economically devastated for decades since its Civil Rights Era victory, despite boasting nearly $1 trillion in annual consumer spending last year: Black America does not invest in nor focus on STEM education (to any appreciable degree) as its highest education priority to fill the creative technology funnel with Black innovators. Black America has not developed its own angel and venture capital networks and connected them to the existing private capital infrastructure. Black America does not energetically and enthusiastically invest in high-growth entrepreneurship through development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The Black Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative ( BICI ) is the only national voice in Black America specifically focused on connecting 20th century Black America to the 21st century “Innovation Economy,” comprised of three core pillars: STEM Education, Capital Investment and High-Growth Entrepreneurship. No Excuses There is no excuse for Black America to go another decade enduring severe economic depression. Consider the progress Blacks have made in other hostile arenas within a very short time span: Television Industry : In 1988, Bill Cosby was juggling Jello alongside a popular family show that carried his name and re-defined how America viewed Black families. Today, the name Cosby is an iconic name in American entertainment. Pro Football : In 1988, Doug Williams was the first Black quarterback to win a Super Bowl. Matching wits with Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway, Williams out-Elwayed Elway in a masterful comeback from 10-0 at the half to lead the Redskins to a 42-10 victory in Superbowl XXII. Today, the NFL has many talented Black quarterbacks, coaches and front office personnel. Some Blacks in the pro sports world are now team owners. Music Industry : In 1988, Whitney Houston was on top of the music world after her second album release the previous year debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200s music chart. Today, she remains the most awarded female artist of all time. We see Black music moguls today who compete on a level that Motown never could in its heyday. Wherever Blacks have concentrated our time, talent, efforts and monetary investments, we have succeeded in transforming the space. Black Angels and Entrepreneurs I commend Rutgers Business School’s Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development in producing the first-ever Black Angels and Entrepreneurs Forum in partnership with the Black Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative. This is an opportunity for Black Americans to engage in a collaborative effort to change the economic paradigm. It is time for Black America to invest in developing a private capital equity investment infrastructure and a high-growth entrepreneurial ecosystem. Black America’s experienced academic, political, business and community leaders, as well as its high net worth asset class, must be willing to come to the table of collaboration to leverage their influences in generating the type of exponential economic impact Black America MUST produce to save itself from a potential future as a permanent underclass.

Read the full article →

Michael Pento: How Inflation Destroys Real Wages

April 20, 2011

In the same vein as doctors used bloodletting to cure illness, modern snake-oil economists still perilously cling to their claim that rising wages and salaries are the cause of inflation. With my recent debates with these main stream economists, I’ve heard the following: “without rising wages, where does the money come from to push prices higher?” It is actually the predominant belief that wages and salaries rise before aggregate price levels in the economy and thus during periods of rising inflation, real wages are always increasing. However, economic history has proven over and over again that real wages actually decrease during periods of rising inflation. Nominal incomes do increase, but this is merely a response to the inflation that has already been created. The essence of this folly is that modern economists don’t have a firm grasp on the mechanics of inflation. At the most basic level, inflation comes from too much money chasing too few goods. The battle against rapidly rising inflation always has its genesis from a central bank that prints money in order to monetize the nation’s debt. And because the central bank typically only gives this new money to the nation’s creditors — half of which aren’t Americans — the money created is never evenly distributed into the wages and salaries of the people. It goes first into the hands of those bondholders who receive interest and principal payments. In addition, the rapid expansion of the money supply causes the currency to lose value against hard assets and foreign currencies. Nominal wages and salaries eventually respond to soaring commodity prices and a crumbling currency, but always with a lag that causes their purchasing power to fall relative to other asset classes. Have you ever tried to ask your boss for a raise simply because living expenses cost 10% more than a year prior? As you are laughed out of the office, you can see the wage lag in action. Recent economic data provides clear proof that the “wage-price spiral” alleged by Keynesian economists is plainly wrong. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) has now increased for nine consecutive months. It increased by 0.5% in March from February and is up 2.7% year-over-year. The YOY increase in the prior month was 2.1%. It appears the increase in consumer prices is accelerating quickly. Meanwhile, in the last 12 months, the U.S. Dollar Index has lost 8% of its value against a basket of our 6 largest trading partners. The dollar has also lost 29% of its value since April 2010 when measured against the 19 commodities contained in the CRB Index. If you needed more evidence of the dollar devaluation, producer prices are up 5.8% and import prices surged 9.7% YOY. So there’s your inflation. But was it caused by rising wages and full employment? The unemployment rate has dropped a bit from 10.1% to 8.8% — but this is mostly due to discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force altogether. However, even if the decrease came from legitimate employment gains, it would be hard to argue that an 8.8% unemployment rate would put upward pressure on wages. And, in fact, it hasn’t. Real average hourly earnings dropped 0.6% in March, the most since June 2009, after falling 0.5% the prior month. Over the past 12 months they were down 1%, the biggest annual drop since September 2008! The conclusion is clear: rising wages can never be the cause of inflation. Alas, there is a predictable path for newly created money as it snakes its way through an economy. It is always reflected first in the falling purchasing power of a currency and in the rising prices of hard assets. That’s because debt holders move their newly minted proceeds into commodities to protect against the general rise in price levels and as an alternate store of wealth. Food and energy prices have a higher negative correlation to the falling dollar than the items in that exist in the core rate. They are the first warning bell in an inflationary period, which may be exactly why they are left out of the headline measure. Nominal wages and salaries eventually rise but always slower than the rate of inflation, causing real wages to fall. If rising wages increased faster than aggregate prices, inflation would always lead to a rise in the living standards. Is that what we’ve seen in Peron’s Argentina or Weimar Germany? The reason why the unemployment rate soars and the economy falls into a depression is precisely because the middle class has their discretionary purchasing power stolen from them. Mark my words: if the Fed and Obama Administration place their faith in stagnant incomes to contain inflation, they will sit idly by while the country collapses in front of their eyes. Because of their medieval understanding of economics, these central planners are going to bring us right back to the Dark Ages. Michael Pento is the Senior Economist for Euro Pacific Capital

Read the full article →

Conviction In Huge Mortgage Fraud Case

April 20, 2011

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A jury has convicted the majority owner of what had been one of the nation’s largest mortgage companies on all 14 counts in a $3 billion fraud trial that officials have said is one of the most significant prosecutions to arise from the nation’s financial crisis. The jury returned its verdict late Tuesday after more than a full day of deliberations. Prosecutors said Lee Farkas led a fraud scheme of staggering proportions as chairman of Florida-based Taylor Bean & Whitaker. The fraud not only caused the company’s 2009 collapse and the loss of jobs for its 2,000 workers, but also contributed to the collapse of Alabama-based Colonial Bank, the sixth-largest bank failure in U.S. history. Farkas testified in his own defense at the trial and claimed he did nothing wrong.

Read the full article →

Did Obama Plan His Budget Speech Months In Advance?

April 19, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s much discussed speech last week on how to remedy the country’s fiscal future was part of a far broader, more strategically detailed political strategy than has been previously reported. Several high-ranking administration officials have confirmed that the White House laid out plans for the address as far back as the last calendar year, with the president’s economic team and other senior staff members “meeting regularly since February to put the policy together and work on the speech.” In presenting a fiscal roadmap, the administration aimed to demonstrate Obama’s fundamental seriousness towards what is widely perceived to be a looming deficit crisis. But the speech also illuminated both the lack of communication between the White House and Capitol Hill and a growing conviction among insiders that the president must move the deficit debate off center stage in order to tackle other domestic priorities. The address, delivered at George Washington University last Wednesday, outlined an expansive approach towards leveling the federal government’s balance sheet. Obama expressed a need for simplifying the tax code and raising the rates on the highest earners. He called for a “debt fail-safe” trigger, mandating Congress to pass across-the-board spending reductions if the nation’s debt does not decline. He advocated stronger cuts in the Pentagon’s budget and less waste in Medicare. His remarks, in all, were positively received by Democrats and derided as partisan waste by Republicans. Yet build-up to the speech illustrated more than reactions to it. Capitol Hill officials, including the White House’s top allies, say they were left completely in the dark. No one, it appears, knew Obama would deliver an address until his top aide, David Plouffe, announced plans on the Sunday shows. Key aides were briefed on its content only days (if not hours) before the president took the stage. “Members and staffs had no idea what they were going to say until about four hours before the speech—three days after the speech was announced,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “It was pretty ham-handed in its roll out and members weren’t pleased.” The abundance of secrecy left the impression that White House officials came up with the idea for Obama’s speech at the eleventh hour in an effort to divert attention away from the debate raging in Congress. “They were scrambling to change the subject from the budget debacle and this was what they latched on to,” said the aide. Having failed to effectively brief members of Congress on the details of his plan, few lawmakers could therefore amplify the president’s message. Administration officials, for their part, steadfastly refute the idea that they simply “winged” it. According to one Obama aide, the president and his team decided in December that he would have to “lay out a comprehensive plan” for deficit reduction “after the FY2011 funding debate had completed.” Another White House official described the planning as even more specific, asserting, “Its been on the schedule for the Wednesday after the [continuing resolution avoiding a government shut down] was resolved for months now.” Because a vote on the continuing resolution was delayed on several occasions, the date of the speech remained, consistently, in flux. According to these individuals, the President’s staff had been considering university locations near or in Washington, D.C. for venue well before the speech was announced, with an eye toward delivering subsequent deficit-focused addresses outside the nation’s capital the following week. Michelle Sherrard, a spokesman for George Washington University, did not have a specific date for when the administration first contacted the university. She noted only that “The White House and GW regularly communicate about the possibility of hosting upcoming events on campus.” One administration aide defended congressional outreach, adding, “Throughout this process the President’s team has been in touch with leaders on the Hill, including both the Gang of Six [Senators meeting on their own deficit proposal] and Congressman [Paul] Ryan, and other stakeholders like the deficit commission chairs.” “In touch,” however, remains an inherently subjective phrase. As late as the Tuesday night before the speech was delivered, one extremely close White House ally professed to not having a clue about what would be said. “I don’t think they have briefed anyone and I am not sure the speech is done!” In fact, the speech wasn’t done. According to an administration aide, “the president worked until late in the night Tuesday, and put final touches on the speech on Wednesday morning.” Why did it take so long to finalize the details on a speech planned months in advance? For one, various areas of policy disagreement within the White House remained unresolved. In particular, officials familiar with the discussions say, Obama’s economic advisers warned against calling for a final balance of three dollars in spending reductions for every dollar generated in additional tax revenue, arguing the ratio was too explicit. Medicare reform sparked another element of disagreement. In his speech, the president proposed strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a group tasked with finding excessive and unnecessary spending within the system. Several aides wanted him to further outline specific ways to empower Medicare to negotiate over drug prices and medical procedures. In the end, Obama kept the speech broad, leaving Democrats officials on the Hill largely pleased. Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing. Obama’s speech came after Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) unveiled his own budget plan , giving his own remarks the veneer of a presidential response rather than executive leadership. Moreover, by calling for additional talks on deficit reform, the president miffed lawmakers either working on or invested in the Gang of Six talks currently ongoing. “The fact that the president has come out with his vision should be a positive reinforcement, another indication that this is important work that needs to be done,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Monday in response to complaints Obama stepped into Gang of Six territory. “And the fact that the President built his vision by borrowing in many ways from the recommendations of the bipartisan commission on which a number of members of that Senate group sat… gives a good sign, a good indication, of the fact that there is a building consensus around the way to approach this problem. So he thinks it’s very complementary to the process.” But many Democrats don’t want “complementary.” The Gang of Six already gives progressives angina, with the Democratic members of the group — including Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) — openly supporting elements of Social Security reform and even extending the Bush tax cuts. Should the president end up complementing or even embracing their approach, the worry goes, no progressive counterpoint to Ryan’s proposal will emerge. Instead, the distance between the Gang of Six and the Republican alternative will become the “compromise.” The White House has been noticeably tight-lipped about its thoughts on Gang of Six conversations, perhaps because scarce information exists as to what, exactly, the lawmakers are discussing. But signs of mounting concern permeate both on and off the Hill. When Vice President Joe Biden hosts a deficit reduction meeting with members of Congress at the Blair House on May 5, no Democratic lawmakers from the Gang of Six will be present. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is sending Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii). Gang of Six member and Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one Democratic Senate aide relayed, was more than “irked” by his absence from the talks. Other Democrats voiced relief over the Gang of Six absence, speculating that both Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were growing wary about the bipartisan group’s role. Gang of Six criticism is more intense off the Hill, with several of the nation’s most powerful union groups laying down crisp lines in the sand over elements they consider non-negotiable, such as ending tax cuts for the richest Americans. “Any plan to reduce the deficit that does not include ending the Bush tax cuts — a clear contributor to the deficit — is not a serious plan,” said Michelle Nawar, Director for Legislation at the Service Employees. “Every middle class family should be offended if Congress calls on them to bear the burden for reducing a deficit they did not cause while continuing to handout more tax giveaways to millionaires and corporations. We’ll see what the Gang of Six proposes, but how could any Democrat support a plan that cuts needed services for seniors and children while continuing these expensive tax giveaways?” Nawar’s question presumably extends to Obama, who has punted once on letting the Bush tax rates for the wealthy expire (they will now lapse at the end of 2012). A far more immediate and pressing concern, however, is whether the administration’s attempt to jump ahead of the deficit debate will yield the type of political fruits the White House envisions. The president’s advisers — chiefly, former Senior Communications Aide David Axelrod –- have long seen benefits to deficit hawk-ery in private polling. But the payoff this time around has been limited: An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday showed that 57 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Obama is handling the economy. “I think they were concerned about how to give the president credibility on this issue and how to win over some independents,” one top party strategist said of Obama’s speech on Wednesday. “The irony is it won’t give him any. He could have offered $10 billion more in cuts for the CR and it would never be good enough for the GOP.” Jen Bendery contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Video: Stocks Slump as S&P Cuts U.S. Long-Term Credit Outlook

April 18, 2011

April 18 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cali Carlin reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks slumped, sending benchmark indexes to their biggest declines in a month, after Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service cut the nation’s long-term credit outlook to negative. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

The Center for Public Integrity: Oil Companies May Have Avoided Paying Billions To Government

April 15, 2011

The Huffington Post is a sponsor of the Center for Public Integrity iWatch News by Aaron Mehta Even as leaders grapple with the nation’s fiscal troubles and urge expanded drilling for natural resources, their failure to remedy decades-old systemic shortcomings at the Interior Department may have allowed billions of dollars in royalties from oil and natural gas companies to slip away, increasing the burden on taxpayers. By law, energy companies must pay one-sixth to one-eighth of the value of oil and gas obtained on public lands and in federal waters off the nation’s coasts. In practice, government auditors and Interior’s inspector general believe the industry is paying less than it legally should. Exactly how much less is anybody’s guess, but it is believed to be at least hundreds of millions — and possibly tens of billions of dollars. So flawed and complicated are Interior Department operations and records that even auditors from the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, have been unable to figure out exactly how much has been lost to taxpayers. “This is something that is a struggle for us,” Franklin Rusco, the director of the GAO’s team of natural resources and environment investigators, told iWatch News . This much is clear, added Rusco: “Interior can’t provide reasonable assurance that it is collecting all the royalties that it should.” The government’s failures are all the more striking against the backdrop of heightened attention and political showdowns over government spending and taxes. “It’s outrageous that even during a fiscal crisis, Interior fails to pursue taxpayers’ fair share of royalties,” said Mandy Smithberger, an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight , a Washington-based government watchdog group that has examined other issues involving the royalty system. Despite at least three decades of demands for improvement from Congress and the GAO, the Interior Department repeatedly has failed to heed basic recommendations for fixing the complicated and ill-funded process, which largely relies on companies to volunteer pricing information on which royalty payments are based, according to recent audits and the testimony of Interior Department officials reviewed by iWatch News . Those reports and interviews show that the federal government is hampered by staffing and technology inadequate to track and confirm what the companies disclose, as well as antiquated royalty collection laws and poor communication within the federal bureaucracy. One Interior Department agency, for instance, lacks any way of keeping up to date on the activity of wells and the amount of energy produced in the Gulf of Mexico, where the government grants companies the lucrative privilege of exploring and drilling. Lack of such real-time data is critical because royalties are based in part on current oil and gas prices. Without information on industry revenue, the Interior Department has no way of knowing whether oil and gas companies are paying their fair share. It also can’t tell which producers may be underpaying the most, and thus warrant scrutiny. And only half of the money paid to the government during each of the past three years has been audited by the department for accuracy. The Obama administration acknowledges some of the failures but says it is working on remedies. Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said that an “aggressive” reorganization of Interior precipitated by the BP oil spill one year ago already has increased oversight of the gas and oil industry in the past nine months. That includes oversight of royalty collections by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. Even so, the government insists significant underpayments are eventually detected due to a “sophisticated accounting and detection system,” Barkoff said in a written response to questions from iWatch News. “The department does not believe that material amounts of royalties are ultimately uncollected.” The oil and gas industry, while acknowledging weaknesses in the royalty collection system, says that it is paying its fair share. The American Petroleum Institute, the leading trade association for the oil and gas industry, says in a statement on its website that it is “committed to working with all parties to improve any perceived inadequacies in the system.” Industry groups did not respond to multiple iWatch News requests for comment. Royalty payments from companies that drill on public lands and waters account for the federal government’s second-largest source of income; only taxes generate more revenue for Uncle Sam. In 2009, the energy industry paid an estimated $9 billion in royalties on sales of oil and gas obtained from federal lands and waters. If taxpayers are missing just 3 percent of royalties — a conservative estimate from sources contacted by iWatch News — the missing amount would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. “These are publically owned resources and we should be getting a fair value for them,” said Autumn Hanna, who analyzes environmental spending for Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent policy group in Washington. “These are things the federal government owns that we have a right to — and that corporations are making billions of dollars off of.” Oil companies treated ‘like royalty’ Politicians in both parties acknowledged concerns about the royalty program’s shortcomings in statements to iWatch. “It is important that the government collect what is fairly owed and that the necessary systems are in place to collect these funds as stipulated by the contractual terms in all federal oil and gas leases,” said Thad Cochran of Mississippi, a Republican member of a Senate appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior Department. Cochran is among a number of Republicans and Democrats seeking to expand drilling on the nation’s public lands and along its coastlines. Cochran said he is urging colleagues to “embrace policies to maximize royalties paid to the U.S. Treasury, not only by ensuring that royalties due under existing leases are paid in full but also by increasing all domestic energy production consistent with environmental laws.” Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, a member of House energy and natural resources committees, argues for a royalty crackdown on oil and gas companies — especially when the nation faces a budget deficit. “We need to reclaim the tens of billions of dollars in royalties from oil companies drilling for free on public land,” he said, “and use those funds to reduce the deficit.” Added Markey: “Our government should be extracting all the royalties rightfully owed to the American people, not expressing fealty to the oil companies and treating them like they are royalty.” Some lay blame for the persistent shortcomings in royalty collections on the influence of the energy industry. In 2010 alone, the oil and gas industry reported spending more than $146 million to lobby the federal government. During the 2009-2010 election cycle, it donated close to $28 million to federal campaigns, data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. While the money has gone mostly to Republicans, cash has also flowed to the Democratic party of President Barack Obama, whose administration backs a limited expansion of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Dave Alberswerth , a former senior advisor at the Interior Department during the Clinton administration, said the industry has a key role in maintaining a broken system. He calls the influence of the oil and gas industry “enormous.” “They have so much influence it’s just scandalous,” said Alberswerth, now a policy advisor at the Wilderness Society, an environmental advocacy organization. “It’s impossible to dislodge them.” Both Albersworth and the GAO’s Rusco cite a lack of staffing as a major issue with the royalties system. “Part of the reality is that [Interior] simply does not have enough people going around to do enforcement and inspections” said Albersworth, whose organization supports a proposal in the department’s fiscal 2012 budget request that would impose a small fee on oil and gas companies to pay for more inspectors. A history of problems Interior Department Inspector General Mary Kendall warned in an April 2010 report to Congress that the government has “failed to carry out effective oversight and management to ensure all royalty income is collected.” And in February 2011, the GAO identified the troubles as serious enough to put it on the watchdog’s bi-annual “High Risk” report; it warned that the department’s royalty collection shortcomings placed it among programs at a “high risk for waste, fraud, abuse mismanagement or in need of broad reform.” Like many breakdowns in government, this one has been brewing for years. In January 1982, a federal commission investigating alleged royalties fraud and theft of oil from public lands criticized the government for not “fulfilling a public trust.” The study, ” Fiscal Accountability of the Nation’s Energy Resources ” — commonly known as the Linowes report for its economist-chairman, David F. Linowes — began pointedly: “Management of royalties for the Nation’s energy resources has been a failure for more than 20 years.” The report went on to cite “disarray” in recordkeeping and “serious inadequacies” in how the government managed the royalty program. “The Nation can no longer afford mismanagement of royalties for its energy resources,” it warned. “The stakes are too high.” Even then it was unclear how much was being lost. The 1982 report estimated “about one hundred million to several hundred million dollars a year,” but acknowledged that was only a guess. “The exact amount of money the Federal government, the States and the [Indian tribes] lose each year is unknown.” More recently, the government decided to shut down a program that allowed oil and gas companies to make “in-kind” royalty payments. Companies had been allowed to pay in oil or gas, which the government could resell or stash away in the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But in 2008 the Interior Department’s inspector general documented a “culture of ethical failure” that described how government staff running the in-kind program socialized with oil and gas industry employees, routinely accepting gifts from them and even engaging in drug use and sexual relations with them. A spokesman for the in-kind program told iWatch News that Interior Department employees are still tying up loose ends, such as unresolved royalty imbalances. Vietnam, New Guinea have better collection systems A series of GAO reports over the past decade detail the Interior Department’s struggles with royalty collection, including one in 2008 where the GAO reported that a study of 104 royalty collection systems globally found that the U.S. federal royalty program brought in less revenue than all but 11. Among countries with more effective systems: Papua New Guinea, Vietnam and Norway. The problems have their roots in the process itself. Each company is responsible for keeping track of the amount produced each month from federal lands or waters, then reporting that production to Interior, along with a total for how much the company owes in royalties. The assessment is based on the total value of that month’s production, including the price — a number that fluctuates daily, making it hard to lock down a figure. Interior auditors check the information but only a fraction of reports are subjected to a rigorous audit in which the company’s production and revenue reports are compared against information from other sources. There is no blanket oversight of production facilities, and surprise inspections are rare. While testifying on the department’s fiscal 2012 budget request before a House appropriations subcommittee on March 17, officials from Interior acknowledged GAO’s concerns. The department’s requested budget addresses them by calling for, among other items, more staff and technology, said Greg Gould, director of the natural resources revenue office. The planned enhancements — additional “production meter” inspectors and a feasibility study on the use of automated production metering systems — could go a long way in detecting underpayments, the GAO’s Rusco told iWatch News. At the appropriations hearing, Gould was repeatedly asked how much the government is losing in royalty revenues. He never answered the question. But he did acknowledge that the government has identified at least some of the money it was owed. “Over the last 5 years our audit and compliance program has detected and collected more than half a billion dollars in companies’ initial underpayments” Gould testified. He also indicated that when it comes to collecting oil revenues, a little addition to the federal budget can go a long way. For every dollar spent on audits, he said, four came back to the government.

Read the full article →

Obama: Deficit Reduction Push ‘Can’t Exempt Anyone’

April 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says the nation’s effort to curb ballooning deficits “can’t exempt anyone.” Obama spoke Thursday as he met with the co-chairmen of his deficit reduction commission, a day after laying out his blueprint for erasing some $4 trillion in red ink over 12 years. The commission was led by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton. It produced a plan for a similar amount of deficit reduction over 10 years. Obama tells reporters the country needs to ask everyone to participate in the effort to get its fiscal house in order.

Read the full article →

Obama Tiptoes On Proposed Tax Increases

April 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — With his striking choice of words, President Barack Obama clearly outlined the greatest perils for Republicans – and for Democrats – in the nation’s high-stakes debate over spending and social programs. Obama used vivid, populist language in a forceful speech Wednesday to denounce the GOP plan for cutting spending and revamping Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans, he said, have concluded that “even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.” But the president’s language was tortured and opaque when it came to one element of his own proposal: raising taxes for certain Americans, mostly high earners. Obama said he wants “to reduce spending in the tax code.” That code, he said, is “loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.” By any measure, “spending in the tax code” is a curious phrase. It likens tax revenue to a source of money that “spends” down its total when tax cuts are enacted and conversely “reduces spending” when taxes go up, including cases in which temporary tax cuts are ended. Long gone are the days when Democrats employed frank language on taxes, as presidential nominee Walter Mondale did in 1984. “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I,” Mondale said in accepting the nomination. “He won’t tell you. I just did.” Obama left no doubt he believes some taxes should go up. But he couched it in careful terms designed to distance himself from proverbial “tax-and-spend Democrats” almost as much as he distanced himself from what he suggested are heartless Republicans. Throughout his 43-minute speech, Obama portrayed himself as a fair but frugal leader willing to trim popular agencies, including the military, and to raise taxes only on wealthy people who have benefited disproportionately in recent years. It’s part of a broader appeal to independent voters, who swung dramatically from Democratic candidates in 2008 to Republicans in 2010 and who hold the key to his re-election hopes next year. Americans are showing increased alarm at the fast-growing federal debt. It’s coupled with concern, along with sometimes conflicting emotions and beliefs, about the nation’s biggest social programs, Medicare and Social Security. Both parties face political opportunities and risks as they confront these issues. And both parties are seeking phrases and slogans to best exploit their openings while minimizing their weaknesses. House Republicans plan this week to pass an ambitious 10-year plan that would convert Medicare to a voucher program and turn Medicaid into a state block grant program, saving the government billions of dollars. The bill would reduce tax rates for corporations and high earners, while ending some tax-avoidance loopholes. Democrats feel the GOP is overreaching, chiefly in its proposed changes to Medicare, the rapidly expanding federal health care program for older Americans and the disabled. They think voters will recoil at the notion of higher medical costs for the elderly, especially if income tax rates are falling for high earners. Obama ripped the Republican plan. “It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors,” he said. “It ends Medicare as we know it.” Republicans, meanwhile, have virtually perfected their attacks on any Democrat who suggests a tax increase of any kind. Several top Republicans criticized Obama’s long and multilayered speech on that topic alone. Obama “doesn’t get it,” said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a likely presidential candidate. “The fear of higher taxes tomorrow hurts job creation today.” “The real problem is that Washington spends too much, not that it taxes too little,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. Numerous bipartisan and nonpartisan analysts say it is almost impossible to solve the nation’s debt problem without some combination of tax increases, spending cuts and substantial changes to Medicare and Social Security. After calling for an array of spending cuts Wednesday, Obama made the case for targeted tax increases, albeit in roundabout language. Because Medicare and Social Security are popular with both parties, he said, “and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse, that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices.” He said he would not repeat last year’s decision to extend Bush-era tax cuts – now scheduled to expire before 2013 – for families earning more than $250,000 a year. “We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire,” the president said. He renewed his call for limiting itemized deductions “for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.” Such deductions apply to money spent on mortgage interest payments, charitable gifts and other items. Obama described such goals as “reducing tax expenditures.” “I think it was very, very smart” to use such unfamiliar and indirect language, said Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way, a Democratic-leaning think tank that praised Obama’s speech. “Why not put it in those terms?” he said in an interview. “It’s what the Republicans’ Frank Luntz would do.” Luntz is a GOP adviser known for pushing carefully crafted political terms, such as referring to levies on estates as the “death tax.” Bennett said Republicans have demonized even reasonable and necessary tax increases to the point that “it’s a gigantic problem” for solving the nation’s fiscal woes. If a “term of art” will blunt GOP attacks, he said, it could help Obama advance his agenda and give political cover to Republican lawmakers who believe some element of tax increases must be part of a deficit-reduction drive. In his closest brush with an explicit call for tax increases Wednesday, Obama chastised the most insistent Republicans. “Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider ever, ever raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans,” the president said. “It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.” It fell far short of Mondale’s candor. But it was enough to unleash a barrage of GOP criticisms, certain to resound through the fall of 2012. ___ EDITOR’S NOTE – Charles Babington covers Congress and politics for The Associated Press.

Read the full article →

Obama’s Deficit Plan May Mark Turning Point, Moody’s Official Says

April 13, 2011

President Barack Obama’s plan to cut $4 trillion in cumulative deficits within 12 years may be a “positive” for the nation’s credit quality and mark a reversal in the budget debate, according to Moody’s Investors Servic

Read the full article →

Obama Jumping Into Debt Debate

April 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, jumping into a debt-reduction debate that will help define the rest of his term, will outline his ideas Wednesday for curbing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid and taking other steps to turn around the nation’s spending habits. Ahead of his effort, House Republicans warned they would not consider any plan that includes tax increases. Obama will give congressional leaders of both parties a preview of his speech, scheduled for delivery at 1:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday, during a private meeting at the White House on Wednesday morning. The White House has refused to discuss details of the speech, but Obama is expected to call for a “balanced” approach of shared burdens that takes on entitlement programs, defense spending and taxes. The president’s move also is intended to serve as a counter to a major Republican proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Ryan’s plan would seek to cut more than $5 trillion in spending over the next decade, built around a drastic reshaping of Medicare and other federal safety-net entitlement programs, and would lower the tax rate for the nation’s top payers. “The point is that balance is essential,” Obama spokesman Jay Carney said. “What is not acceptable in the president’s view – and we believe in the American people’s view – is a plan that achieves serious deficit reduction only by asking for sacrifice from the middle class, seniors, the disabled and the poor, and while providing substantial tax cuts to the very well off.” In a divided Washington, where a budget standoff between Obama and House Republicans nearly led to a government shutdown last week, the broader debt debate now begins in earnest. It is expected to shape both the course of legislation and a presidential campaign that already has Obama seeking a second term. Obama has renewed his call to end the Bush-era tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 a year or individuals earning above $200,000. The White House has insisted that every aspect of the government must be considered as part of a serious discussion on debt, including revenues, which tends to be Washington-speak for taxes. “If the president begins the discussion by saying we must increase taxes on the American people – as his budget does – my response will be clear: Tax increases are unacceptable and a nonstarter,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. “We don’t have deficits because Americans are taxed too little. We have deficits because Washington spends too much.” The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Tuesday: “Hopefully the president will put forward a plan that doesn’t just pay lip service to the commitments we’ve made to seniors and the poor, but which acknowledges the unique problems that this generation and a rising generation of Americans face.” The ballooning year-by-year deficit has pushed the national debt above a staggering $14 trillion. The administration is clamoring for Congress to raise the government’s borrowing authority above $14.3 trillion to avoid a government default on its debt, but Republicans want spending cuts in return. That showdown helps sets the context for Obama’s speech. Obama is expected to meet at the White House with Boehner, McConnell, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and top Democrats, too: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Read the full article →

A Debt Ceiling ‘Blazing Saddles’ Strategy?

April 12, 2011

WASHINGTON — Are Republicans following a “Blazing Saddles” strategy in the looming standoff over the nation’s debt limit. Imagine the scene in the Mel Brooks classic, where Cleavon Little points a gun at his own head and threatens to shoot if the armed townspeople don’t drop their weapons. “Listen to him, men. He’s just crazy enough to do it!” one says. That’s how some Democrats view GOP demands for “really, really big” concessions on spending and deficits in return for raising America’s debt ceiling. They think Republicans are essentially threatening to take a step that would spark an economic catastrophe — and that the public would blame the GOP for it. “It reminds me of the joke where the guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with another guy, puts the gun to his head and his wife starts laughing,” Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) told the Huffington Post. “He says ‘Who are you laughing at? You’re next!’” “The next hostage event seems to be the debt limit,” House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. “The only reason you can hold hostage something is because the other side wants to act responsible,” he added. “Therefore you think, even though they don’t want what you’re pressing, that [Democrats will] take it to prevent a bigger harm. I think that’s irresponsible.” Even some Republicans privately wonder how the leadership can plausibly threaten a move that could pull the plug on the economy while arguing they want to fix the economy. “That’s a damn good question,” one GOP Financial Services aide acknowledged. “Even the Ryan budget requires raising the debt ceiling,” the staffer said, referring to the Republicans’ 2012 budget plan offered last week by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) “It’s Alice in Wonderland territory,” the aide said. To recap, the U.S. debt ceiling is the maximum amount set by Congress that the country can borrow to meet its obligations. Now standing at $14.3 trillion, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warns the nation will hit it in mid-May . The Treasury can juggle the books for several weeks after that to pay the bills, but America will default for the first time in its history if the limit is not raised by early July. Economists have warned defaulting would spark economic calamity , beginning with spiking interest rates on bonds and potentially ending with a new, worse recession. “Yes, the Republicans are threatening to wreck the U.S. economy unless they get their way,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who chaired the Joint Economic Committee before the GOP won the last election. The reason the GOP stance seems like a bad joke to many Democrats is that Congress can’t avoid raising the debt limit, whatever anyone says. The math just won’t allow it. It’s all but impossible to cut enough from the budget to avoid smacking into the limit, which last week was only about $80 billion away, a fact that many people have overlooked.. According to the Congressional Research Service, the nation needs to raise its debt limit by $738 billion just to finish 2011 — and there is only about $688 billion in discretionary spending left for the second half of the year. Cutting that spending would only delay the need to hike the debt, because there is, after all, an awful lot of interest to pay. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, noted that the debt involves money that was already spent: on wars, an unfunded Medicare drug program and tax cuts, for instance, which he pointed out he didn’t support. “The way you deal with debt is by not incurring it,” Frank told HuffPost. “The notion that you can incur it and then ignore it is stupid.” Yet Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has vowed to use the debt ceiling as a ” leverage moment ,” and declared Tuesday, “We’re only talking about even doing this [raising the debt limit] if we can be assured there are guarantees in place that the spending doesn’t get out of control here.” “Maybe they’ve got an imaginary magic leverage stick,” quipped Ackerman, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee. Thinking along fairy tale lines, Frank argued that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) know what has to be done. But he said they could have a hard time doing it because of both the new Tea Party members in their base and fears of primary challenges from the Tea Party. “Nobody knows just how far removed from reality these people are,” Frank said. “If we were dealing with just John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, it would be one thing. When you’re dealing with John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter, it’s unpredictable.” “This is not Samuel Adams’ Tea Party; this is Lewis Carroll’s Tea Party we’re dealing with here,” Frank said. And that gives Democrats pause, Ackerman said, leaving him feeling a little like Cleavon Little’s townspeople. “The problem is they might just go ahead and do it,” Ackerman said. “In a political world in which [Minnesota Republican Rep.] Michele Bachmann is a serious person, then not raising the debt limit becomes a serious threat,” said Frank. Ackerman and Frank, though, think maybe it’s time to call the bluff, rather than have Democrats give the GOP concessions as they did on this year’s budget and last winter’s tax cuts. “They’re in charge, which means they’re supposed to be the grown-ups this year,” said Ackerman, admitting, as Frank did, that the minority party generally opposes the debt limit. “But their strategy of ‘let’s hold our breath until our face turns blue’ is not a good strategy. I think the American people will blame them.” “Refuse to pay any attention to the threat,” Frank advised his colleagues and the White House. “And make no concessions.” “I think it’s clear they’d pay a very high price for this,” Frank added. Nevertheless, reports from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Tuesday suggested President Obama might throw the GOP at least several bones in his fiscal responsibility speech set for Wednesday — a prospect frowned upon by Ackerman. “For my taste, I’d like to see a stronger executive branch where they’re really helping direct things rather than standing by just watching them,” he said.

Read the full article →

Mark Roozen Joins STACK Media as Senior Content Manager

April 11, 2011

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – April 11, 2011) – Mark Roozen, an experienced strength and conditioning specialist, owner and founder of Performance Edge Training Systems (Colorado Springs), and former Director of Certification and member of the Board of Directors of the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), has joined STACK Media, the nation’s leading producer and distributor of sports training, performance, and lifestyle content for active sports participants. As STACK’s Senior Content Manager, Roozen will be responsible for developing editorial strategies and content concepts to serve the needs of athletes, coaches and others concerned with safe and effective athletic training.

Read the full article →

Video: Tom Coburn on U.S. Debt Limit: Political Capital With Al Hunt

April 9, 2011

April 8 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, talks with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt about the need to resolve the partisan fight over raising the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling this summer, and the debate over the federal budget. Lisa Lerer and Julianna Goldman discuss the budget debate and possible government shutdown. Tim Jones talks about this week’s Supreme Court election in Wisconsin. Commentators Margaret Carlson and Kate O’Beirne discuss Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul the federal budget and real estate developer Donald Trump as a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

How The Housing Crisis Could Hurt Renters

April 6, 2011

By Ilaina Jonas NEW YORK – The vacancy rate for U.S. apartments posted a steep decline in the first quarter and rents crept higher as the job market improves and many Americans remain unwilling or unable to buy a home. Reis Inc’s quarterly report showed the vacancy rate dropped to 6.2 percent in the first three months of the year, down from 6.6 percent in the fourth quarter. It was the steepest fall since the commercial real estate research firm began tracking the market in 1999. Increased employment, especially for 20- to 34-year-olds, is spurring demand for housing. Many of those newly employed younger people, however, cannot come up with the tens of thousands of dollars often needed for down payments, turning them into renters. “All of those things are reflecting in the home ownership rate that is still somewhat declining, and it’s generally favoring the rental market,” Victor Calanog, Reis’ vice president of research and economics, told Reuters. New renters plowed into an apartment market where supply grew by only a net 44,184 units. New construction, at just a touch over 6,000, was about a quarter of normal for the first quarter in recent years. Such an imbalance, if it persists, could make it easier for landlords to raise rents. “If this is a harbinger of what’s to come for the next quarter, then it certainly is good news for landlords and investors and multifamily properties as a whole — maybe not for renters,” Calanog said. So far, however, monthly rents appear relatively stable, with the average rent up only 0.5 percent in the quarter to $991 a month, with increases in 75 of the 82 markets that Reis tracks. This increase reflects the willingness of a sizable, but diminishing, number of landlords to offer free rent, typically for one month or less, to attract tenants. Rents in high-demand areas are nonetheless set to rise, with possible double-digit increases this year in Manhattan’s Upper East Side and Washington, D.C.’s Dupont Circle areas, Calanog said. That would be good news for landlords such as Equity Residential (EQR.N), UDR Inc (UDR.N), AvalonBay Communities Inc (AVB.N), Archstone and Related Cos, which own apartment buildings in densely populated U.S. cities. New York had the nation’s lowest vacancy rate, 2.8 percent, and its highest average rental, $2,794 a month. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Memphis, Tennessee had the nation’s highest vacancy rate, 11 percent. The average rent there was $634 a month. (Reporting by Ilaina Jonas; Editing by Tim Dobbyn) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →