politics

Huffington Post…

Andrew Breitbart is angry. On Friday night, the conservative muckraker accosted activists who were protesting the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference. Emily Crockett of Camp Progress was on hand to capture the remarkable tirade on video. Breitbart screamed at the protesters to ‘behave yourself’ repeatedly. He also called the protesters freaks and animals and told them to ‘stop raping people.’ It’s pretty entertaining. Watch the full video below:

Excerpt from:
WATCH: Breitbart Explodes At Occupy Activists, Calls Them ‘Filthy Freaks’

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

WASHINGTON — HuffPost’s Zach Carter and Howard Fineman on Friday spoke with Joseph Wurzelbacher at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference. Wurzelbacher is also known as ” Joe the Plumber ,” a name he was dubbed during the 2008 presidential campaign when he was portrayed as a symbol of middle-class America. CPAC is a major annual event for the conservative movement, and on Friday GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich all addressed large crowds. Yet Wurzelbacher told HuffPost he has no problem distinguishing himself. “I don’t have to try,” he said. “My name is Joe Wurzelbacher. I’m going to speak the truth. And I don’t have to remember what I said five years ago or three years from now because it’ll always be the same thing — because it’s the truth.” Wurzelbacher is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress in the 9th District of Ohio.

Read the original post:
‘Joe The Plumber’: ‘I Don’t Have To Try’ To Stand Out At CPAC (VIDEO)

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

{ 0 comments }

Bill Gunderson: Can a Businessman Run a Country?

February 10, 2012

President Obama sure likes to hold Warren Buffett up as an example these days. After all, it is Warren Buffett that is dying to pay a higher tax rate. Never mind that he is currently fighting the IRS over a paltry billion dollars or so in unpaid taxes. Warren is also hot and bothered about his secretary paying a higher effective tax rate than most millionaires and billionaires. Of course, we still have not seen her tax return, so we really don’t know what rate she does pay. I guess it does not matter however, that Mitt Romney paid several million in taxes while Buffet’s secretary may have paid a few thousand. Who’s counting anyway? My question to you the reader is this: If God forbid, something should happen to Mr. Buffett, would he feel more comfortable hiring Barack Obama or Mitt Romney to take over the management of Berkshire Hathaway? Oh, I know what you are thinking, government cannot be run like a business; it takes politicians to get things done. It is thinking like this that has helped create a current debt load of $15 trillion dollars! Do you think that Mr. Buffett would have gotten us into the mess that we are currently in had he been running the country over the last 10 years? I highly doubt it. Warren still lives in the same humble abode that he has lived in for years. He is known for being pretty frugal. Oh, I forgot however that Mr. Buffett is a businessman though. We can’t have a businessman running our country. Actually, it would be real interesting to know where we would be today had Warren Buffett been running the country for the last 10 years. Maybe he would have consulted with other businessmen like Steve Jobs of Apple Computer or Jim Skinner of McDonald’s about the economy and job creation. Instead our president goes to CEOs like Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric and Antonio Perez of Eastman Kodak to get his advice about job creation. Is that the same Jeffrey Immelt who has had the stock of GE going backwards by an average of 3.3 percent per year over the last 10 years? Is that the same Antonio Perez who just had his company file for bankruptcy ? Eastman Kodak was once a member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it is now a penny stock! I don’t know about you, but when I want to lose weight, I seek out a skinny diet counselor. Now back to Berkshire Hathaway. What does President Obama’s resume look like when it comes to investing in companies? Let’s see, there was some $520 million that went into Solyndra. How did that one turn out? Did the investment go there on merit or favoritism? What would Buffet’s shareholders say if Warren made an investment that went from $520 million to zero in the span of 18 months? How did the Obama administration’s investment in Beacon Power go? Oh well, it is just taxpayer money that we don’t have. How about the billions that went into the so-called stimulus program? What kind of return are we getting on that one? While it is intriguing to think where our country might be today had a crackerjack businessman like Warren Buffett been running the show, it is an absolutely frightful thought to think where Berkshire Hathaway might be today, had Mr. Obama been at the helm for the last 10 years. This may sound like a harsh observation, but close your own eyes and ponder these questions for a minute. The bottom line is this: What we have been doing has not been working. The hole that we have to climb out of here in America is getting deeper and deeper and deeper. In fact, it is getting so deep, I think I can see Greece-austerity, strikes, riots, and bailouts anyone? We need a different skill set in the White House right now. We need a turnaround expert in the worst way. Oh, I forgot that a businessman cannot run a country. If a bunch of politicians can run the country into the ground, I feel pretty confident that it will take some businessmen to turn it around.

Read the full article →

White House: Energy Department Loan Oversight Needs Overhaul

February 10, 2012

* Struggling to fill key positions to manage loans * Did not evaluate failed loan to Solyndra * Chu: will review ideas, but program is working By Roberta Rampton WASHINGTON, Feb 10 (Reuters) – The U.S. Energy Department relies on too many consultants and committees for managing its loans and needs to beef up its management, concluded a review commissioned by the White House in the wake of publicity over failed solar panel maker Solyndra. Herb Allison, a former investment banker known for his work helping government agencies manage large, complex financing programs, reviewed the energy loan program, and recommended an overhaul in oversight of the $23.769 billion portfolio. He said the Energy Department has struggled to fill vacancies in key positions without success. “At least one manager is acting head of several departments,” he said in a 75-page report. Decisions should be made by individual managers with expertise, Allison said, instead of using a committee process “where collective responsibility can obscure individual accountability.” Allison did not review a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy last year and has become a political sore spot leading into the 2012 election season. The loan was once held up by President Barack Obama as an example of how his administration was creating new jobs with “stimulus” funding while promoting renewable energy. It now is featured in at least two attack ads on television, and candidates for the Republican presidential nomination regularly invoke Solyndra as a symbol of what they say is government waste and misguided energy policy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he would review the recommendations to find ways to strengthen the program. But he said the program is working as it is intended, and noted that the review rated the overall risk of the loan portfolio as “slightly lower” than the department’s projections. “We have always known that there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won’t succeed, but the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time, and with about $8 billion in interest,” Chu said in a statement.

Read the full article →

BP Wins Ruling To Keep Old Accidents Out Of Gulf Spill Trial

February 10, 2012

* Evidence of Texas, Alaska incidents excluded * Judge: Older cases too dissimilar from Gulf spill * Feb. 27 trial expected By Jonathan Stempel Feb 9 (Reuters) – BP Plc won a court order to keep references to some previous accidents out of this month’s trial to assess blame for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the oil company’s second victory in as many days to bar potentially damaging evidence. Thursday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans followed a ruling Wednesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan to keep out some emails questioning some of BP’s activities before and after the spill. Barbier blocked the introduction of evidence related to two accidents involving BP facilities: a 2005 explosion at a Texas City, Texas refinery that killed 15 people, and a 2006 rupture of a corroded pipeline at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In the Texas case, BP pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and accepted a $50 million fine. BP pleaded guilty to a criminal Clean Water Act violation and was fined $20 million in the Alaska case. Barbier, however, ruled that the prior incidents were “not sufficiently similar” to the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and blowout of the Macondo oil well, which BP mainly owned. “The prior incidents were all land-based, while the Macondo incident occurred in the Gulf of Mexico,” Barbier wrote. “Additionally, the circumstances of oil refinery disasters and (an) exploratory drilling disaster are vastly different.” James Roy, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, who include people and businesses harmed by the accident, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. BP was also fined a record $87 million by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for safety problems at the Texas refinery. Barbier is scheduled on Feb. 27 to preside over a non-jury trial to assign blame for the Deepwater Horizon accident, which killed 11 people and caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Other corporate defendants include rig owner Transocean Ltd and Halliburton Co, which provided cementing services for the well. Plaintiffs also include the U.S. government, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. BP has set aside roughly $42 billion for spill costs. Chief Executive Bob Dudley this week said the London-based company is preparing for trial, but willing to settle on reasonable terms. The case is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 10-md-02179.

Read the full article →

David Woolner: FDR Alleviated Americans’ Anger and Suffering Through Action

February 10, 2012

The news that President Obama has decided to establish a special new task force to investigate abusive and fraudulent lending practices during the housing boom, coupled with yesterday’s announcement of a $26 billion settlement aimed at providing relief to struggling home owners, will certainly be greeted as welcome developments by the millions of Americans still struggling under the weight of the Great Recession. But with many of the details of the practical application of the settlement still to be worked out, and with the task force having just been established, it is too early to tell how much relief will actually reach desperate homeowners or how many banks and/or individuals will face prosecution. Given the devastation caused by the reckless and often fraudulent behavior of many of the nation’s leading banks, and the overwhelming need to stabilize the housing market and provide relief to millions of homeowners, one would hope that these measures would, at the very least, be as effective as the actions taken by the government roughly 80 years ago when we faced a very similar economic crisis. Most Americans are well aware that the Great Depression was initiated by the collapse of the stock market in the fall of 1929. It was a collapse that came about in large part because of the bursting of a large speculative bubble that had built up over time in the reckless and virtually unregulated financial climate of the 1920s. What is less well known or understood are the many other factors that played a role in the onset of the Great Depression: the decline in agricultural prices, the maldistribution of wealth and income, the collapse of the banking sector, and an equally important urban mortgage crisis. Indeed, by the time Franklin Roosevelt took office in March of 1933, it is estimated that approximately 50 percent of all urban mortgages in the United States were delinquent or in foreclosure and that an average of 1,000 homes per day were being lost. To deal with the housing emergency and to get to the bottom of what led to the economic crisis in the first place, FDR did two things. First, he fully supported the activities of the 1932 Senate Committee on Banking and Currency that was established to investigate the causes of 1929 crash. Once in office, he moved quickly to provide relief to home owners through the establishment of the Home Owners Mortgage Corporation (HOLC) . Thanks in large part to the zeal of Ferdinand Pecora, who was appointed to head the Senate committee investigating Wall Street in January 1933 and was quietly encouraged to carry out his work with vigor by President-elect Roosevelt, the ” Pecora Commission ” would uncover a whole series of unscrupulous practices in the banking and financial sector. These included interest-free loans to top executives at National City Bank (now Citibank); National City’s disposal of bad loans to Latin American countries by packing them into securities and selling them to unsuspecting investors; and J.P. Morgan’s list of influential “friends,” including former President Calvin Coolidge, all of whom were given the opportunity to purchase stock at sharply discounted prices. These disclosures, coupled with additional revelations about excessive salaries, bonuses, and the fact that many financial elites — including the head of National City Bank — did not pay any income tax in the past year, outraged the public and helped inspire the Roosevelt administration and Congress to push through some of the most important banking and financial reforms in American history. These included the Glass Steagall Act , which separated commercial from investment banking and gave us the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , and the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act , which created the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the meantime, to meet the urgent housing crisis, the HOLC, which was established within FDR’s first 100 days in office, provided direct relief to families facing foreclosure by buying out their existing mortgages and replacing them with new ones. The new ones weren’t based on the typical non-amortized loan of seven to ten years, but rather on the far more affordable amortized mortgage of between 25 and 30 years. Over the course of its brief three-year history, the HOLC refinanced over one million homes — roughly 20 percent of all the urban mortgages in the U.S. In the process, it revolutionized American home ownership through the institutionalization of the 30-year mortgage. It also did not cost the American taxpayer any money, as the HOLC turned a small profit when it finally closed its books in 1951. Taken together, the measures inspired by the Pecora Commission and the relief brought to millions of American homeowners helped restore investor confidence, resuscitate the financial sector, and lay the foundations upon which our banking, financial, and housing sectors rested from more than half a century. In making yesterday’s announcement, President Obama alluded to both the new task force and the bank settlement by stating that with these measures “we begin to turn a page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake.” Eighty years ago, the twin combination of a federal investigation and direct action by the government helped alleviate the anger and anguish of the millions of Americans who suffered as the result of the greed and avarice of the wealthy few. Let us hope that the president’s new task force and the agreement with our nation’s major banks will do the same. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Owner Of ‘Illegal’ California Gold Mine Surrenders To Face Charges

February 10, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A man who state and local officials say is running a massive illegal gold-mining operation in California’s Sierra Nevada surrendered Thursday to face 14 criminal charges of operating without permits and polluting a creek. Joseph Hardesty also faces state fines of nearly $900,000. He was booked into El Dorado County Jail on the charges, which include four felonies, and was being held in lieu of $75,000 bond. His attorney, William Brewer, says Hardesty turned himself in after investigators from the district attorney’s office searched for him at his mother’s home and the home of his partner in the Big Cut Mine, near Placerville. Hardesty surrendered a day after The Associated Press published a story about the mine, which is in the Sierra foothills between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe, and his three-year battle with authorities. “It’s unfortunate that our government has decided in this case to take away our liberties and our rights without adequate process,” said Brewer, of San Diego. “Joe really is a very honorable person and I just wish things were different.” He denies his client is mining gold, saying he is operating a sand and gravel business to complement another he owns in Sacramento County. State and local officials say they have evidence and statements indicating the site is being mined for gold at a time when the precious metal’s price is hovering near $1,700 an ounce. Hardesty, 54, had promised to surrender last week but failed to appear. Authorities said Hardesty turned himself in at the sheriff department’s office in Placerville about 11:30 a.m. and was taken to jail without incident. Brewer said investigators had looked for his client everywhere except where he was — his home in Elk Grove, south of Sacramento. Hardesty contends that he has a historic right to operate the Big Cut Mine on nearly 150 acres he bought seven years ago, based on a reclamation plan he had filed with El Dorado County in 2009 and $188,000 in bonds. Local authorities and the State Mining and Geology Board disagree. On top of the mining board’s fines, El Dorado County charged Hardesty with mining and grading without permits, working despite stop orders, releasing sediment into Weber Creek, violating zoning laws, and using hazardous materials without proper permits. Hardesty, his wife, Yvette, and his partner, Rick Churches, brought in heavy equipment to cut into a steep ridge high above the creek, although Joseph Hardesty is the only one facing charges. The site is guarded by locked gates covered with “no trespassing” signs, but an AP reporter and photographer were able to view the mining operation from a heavily forested ridge a few hundred yards away. Late last month, local and state inspectors with a warrant entered the property and documented at least 30 acres stripped bare, four drainage ponds and a football-field-sized gravel bed about 60 feet deep. Inspectors previously found gold on what is called a shaker table, which is used to separate the heavy metal from sand and gravel. Bruce Person, an engineer with the county transportation department who helped inspect the property, said a previous owner found an ancient riverbed on the property could produce between 1 and 3 ounces of gold for every ton of material. El Dorado County Deputy District Attorney Michael Pizzuti declined to comment Thursday on Hardesty’s arrest. He previously told the AP that Hardesty’s partner told a county inspector that they intended to remove gold and sell the rocks it was separated from as gravel. Hardesty already was on probation after pleading no contest last year to a misdemeanor charge of storing unpermitted hazardous waste in Sacramento County. He now faces allegations that he violated his probation by continuing to operate at both the Sacramento and El Dorado locations. The fines were levied in January by the State Mining and Geology Board, a division of the California Department of Conservation. The penalty climbs by $15,000 for each day he continued to operate.

Read the full article →

Sources: GOP Congressman Faces Insider-Trading Investigation

February 10, 2012

The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee over possible violations of insider-trading laws, according to sources familiar with the case.

Read the full article →

GOP Is Looking To Deny Child Tax Break For Undocumented Immigrants

February 8, 2012

WASHINGTON — Republicans are looking to deny child tax credits to undocumented immigrants – refund checks averaging $1,800 – in an effort that has roused anger among Hispanics and some Democratic lawmakers. The proposal, which would require people who claim the federal credit to have Social Security numbers to prove they’re legal workers, is being offered as a way to help pay for extending the Social Security tax cut for most American wage-earners. It would trim federal spending by about $10 billion over a decade. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says the proposal unfairly goes after the children of poor Hispanic workers. Such kids often are U.S. citizens, even when their parents aren’t, because they were born in this country. Says Leticia Miranda, senior policy adviser of the National Council of La Raza: “People who are making close to the minimum wage and are raising children in this country – and we’re asking them to pay for the payroll tax cut?” She says, “It’s outrageous and it’s crazy.” On the other side, Republicans and some Democrats say what’s crazy is even having a debate over whether the government should be cutting checks to people who have sneaked into the country illegally. It’s hard to imagine there isn’t a healthy majority, even in the Democratic-controlled Senate, to stop the practice – if it’s actually brought to a vote. “We have rules about tax credits and benefits, and it seems to me they need to be applied fairly and across the board,” said Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill, who is facing a difficult re-election bid in Missouri. “If there are rules, they need to be enforced. I think it’s just that simple. I don’t think it’s complicated.” Undocumented immigrants have been barred from other refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit for lower-income workers. But a 1997 law enacting the child tax credit doesn’t specifically exclude them from collecting that separate benefit. It was significantly expanded in 2001 and 2009 so that many more people are eligible for refundable credits, though the expanded credit is slated to expire at the end of the year along with other Bush-era tax cuts. “Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming this refundable credit,” Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, said when the House debated the payroll tax cut measure in December. “Illegal immigrants bilked $4.2 billion from the U.S. taxpayers (in 2010). I think that it’s time that we fixed it.” The situation has Democrats in a box. If they fight the GOP effort to cut back payments of the tax credit, they’ll be favoring the delivery of refunds to people who not only don’t owe income taxes but aren’t supposed to be in the country in the first place. What’s more, closing the loophole would raise real money – an estimated $10 billion over 10 years under the approach favored by House Republicans. The Treasury Department says that in the 2010 filing year more than $4 billion in child credit refunds went to 2.3 million people who filed tax returns but didn’t have Social Security numbers proving they were citizens or legal workers. That’s a four-fold increase over five years earlier. On the other side are politically influential Hispanic groups, a key Democratic-friendly constituency. Opponents of tightening eligibility for the child tax credit point out that six of every seven affected families are Hispanic, with an average household income of about $21,000. Tax credits averaging $1,800 per family make a huge difference at such income levels. Hispanics point out that in many instances the tax credit goes to wokers who aren’t citizens but whose children are – because they’ve been born in the country and therefore can have Social Security numbers of their own. They say such children should reap the benefit of the tax credit just like other children in comparable economic circumstances. “I just think the child tax credit is working just fine and there’s no need to punish children,” Sen. Reid said last week. “We’re supposed to try to be helping them.” One option under consideration is to require tax filers to supply a Social Security number for the child when claiming the tax credit instead of requiring that at least one of the parents possess one. That would respond to criticism that the GOP proposal is unfair to the citizen children of undocumented immigrants. “We’re not in favor of fraudulent payments or payments that shouldn’t be made, but we don’t want to create obstacles to supporting low-income families who are trying to care for their children,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “Even though the parent doesn’t have a Social Security number, they could still be entitled under their tax return, for a child tax credit.” Congress needs to find about $160 billion between now and the end of the month to cover the costs of extending through Dec. 31 a Social Security tax cut averaging about $20 a week for 160 million workers, federal unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and unreduced Medicare fees for doctors. All are now due to expire Feb. 29.

Read the full article →

Barry Levinson: Don’t Know Much About Oil

February 8, 2012

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

Read the full article →

Boehner: Obama Super PAC Decision ‘Just Another Broken Promise’

February 7, 2012

Hours after President Barack Obama’s campaign decided to soften its stance toward super PACs, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) slammed the decision. At a Tuesday news conference, Boehner was asked for his comment regarding the president’s reversal. “Just another broken promise,” he said. On Monday evening, Obama’s re-election team announced its backing of Priorities USA , a super PAC run by former Obama aides. Obama has traditionally been a fervent opponent toward the organizations , dating back to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision that spearheaded their creation. Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina explained the decision, alluding to the millions of dollars spent by organizations supporting GOP presidential candidates. Via Obama 2012′s official website : With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission. In a Tuesday morning conference call , more details emerged about the change of political heart. Outside of millions of dollars flooding into GOP super PACs, another factor was the $500 million fundraising goal set by Crossroads groups and the Koch Brothers. While Boehner was critical of Obama’s decision, he’s historically been against limitations on campaign fundraising. After the Supreme Court rolled back campaign finance restrictions in the landmark Citizens United case, Boehner called the decision “a big win for the First Amendment.” “Let the American people decide how much money is enough,” Boehner said, according to NPR. A few months later, when Democrats turned to the DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency among private groups investing in elections, Boehner expressed his opposition . “Freedom of speech is the basis of our democracy,” he said in a press release on the day that the House passed the bill . “The purpose of this bill, plain and simple, is to allow Democrats to use their Majority in this House to silence their political opponents. This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.” The DISCLOSE Act fell by one vote in the Senate , which then-White House senior adviser and current Obama political adviser David Axelrod called a “significant” blow. From the Democratic side of the aisle, Monday’s Obama decision did not sit well with former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). A heavy proponent of campaign finance laws, Feingold opposed the campaign’s support of super PACs, telling The Huffington Post that “it is a dumb approach.” Feingold proceeded to question how the move affects Democrats across the board. “I also think it guts the president’s message and the Democratic Party’s message,” Feingold said. “We are doing very well right now. The president is doing brilliantly. This is no time to blunt that message by starting to play this game.”

Read the full article →

Obama Reverses Super PAC Opposition To ‘Counter The Weight’ Of GOP Money

February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s campaign is reconfiguring its approach to powerful super PACs, worried the president’s re-election prospects could be overwhelmed by conservative groups raising and spending unlimited amounts of money. The president’s advisers have signaled to donors that he will soften, for the time being, his long-standing opposition to the outside groups, in hopes of assisting their fundraising efforts and leveling the campaign finance field heading into the general election. Obama’s campaign staff will go so far as to appear at super PAC events — though they will not be explicitly raising money. The president will not attend those events, a source confirmed. The new posture is a reversal for the president, and one likely to trouble some in the progressive universe (see: Feingold, Russ). Obama was staunchly anti-outside money during his pre-White House political career, and first ran for the White House encouraging deep-pocketed Democrats to send checks only through his campaign. He wanted a consistently coordinated message and his advisers were willing to starve non-campaign organizations of cash in order to achieve it. When the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United opinion allowing the creation of super PACs, the president and his staff offered sharp denunciations. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” Obama said at the time. He called super PACs a “threat to our democracy.” Politics eventually collided with ideology. In 2010, a wave of conservative money helped Republicans re-take the House of Representatives. The president and his advisers have watched in some horror, meanwhile, as super PACs have helped Mitt Romney submarine challenger after challenger (most notably Newt Gingrich) during the Republican primary this year. The determination was made that they could not unilaterally disarm. As campaign manager Jim Messina said in a blog post late Monday: With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission. Currently, two former Obama aides — Sean Sweeney and Bill Burton — run the most prominent Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action. But that group has been vastly outraised by its conservative counterparts. And the notion that it could bring in the $100 million once projected now seems quaint. Burton was quick to take advantage of the Monday evening news with a well-timed tweet . “As has become evident in the past month, the only enthusiasm in the Republican Party is among oil company billionaires and investment bankers on Wall Street looking to defeat President Obama,” Burton said in a statement. “We’re committed to providing a balance to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers, who have pledged more than half a billion dollars to their effort.” The Obama campaign itself has done fine with fundraising. But as recently as last week, top donors fretted that one well-financed GOP donor could level the playing field if he or she desired. “The money for the campaign side they will do fine, ultimately,” a party fundraiser told The Huffington Post. “I think the problem is on the super PAC side … If I were on the campaign, I would be waking up and saying this is a big f–ing problem, we are going to get buried by these super PACs. And our side, the Democratic side, is not on a level playing field here.”

Read the full article →

Chris Weigant: Romney’s "Very Poor" Choice of Words

February 7, 2012

I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. … I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it. — Mitt Romney , in an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Mitt Romney’s gaffe last week (reproduced in full, above) is going to wind up the “gaffe that keeps on giving” for Barack Obama and the Democrats in this election cycle. Because the more Romney’s comment is examined and dissected, the worse it looks for him. This could, in fact, be the defining moment for Mitt Romney as a national political presence. That phrase is often bandied about in politics, but I use it here in the full literal sense of “defining moment” — a point in time which absolutely cements an image in the public mind of who you are and what you stand for as a politician. The image, quite obviously, is not a good one for Romney. The statement caused an initial media frenzy, which almost exclusively focused on the sound bite — “I’m not concerned about the very poor” — which was being spliced into Democratic ads before the sun had even set. Even Newt Gingrich piled on that part of Romney’s statement, fulminating that anyone running for president should have the good sense to be concerned with all Americans (or at least say so in public , for Pete’s sake). This is Politics 101, folks, and the fact that it took Newt Gingrich to point it out to Romney was highly amusing to Lefties everywhere. Romney desperately tried to spin his statement, and wound up floundering : “You’ve got to take the whole sentence, all right, as opposed to saying — and then change it just a little bit, because then it sounds very different.” Um, well, that would be true of just about any political gaffe, wouldn’t it? If you got to go back and re-edit your own words in such a manner, then gaffes wouldn’t even exist. Unfortunately for Mitt, they do. Romney, of course, is going to complain loudly when the “not concerned about the very poor” soundbite is used against him in ads, but he simply has no leg to stand on when it comes to “context.” He has no credibility on the subject, and no moral high road to take. He has already, in this election, run an ad of Barack Obama saying: “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” What Obama said — with context — was actually the exact opposite : “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Romney’s campaign, when the ad came out, defended its use , saying “We used that quote intentionally.” So good luck begging for context in political ads now, guys. Even more unfortunately for Mitt, the out-of-touch and elitist image this gaffe conjures up is exactly the image a lot of folks already had of Romney. He appears to many as the type of guy who has no idea who the “very poor” are, or how they live. The only way a guy like Mitt Romney interacts with poor people — when not actually on the campaign trail — is either in an employer/employee relationship (as with the domestic help in his multiple houses) or a patron/servant relationship (the valet parking his car, the busboy clearing his table, or perhaps a ski lift operator). Neither breeds any sort of real understanding of what it is like to occupy this rung of the social ladder in Mitt — or, for that matter, the fears many middle-class folks have of being one financial emergency away from a dive headfirst into that safety net. The man has lived in a bubble for almost his entire life — and it shows. But while most of the attention so far has been focused on the “out of touch” nature of Mitt’s “very poor” choice of words, the real damage to Mitt as a Republican candidate stems from how he attempted to explain what he really meant. Ignore the soundbite/gaffe part of Mitt’s statement, and things get even worse for him among his party’s base. Chalk this one up as a victory for the Occupy Wall Street movement, because all of a sudden the Republican Party as a whole was having a debate about their party’s poverty policies . In a million years, I never could have imagined that happening without the outside force of the Occupiers changing the frame of the nation’s political debate. Think about it: when is the last time any Republican used the word “poor” in any political speech? For the life of me, I certainly can’t remember it, unless it was some part of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” flim-flam that my subconscious has just completely blocked out. Which brings me to my main point — Mitt’s explanation for his bad soundbite was extraordinary because it used the framing of Democrats . Mitt is arguing his point on a field created and defended by Democrats — not the usual Republican language. This is stunning, because Republicans are normally so adept at speaking of just about any issue in their own private terminology. It’s also stunning because it is such a losing position for Romney to take. First, the language. Republicans never say “poor” (as I’ve already mentioned) much less “very poor.” As far as conservatives are concerned, poor people either (1) deserve what they get in life because of their own bad choices, (2) are lazy and cheating the system to get a free ride through life, or (3) are budding conservative heroes, because we all live in a Horatio Alger novel and just need to grasp strongly on those bootstraps and pull. But Mitt’s bigger error wasn’t saying “very poor,” it was in fact using the term “safety net” — over and over again. And then doubling down on his error, by promising to “fix the holes” in the safety net, if it “needs repair.” This is where Mitt’s playing ball on a Democratic field, and not just because it fits in so perfectly with the campaign Barack Obama is teeing up to run, either. Republicans, as a general rule, never speak of the “safety net” unless in seriously derisive terms. They prefer, instead, to speak of the “culture of dependence” or people who use “entitlements” (Marc A. Thiessen has a good example of this over at the Washington Post today, for reference, complete with reverent Ronald Reagan genuflections). The weakness for Romney is that his statement — ignoring the gaffe, and giving him all the context he wants us to consider — is absolutely laughable, on the face of it. This is what comes from playing on the opposition’s turf. Because Republicans today are all about “entitlement reform” — which means, stripped of its own spin, “less money for the safety net.” This basic disconnect cannot be reconciled with Romney’s statement, no matter how much context we add. It is necessary to commit an act of doublethink to even try. Romney is for Paul Ryan’s budget. The Ryan budget shrinks the safety net. So how, exactly, is Romney going to “fix” the safety net? How will making seniors pay an extra $6,000 a year for health insurance do that? How will cutting funds to Medicaid fix things? How is giving the ultra-wealthy (which you also say you’re “not concerned with”) another round of tax breaks going to fix the safety net, Mitt? Please explain, with figures and budget projections to back your claims up. Anytime you’re ready…. These are the questions some intrepid reporter needs to ask Mitt Romney, and soon. Because talking about the “safety net” was Mitt’s real “very poor” choice of words. You want to talk about the safety net, Mitt? OK, then let’s talk about the safety net — and your proposals to fix the holes in it. That would, indeed be a conversation worth having. And if the media doesn’t ask Mitt, I’m sure Obama eventually will — the first time they face each other in a debate.   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post  

Read the full article →

Dana Radcliffe: A Glaring Omission in the Senate’s Insider Trading Bill: Fair Disclosure

February 6, 2012

Poor Raj Rajaratnam. He’s the billionaire hedge-fund manager who in October was sentenced to 11 years in prison for trading stocks on nonpublic information obtained from corporate insiders. If only his sources had been members of Congress or their staff and the nonpublic information had concerned pending legislation likely to affect certain stock prices, he would still be in business. For it is perfectly legal for lawmakers and other federal officials to divulge information that, if made public, would be market-moving and thus gives anyone who trades on it a lucrative advantage over other investors. In fact, large hedge funds — important donors to political campaigns — aggressively seek such information, with some success, in private meetings with legislators and other officeholders. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that, in a December 2009 meeting with key lawmakers, a small group of hedge funds learned — hours before it was announced — that Senate Democrats had eliminated a proposed government-run insurance plan from the health-care reform bill. Although the hedge funds would not say how they used the information, the Journal notes that the news “was potentially worth millions of dollars to the investors,” since it would boost shares of major health insurers, with whom the government plan would have competed. Similarly, in January 2010, as the Senate debated the Dodd-Frank bill, which tightened financial services regulation, several hedge-fund managers met with Senator Dodd and discovered that, contrary to prevailing opinion, he did not favor capping fees on debit-card purchases. The expectation of a fee cap had been a drag on shares of Visa and Mastercard, since it would hurt their revenues. This material (or market-moving) news of Senator Dodd’s position garnered by the hedge funds remained nonpublic for weeks. Even though such activities are legal, it’s hard to see them as ethical. From a moral point of view, they are no different from a kind of insider trading prohibited by law. In both cases, people whose positions in economically significant organizations give them access to market-moving, nonpublic information selectively pass it on to others who then carry out unfair market trades with counterparties ignorant of the traders’ covert advantage. The legal difference is that, unlike government officials, when corporate executives give inside information to others who trade on it, they violate a fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of their companies’ shareholders. It is the breach of that legal duty that makes both the disclosure and the use of inside information criminal acts. Congress appears ready to address this disparity. Last week, the Senate passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which declares that members of Congress and thousands of other federal workers are legal fiduciaries. Whereas corporate managers’ fiduciary duty is to their stockholders, these government officials would have an analogous duty to Congress, the government, and all U.S. citizens. Ostensibly, if this provision becomes law, it will be illegal for covered officials to share material, nonpublic information with others they know are likely to trade on it. But even if the bill is enacted in its current form, it almost certainly will not keep members of Congress and their aides from disclosing high-value information to hedge funds in private conversations. For one thing, what prosecutor could plausibly argue that a government official has the very same duty of “trust and loyalty” that a corporate manager has? The nature of federal officials’ relationships with their institutions and fellow citizens is radically different — in numerous ways — from that of a business executive to her firm’s shareholders. In any event, it is preposterous to think it would ever be Congress’s intent that a law it passed prevent its members from consulting with investors for fear of revealing nonpublic information on which the investors might trade. If there is an ethical disconnect here, what can be done about it? In the late 1990s, the Securities and Exchange Commission came under pressure from “Main Street” investors and shareholder advocates to stop public corporations from giving advance releases of earnings forecasts and other material information to favored investors before making it public. The SEC responded by adopting Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD), which stipulates that, when a corporation provides market-moving information to any investors, it must make it available to all investors at the same time. In approving Reg FD, the SEC argued that it is inherently unfair for only a few investors to receive material information and that the practice undermines the public trust in the fairness of financial markets. Clearly, if these arguments justify Reg FD, then they warrant a parallel requirement on government officials. Of course, legislators and regulators need to discuss public policy matters with investors, including hedge funds. But why should members of Congress and other federal insiders be excepted from the same demand for fair disclosure the government has imposed on corporate officials? Perhaps that’s a question voters should be asking Senate and House candidates.

Read the full article →

Crucial Reform Seen As ‘Ferociously Difficult’

February 6, 2012

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

Read the full article →

GOP Governor: Give Us Credit For The Economy

February 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said Sunday that Republican governors deserve credit for the improving economy. “I’m glad the economy is starting to recover, but I think it’s because of what Republican governors are doing in their states, not because of the president,” McDonnell said on CNN’s ” State of the Union with Candy Crowley .” McDonnell did not elaborate on what the governors have done. But he said Republican governors are in charge of more states with positive economic conditions. “Eleven out of the top 15 states in America that are ranked by CNBC as top places to do business are Republican states,” he said. “Seven out of the 10 states that have had the biggest drop in unemployment are states run by Republican governors.” The national unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent in January, the fifth consecutive month of decline and the 16th consecutive month the economy added jobs. But, as McDonnell noted, it’s also the 36th straight month with the unemployment rate above 8 percent. If governors in general have helped the economy, it hasn’t been by keeping people on the payroll: State and local governments have laid off scads of workers over the past year. They employed 232,000 fewer workers last month than they did in January 2011, according to Labor Department data. The unemployment rate in Virginia is 6.2 percent. Government payrolls there grew from 705,600 in December 2010 to 706,000 last December, according to the Labor Department (although that total likely includes some federal workers). McDonnell, who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association and a backer of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his race for the presidency, suggested the improving economy won’t help President Barack Obama win reelection in November. “This race is coming down to three things. It’s leadership, it’s jobs, and it’s the national debt and deficit,” McDonnell said. “And on all of those, President Obama’s failed. He spends most of his time blaming Republicans and the Tea Party and Wall Street for all the problems in the country and not taking responsibility. He’s completely failed to get the national debt and deficit under control. He’s contributed nearly $5 trillion to the national debt with no plan to get out of it.”

Read the full article →

Who’s For Congressional Insider Trading? An Inside Trader

February 4, 2012

WASHINGTON — Sen. Richard Burr’s vocal opposition to the STOCK Act raised some eyebrows in Washington this week, and with good reason. Burr, a North Carolina Republican who was one of just three senators to vote against the ban on congressional insider trading Thursday, owns investments in the natural gas industry that would benefit from legislation he co-sponsored offering tax credits for natural gas-fueled vehicles. Burr has investments in the gas industry valued from $133,298 to $219,337, according to his 2010 filings . His portfolio includes $36,000 worth of stock in Chesapeake Energy Corp., the second-largest U.S. producer of natural gas. He also holds more than $25,000 in shares of Loews Corp., a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in the exploration, production, marketing and transmission of natural gas. He was on the losing side of Thursday’s 96-3 passage of the STOCK Act, that would tighten rules for lawmakers and their aides using inside information for personal investments. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said he’ll bring the STOCK Act to the House floor next week. Burr’s investments pose “a very clear conflict of interest,” said Craig Holman of the advocacy group Public Citizen. He said the STOCK Act “will make members of Congress much more cautious in any particular sector, including natural gas.” While the STOCK Act wouldn’t prohibit such investments, “members of Congress will have to think twice about any kind of trading activity they do,” Holman said. Burr was unavailable to discuss his investments, his office said. He opposed the STOCK Act “because there are already laws in place to address this critical issue,” said spokesman David Ward. “Laws regarding insider trading that apply to the American people also apply to members of Congress and their staff. Members of Congress are elected to serve the people, not make money for themselves, and any member or staff member who breaks the already existing insider trading laws should be held responsible.” Burr, along with Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, and two other senators introduced S-1863 in November with bipartisan support. The measure would offer individuals and businesses tax credits for buying natural gas-fueled vehicles or converting existing fleets to run on the fuel. President Barack Obama on Friday said he supported the bill . Chambliss has $15,000 in the BlackRock Growth Fund, according to the most recent documents available . The fund, with an estimated $1.9 billion in assets, bet heavily on coal and natural gas in 2011, targeting what it saw as an expected rise of the price of energy in both sectors. Chambliss’ office declined to comment. Despite his STOCK Act opposition, Burr has said he supports the ban on congressional insider trading. In a recent interview with Jerri Jameson on News Radio 570- WWNC, Burr called the STOCK Act “ludicrous” and “political theater.” “We should be focused on jobs, the economy,” he said. “We should be taking up real legislation. It’s like me saying to you, ‘Jerri, before you come to work this morning and you’re going to drive your car, I’m going to pass a law that says you have to have a driver’s license’ … The laws that are currently on the books apply to all members of Congress and all staff, not limited staff.”

Read the full article →

New Oil Shale Plan Would Limit Western Research Land

February 3, 2012

DENVER (AP) — The federal government’s new plan for oil shale development on public lands would keep activity off thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive areas, with new leases initially being issued strictly for research on how to commercially produce oil from oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. The George W. Bush administration had made almost 2 million acres available for potential oil shale development and 431,000 acres for tar sands development, but federal officials took a new look after conservation groups filed a lawsuit in 2009 alleging the government hadn’t fully reviewed possible environmental impacts. A new draft environmental impact statement released Friday says the preferred plan now is to make 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming available for oil shale research. Also, 91,045 acres in eastern Utah would be available for activities related to tar sands. Together, the total is around a half million acres. Areas with wilderness characteristics, core sage grouse habitat, areas of critical environmental concern, and the Adobe Town area in Wyoming are among those that would be off limits. The public has until May 4 to comment on the proposal. The Bureau of Land Management estimates the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming has 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil resources, but not all may be recoverable. Getting petroleum-like substances out of oil shale, which is first mined, is tougher than pumping oil out of traditional wells, and companies haven’t found an economic way to do it in the U.S. Oil shale contains kerogen, which must be subjected to temperatures of more than 750 degrees before it can produce oil. Studies have indicated up to about 500 gallons of water may be needed to produce one barrel of oil from it, which could be an issue in the dry West, the Government Accountability Office has said. Following recommendations from the GAO, the U.S. Geological Survey is analyzing baseline water conditions so it can better understand how commercial-scale oil shale development could affect groundwater and surface water systems. The BLM in 2007 issued six leases of federal land in Colorado and Utah for research on how to make oil shale commercially viable. Three more applications are pending and wouldn’t be affected by the plan announced Friday. President Barack Obama’s administration says its development proposal continues to encourage research. “If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first,” BLM Director Bob Abbey said in a written statement. Tar sands contain bitumen, which can be refined into oil. Canada has a commercial tar sands industry, but its oil sands and processing requirements differ from those in Utah. Energy companies had said they needed consistent regulations and pushed for the government to leave the Bush administration’s plan alone. “Within a week of encouraging an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, the administration continues to introduce actions that delay and restrict development,” American Petroleum Institute spokesman Reid Porter said in a written statement. “There has to be certainty, and the BLM draft plan is not conducive to an operating environment that encourages investment.” Shell Oil Co., which already has some research and development leases, said it’s uncertain whether it could commit to any significant investments in such big projects “without regulatory certainty or a clear path forward.” However, Bill Midcap of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union said research is still needed on how much water will be needed to turn oil shale into oil. “We already face a water shortage in the West that threatens farmers and ranchers,” he said. Vernon Lovejoy, a former BLM state director in Wyoming, said he also wants to know the potential effects on hunting, fishing and recreation, which hold up economies in rural and mountain towns in the West. “I do believe oil shale can be developed in many places, as long as we realize the potential impacts before we enter into leases,” Lovejoy said. Earlier in the week, a House committee approved a bill from Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., that would require the Interior Department to offer far more land and leases for oil shale research and commercial production. It would allow lease fees and royalties to be reduced to encourage development. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., applauded the BLM’s move, saying the demands that development would place on local communities and water still need to be fully understood. “While I have long felt there is potential for oil shale development, it is critical that a number of unanswered questions be resolved before commercial-scale leasing takes place,” he said in a written statement. ___ Follow Catherine Tsai at http://www.twitter.com/ctsai_denver ___ Online: Proposal: http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/peis2012/index.cfm

Read the full article →

Too Hot For TV: PETA’s Top Controversial Super Bowl Ads (NSFW)

February 3, 2012

Over the years PETA’s sexy Super Bowl ads have become a bit of a pastime in the run up to the big game. Especially since every year, NBC politely declines $3 million and prevents the Super Bowl commercial from airing. Take a look at some of the most scandalous PETA videos posted on YouTube, which includes everything from scantily clad women flashing fake udders to the 2009 Super Bowl commercial featuring sexy women having some veggie loving fun. Check out PETA’s most controversial Super Bowl commercials below. (WARNING: The rejected Super Bowl commercials featured in the slideshow below may be considered EXPLICIT and NSFW) See some of PETA’s most memorable anti-fur ads in the slideshow below (WARNING: Some images may be considered EXPLICIT and NSFW):

Read the full article →

Dylan Ratigan: Auction 2012: Greedy Bastards and Student Debt

February 3, 2012

Imagine a product so irresistible that most Americans thought they couldn’t live without it.  Every President talked of its importance, and it was perceived of as the key to you or your child’s future.  There was a limited supply, and prices kept going up.  The best business to be in would be lending to people so they can buy it. I’m talking about higher education, and student loans.  In my new book  Greedy Bastards , I’m letting you into the tricks used by those who run our culture to profit from misdirection.  Like banks and oil companies , those who run our universities push the hidden risk they incur to taxpayers.  It’s not as obvious as what we saw with subprime home loans, but it is potentially as destructive. In President Obama’s first speech to a joint session of Congress, he said “education in no longer a pathway to opportunity, it is a prerequisite.”  It’s no wonder — conventional wisdom says that those with college degrees earn roughly a million more dollars over their lives than those without them.  And there is a vast apparatus of lending institutions and Federal guarantees set up to help put people into college.  They do this not by keeping tuition free or low, as we did as a country after World War II, but by helping people get access to student loans. This is the essence of what I’ve been calling The Very Bad Deal, where costs are deferred while benefits accrue upfront.  If you get a student loan, you get to attend college, and college is apparently the key to earning more over your lifetime, to “opportunity”.  But student debt has some very nasty tricks and traps that most 18 year olds aren’t aware of when they sign on the dotted line, and college may not be the opportunity gateway we’ve been assured it is. The scale of the deal is vast and getting bigger — two thirds of those who attend college do so with borrowed money.  In August of 2010, the Wall Street reported that student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time in history.  This amount is now sitting at roughly a trillion dollars.  Higher education inflation is the higher than health care inflation, and two and a half times the rate of normal inflation.  Are students really learning two and a half times as much? Of course not.  What is happening is that universities have pricing power, and the Greedy Bastard behavior encourages them to compete on facilities and brand-name faculties rather than price and quality.  The  Chronicle of Higher Education  has described “an arms race of expenditures triggered by the pursuit of prestige.”  Student debt also distorts pricing.  If students had to pay the full freight in college, they might be more price-sensitive consumers.  But since the costs of the education they are receiving are hidden, they don’t pressure universities to reign in costs.  Lavish living environments, pointlessly luxurious sports facilities, and high salaries for administrators are just symptoms of a system where costs have become irrelevant. Of course, someone must eventually pay that cost, which is increasingly borne by the current and future generation.  While college is supposedly a great investment, those who graduated in the midst of the Great Recession from 2008-2010 could not find the good jobs a college diploma supposedly assured them.  Tamara Draut, an expert on educational debt, told me that we now “have a whole generation twenty-four thousand dollars in debt… they have graduated but nobody will hire them.  They’re back at home in their childhood bedroom.”  It gets worse — student debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, so it’s lifelong.  And there’s no guarantee college degrees will serve the same income-producing function they have for decades. Nearly everyone I’ve spoken to thinks this system is fixable if we get rid of the incentives that lead to  Greedy Bastard- -style profit-taking.  Much university spending doesn’t go to learning, so if we made that spending transparent we could take on cost structures.  We don’t have to go to the universities that do prestige marketing, we don’t have to hire from them, and we don’t have to spend our dollars with them.  This would lead to innovations in education that could take advantage of technology to increase learning.  And we can make student lending more equitable and transparent, so 18 year olds aren’t signing their financial lives away. Click through to view full Infographic  

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Social Security: Mitch Daniels and the Millionaires’ "Means Testing" Scam

February 2, 2012

Last week Republican Mitch Daniels once again pushed the “means testing” argument against Social Security, saying that we can no longer “afford to send millionaires pension checks” or “pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us.” Daniels even appropriated the rhetoric of the 99 percent, arguing that we must “stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth.” I kept waiting for Grover Norquist or Karl Rove to yell “mic check!” But behind Daniels’ 99-percent rhetoric lies a means-testing scam designed to protect millionaires, not restore justice. Means-Testing Sounds Reasonable Daniels and his fellow Social Security attackers are able to draw on a very reasonable-sounding (but completely deceptive) argument, one that’s been honed and promoted by billionaire-funded think tanks and other anti-government organizations. The “means testing” argument does sound fair — until you think about it. After all, what could be more reasonable than saying we can’t afford to send “pension checks” to millionaire retirees who don’t need them? There is something that’s much more reasonable — and much easier to implement, too: Just tax them what they should have been paying in the first place. So You Want to Be a Millionaire? First of all, what’s a “millionaire”? If you say that a millionaire is someone with $1 million or more in investable assets, past studies have showed that only about one American in one hundred meets that definition. After the collapse of the housing market and the decimation of private pension plans, the percentage of retirees who meet that definition is probably much smaller. And it’s shrinking every year. Besides, why punish people who were wise enough — and fortunate enough — to save for their retirement? Are we suddenly a nation that punishes thrift and investment? If one of these “millionaires” retires at 65 and has a life expectancy of 20 years, their million dollars will provide a comfortable, but not lavish, income. If you define “millionaire” in a more reasonable way — say, as someone who earns at least a million dollars each year in investment and other income after retirement — the number of people who fit the definition becomes extremely small. A Vast Conservative Bureaucracy The Social Security Administration (SSA) is already cash-starved, especially by Republicans who have gutted its budget. These cuts have already delayed the processing of applications and appeals, and have threatened to slow the distribution of checks. These cuts hurt the disabled, children and seniors. How is the SSA expected to handle this new means-testing function? Right now its overhead is admirably low because it’s a simple cash-in/cash-out program. Will it now be forced to process new paperwork on every applicant? Will it have to link its computer systems with those of the IRS, creating a new electronic database of information on every American? Will every retiring senior be grilled by government officials as part of a screening process? The cost of means-testing could well be greater than the amount of money saved. After all, there are more than 38,000,000 people over the age of 65 in the United States today. And every one of them will need to be screened every year. I thought Republicans wanted to cut bureaucracy, not increase it. No Cost/Benefit to Cutting Benefits And let’s consider how much money would — or wouldn’t — be saved. The very maximum anybody receives from Social Security at today’s rates is roughly $39,000, and almost nobody gets that much. To receive that much in benefit you’d have to have earned above the payroll tax cap limit — which is about $106,000 today — every single year of your working life from the age of 21 or so. A more typical benefit for high earners would be somewhere in the high $20,000s. So we’d be building an enormous new bureaucracy just to reduce benefits for less than one person in 100, and probably much less. That just doesn’t make sense. Pension My You-Know-What Here’s what would make sense: Tax those high earners so that they’re contributing their fair share to the economy. And if you’re concerned about paying benefits to the wealthy retired, that can be solved with a tax-based program too. But it shouldn’t be solved that way. Why? Because Social Security benefits aren’t “pension checks,” despite Daniels’ rhetoric. They’re benefits from a fund that every working person in this country contributes to with every paycheck. If a millionaire’s receiving Social Security, they paid for it throughout their working life. In fact, Social Security was designed that way for a reason: So that politicians like Mitch Daniels — and any Democrat that wants to strike a “Grand Bargain” with them — weren’t able to pretend they were doing anything other than violating an agreement that working Americans honor with every payroll tax deduction. They’ve kept their part of the bargain. Now it’s time for the government to keep its part. The Horse Why would conservatives propose a vast new Federal bureaucracy when it isn’t needed, and when it would only be focused on a tiny minority of people? One possible answer could lie in reports from groups like the right-wing Concord Coalition, which proposed cutting benefits for ‘high-income’ Americans – and then defined ‘high-income’ as anyone who earned more than $20,000 per year on average! In other words, the means-testing proposal is a Trojan horse. It uses anti-millionaire rhetoric to create the machinery for denying benefits to rich people, but its backers will then use that machinery against most Americans. Fuzzy Math Daniels went on to say that “The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them.” But its Daniels and his allies who are showing contempt for arithmetic — and for fairness, too. Even the most dire predictions don’t say that Social Security will “implode.” They say that, without changes, it will “only” be able to pay 75 percent of projected benefits — a quarter-century from now. That’s not implosion, and it’s easily fixed if we make the right adjustments today. One simple adjustment would be to lift the payroll tax cap altogether. That would restore the program to 100-percent stability. Another would be to assess a financial transactions tax, which could help cover this long-term shortfall and slow down the risky bank speculation that’s already crashed the economy once. 99-to-1: Fair Solutions But are solutions like that fair? Yes, and here’s why: Baby Boomers were hit with an increase in payments back in the 1980s, along with a higher retirement age to cover the “age wave” they represent. That brought the program back into balance. They’re not why Social Security has this long-term shortfall. As economist L. Josh Bivens and others have shown, the only reason Social Security has any problem at all is because the payroll tax cap is too low. It was designed to cover 90 percent of all income. But the top 1 percent of Americans has grabbed much more of the nation’s wealth than anybody could have predicted back in the 1980s — even Alan Greenspan, who headed the redesign of Social Security back then. Social Security’s only problem is, at its root, the same problem so many corners of American life have: the ruthless hijacking of our national wealth by a tiny, greedy minority. Means-testing is just a distraction, a diversion, a way of redirecting people’s justifiable outrage into a program that supposedly targets millionaires, but will really just rob them again so that millionaires don’t have to pay their fair share. If the people who have enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else are asked to step up, Social Security’s long-term imbalance disappears. But you won’t hear Mitch Daniels say that. Some Democrats will, but too many others have avoided making that argument for the American people. It’s time to debunk the ‘means-testing’ hoax forever.

Read the full article →

Kumi Naidoo: Davos Failed to Address Fundamentals — Will the Next Earth Summit in Rio?

February 2, 2012

At the World Economics Forum in Davos last week, no one was denying that we face serious economic, social and environmental crises. When even the Financial Times runs a series of articles on ” Capitalism in crisis ,” it’s obvious that it’s not just the “Occupy WEF” protesters, who I joined in their igloos outside the meeting, that are asking fundamental questions about how we do business. What Davos failed to do, however, is provide adequate answers. The talk was mainly about symptoms, not the core of the problem. No question, issues such as the size of the Euro firewall or bankers’ bonuses are important. But if we are to deliver an economy that brings prosperity for all without destroying the planet, we need to achieve a much more fundamental change than putting together few hundred extra millions for a firewall, or a little less greed by the 1%. When I suggested fundamental changes, such as making corporations liable for their impacts on society and the environment, the reaction was often a nervous laugh. While I was freezing in snowy Davos, the Brazilian President Dilma was at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre calling for the fostering of “new model” of development that can be discussed at this June’s Rio Earth Summit. Greenpeace has some concrete proposals on how governments could use the Rio meeting to change course and not simply acknowledge the crises we face, as is happening in Davos. The Earth Summit should, for example, agree on strong regulation of financial markets, including a Financial Transaction Tax, agree the end of environmentally and socially harmful subsidies, and commit to sustainable energy for all and zero deforestation by 2020. But if President Dilma wants to lead the world in a great transformation, she first has to put her own house in order. Unless she vetoes it, Brazil will soon adopt changes to its the Forest Code, the main law in Brazil that protects the forests, that would allow an amnesty for past forest crimes and lead to an increase in deforestation. This is unacceptable. If Brazil wants to credibly discuss “new models” of development at the Earth Summit in June , it must urgently commit to a new model of sustainable prosperity based on zero deforestation. It can be done. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined year on year and in 2011 reached its lowest ever level. But unless Dilma acts, Brazil will be the nation that showed that deforestation could be halted, but failed to do so, in order to cater to short-term special interests. Unless she vetos the Forest Code changes, President Dilma will have as little credibility to talk of fundamental change as the “Davos Man” come June. The warm climate of Rio will certainly suit me better than the mountains of snow in Davos. But will I leave Rio with more hope that the fundamental changes we need can finally be implemented?

Read the full article →

Obama Helps Woman With Husband’s Resume

February 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama may help Jennifer Wedel’s husband find a job. Whether he gets her vote is another question. Two days after Obama talked with Wedel during an online town hall and offered to take a look at her unemployed husband’s resume, Wedel said the president has followed through. Wedel told The Associated Press in a phone interview Wednesday that she got a call from a White House deputy chief of staff, Alyssa Mastromonaco, who told her Obama had made a personal point of making sure the matter was taken care of. Mastromonaco said the resume was sent to contacts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area where the couple lives. Now Wedel’s husband Darin has been contacted by several recruiters, and Wedel said she’s grateful. But Wedel, a Republican, said that may not be enough to get her vote unless Obama also improves some of his job policies. “Just because he’s able to send a resume out, that’s not going to be a vote factor,” Wedel said. “We’re just one American,” she said. “There are thousands of Americans just like my husband with no job.” Wedel wants Obama to look at limiting the number of visas going to high-tech workers from foreign countries, the issue she raised with him Monday evening in the forum hosted by Google Plus. Wedel was able to question Obama in a live video chat room known as a Hangout. Obama expressed surprise during their exchange that Darin Wedel was out of work, saying that the word he was getting from industry was that fields like semiconductor engineering were in demand and Darin Wedel should be able to get a job. Obama also said he found the situation “interesting,” a comment Republicans have subsequently used to attack the president by suggesting he’s out of touch with the concerns of the unemployed. Jennifer Wedel said Wednesday that she felt like she was “hushed up a little bit” by Obama when they spoke, but that she also found him candid and appreciated his accessibility. “I don’t think any other president has shown that outreach,” Wedel said.

Read the full article →

House Republicans Order Director Of ‘Gasland’ Documentary Josh Fox Detained At Public Hearing

February 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — In a stunning break with First Amendment policy on Capitol Hill, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice. Republicans also denied the entrance of a credentialed ABC News news team that was attempting to film the event. Josh Fox, director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary “Gasland” was taken into custody by Capitol Hill police this morning, along with his crew, after Republicans objected to their presence, according to Democratic sources present at the hearing. The meeting of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment had been taking place in room 2318 of the Rayburn building. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, is currently seeking to secure a procedural maneuver that would allow the detained film crew to re-enter the hearing, which is open to the public. Miller’s motion is not expected to succeed. Approximately 16 officers entered the hearing room and handcuffed Fox amid audible discussions of “disorderly conduct” charges, according to Democratic sources present at the arrest. “Gasland” received strong critical acclaim and takes a critical eye toward the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a process in which several tons of highly pressurized water and chemicals are injected into the ground, allowing valuable natural gas to escape. The practice is decried by ecological experts for destroying ecosystems and polluting groundwater. The energy industry keeps the actual content of fracking chemicals secret. Fox had hoped to film Wednesday’s hearing for a follow-up to “Gasland.” A colleague of Fox’s at his production company was unable to comment on the morning’s events, but HuffPost expects a statement soon and will update this story accordingly. Fox did not have formal Capitol Hill credentials, but such formalities are rarely enforced against high-profile journalists. Temporary passes are easy to obtain, and if Republicans had objected on procedural grounds, they could have simply sent the the crew to the front desk, rather than ordering police to arrest journalists. The right to a free press is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Documentary crews are almost never denied access to public meetings of elected government officials. A separate ABC News crew, which did have official Capitol Hill credentials, was also denied access to the public hearing. UPDATE: 12:09 p.m. — Capitol Police public information officer Seargant Kimberly Schneider provided the following statement to HuffPost on the morning’s events: “At approximately 10:30 a.m. today, United States Capitol Police arrested Joshua Fox of Milanville, Pa. in room 2318 of the Rayburn House office building. He is charged with unlawful entry, and he is currently being processed at United States Capitol Police headquarters.” This is a developing story. Check back with HuffPost for more.

Read the full article →

Adam Levin: The Real SOPA Opera Should Be ID Theft

January 24, 2012

The Stop Online Piracy Act, and its sister legislation in the Senate, the Protect Intellectual Property Act caused quite a stir in Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Washington. The two bills were intended to put a hard stop on theft of intellectual property on the Internet, by means that are controversial in terms of the First Amendment . Big players from the overlapping worlds of movies and music pushed for this bill. So did their high priced lobbyists. But SOPA and PIPA were ultimately shelved last week, and not just because there were formidable forces lined up against it. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, AOL and Twitter are just a few of the tech companies that opposed the bills, and they can certainly afford some pretty high priced lobbyists, too. What also put a knife through the heart of SOPA and PIPA was the non-paid lobbyist community — a.k.a., the grassroots. The last few weeks, millions of people signed petitions in opposition of the bills. And sites like Wikipedia and Reddit went dark for 24 hours in protest. “What has happened in the last few weeks will permanently change the way citizens communicate with their government… This is a new day,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent . Wyden has been SOPA and PIPA’s chief opponent in the Senate. I don’t argue with the good intentions of the bills’ sponsors — online piracy of music, movies and the like is a serious problem that has existed and grown in direct proportion to the existence and growth of the Internet itself. But Silicon Valley folks argued that the proposed legislation would seriously curtail the operations of very popular websites, such as YouTube, even though the proprietors of those sites are not trying to steal anything themselves, and generally take steps to be certain that they don’t, in the language of the bills, “facilitate” online piracy. Regardless of the fate that befalls either piece of legislation, the battle over online piracy is raging and will continue for quite some time. And the reason why the issue will remain top of mind is the same reason why the bills were beaten back: powerful interests lined up on both sides of the issue, and real people weighed in and let their voices be heard. I only hope that people keep talking because the truth of the matter is that SOPA and PIPA only scratch the surface of online piracy. But while we contemplate the gargantuan battle of the content vs. technology worlds, we must not forget an equally serious, actually even more serious example of online piracy. While no numbers have been reliably developed to compare the two, I would make book that the most common and sinister piracy that goes on via the Internet involves database compromise and identity theft rather than theft of movies or music. According to the Identity Theft Research Center , 4,300,056 records containing sensitive consumer data were stolen in hacking incidents in 2011 alone, exposing those consumers to the risk of identity theft. The current proposed legislation doesn’t deal with identity theft, but of course, there are a number of laws on both federal and state books that do. Unfortunately, most aren’t tough enough and, in the case of the federal government, they are few and far between. One of the complaints I have often heard from proponents of SOPA is not so much that existing law is inadequate, but rather that existing enforcement of that law is lacking. Doubtless, while SOPA (or Son of SOPA) provides new and potent enforcement weapons, the noise surrounding the recent battle will definitely step up enforcement activities under current law, something that is critical, especially if both bills die beneath the Capitol dome (which apparently one has). And given the fact that Congress has mastered the art of internecine squabbling and gridlock, nothing seems to be going anywhere fast in Washington, no matter how serious the problem. If only identity theft were as buzz worthy; alas, (the recently departed) SOPA and PIPA are big news because of the power and prestige of those on both sides of the issue. That’s why the grassroots ultimately had to get involved. The victims of intellectual property piracy are generally large and powerful companies, with lobbyists in Washington and in every important state capital, with money to spend to help with enforcement or to technologically impede the theft of their property. On the other hand, the victims of identity theft are generally individuals with meager resources, both financial and political, to fight against the theft of their sensitive personal information, and the destruction of their financial lives, or even more dire consequences should they experience medical or criminal identity theft. Put simply, the victims of intellectual property theft are generally much wealthier and more powerful than the thieves, whereas in identity theft, the playing field is generally more tilted in favor of the bad guys. It’s safe to say that if multibillion dollar companies need more legislation and better enforcement procedures to protect their property, individuals need all the help they can get to protect theirs. While there are many organizations that do their best to prevent identity theft, they cannot match the resources available to those who have large financial interests at stake, like the entertainment companies that have embraced SOPA. This is, after all, America, where money talks but big money shouts. I hope that the senators and representatives who are hell-bent to kill or at least seriously maim the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other consumer-oriented federal regulatory agencies take note of the fact that consumers need all the help they can get to protect their identities. Unfortunately, there are no lobbyists or media campaigns to shout at Congress, but perhaps a large chorus of smaller voices will make a lot of noise at the polls in November. This article originally appeared on Credit.com .

Read the full article →

Romney Says Only He Has Lived On The ‘Real Streets Of America’

January 20, 2012

After Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum dove into a bitter dispute over ancient history from the halls on Congress, Mitt Romney says the argument is a “perfect example of why we need to send to Washington someone who has not lived in Washington, but someone who’s lived in the real streets of America.” That’ll be easy for Romney: at last count, he currently lives on at least eight streets in America. You can see his summer house in New Hampshire here .

Read the full article →

EPA To Start Sending Water To Town With Tainted Wells

January 19, 2012

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it will deliver fresh water to four homes in a northeastern Pennsylvania village where residential water wells were tainted by a gas driller. The agency also said it will begin testing the water supplies of dozens more homes as it ramps up its investigation more than three years after homeowners say the water supply was ruined. Capping a tumultuous two weeks in which EPA first promised the residents a tanker of water – and then quickly backed away, saying more study was needed – federal environmental regulators said they have concluded that contaminant levels in four of the homes pose a health hazard and require emergency action. Some of the water samples, the agency said, were found to be polluted with cancer-causing arsenic and synthetic chemicals typically found in drilling fluids. The first delivery of water is scheduled for Friday. “I can’t even tell you, again, what a relief this is. because that’s all we’ve asked for – water,” said Julie Sautner, one of the homeowners. Additionally, EPA said it will sample water at 61 homes in the area of Carter and Meshoppen roads “to assess further whether any residents are being exposed to hazardous substances that cause health concerns.” The testing, to be carried out over the next several weeks, marks a significant expansion of the agency’s probe in Dimock, a tiny crossroads at the center of a national debate over gas drilling and the extraction technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. More than a dozen homeowners in Dimock say they have been without a reliable supply of clean water since Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., the Houston-based drilling firm blamed for polluting their aquifer, won permission from state regulators to halt daily deliveries on Nov. 30. After analyzing sampling data provided by Cabot, the residents, and the state Department of Environmental Protection, EPA said hazardous substances were found in the water wells of several homes. But only in four homes were they in high enough concentrations to present a health threat, the agency said. EPA said it might provide water to additional homes, or stop delivering water altogether, depending on the results of its own testing, “EPA is working diligently to understand the situation in Dimock and address residents’ concerns,” EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said in a statement. “We believe that the information provided to us by the residents deserves further review, and conducting our own sampling will help us fill information gaps. Our actions will be based on the science and the law and we will work to help get a more complete picture of water quality for these homes in Dimock.” EPA said the federal Superfund program – the environmental fund used to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites – authorized it to take emergency action in Dimock. It’s not clear how many wells in Dimock were affected by the drilling, which began in 2008. The state has found that at least 18 residential water wells were fouled by stray methane gas from Cabot’s drilling operation, although EPA said Thursday that its own door-to-door survey turned up 20 water wells on those same parcels. Cabot, which was banned in 2010 from drilling in a 9-square-mile area around the village, took legal responsibility for the methane found in the wells, but contends that water wells in the area were tainted with the gas long before the company arrived. The company also says it met a state deadline to restore or replace Dimock’s water supply, installing treatment systems in some houses that have removed the methane. But 11 homeowners who are suing Cabot say their aquifer is still tainted with methane and also with toxic chemicals that are used in fracking, a technique in which water, sand and chemicals are blasted deep underground to free natural gas from dense rock deposits like the Marcellus Shale found in Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Cabot denies responsibility for the presence of any chemicals found in the wells. EPA said the sampling data it reviewed turned up hazardous levels of substances including: _arsenic, a cancer-causing element that may be present in elevated concentrations due to drilling; _barium, a silvery-white metal and a common constituent in drilling fluids that can damage the kidneys with extended exposure. _DEHP, a chemical added to plastics to make them flexible, a probable human carcinogen; also used in drilling; _glycols, including ethylene glycol, an antifreeze commonly found in drilling fluids; _manganese, a naturally occurring substance that is sometimes used in drilling fluids and can damage the central nervous system if ingested. EPA’s decision to intervene in Dimock is unlikely to sit well with Pennsylvania’s environmental chief, Michael Krancer, who has accused the EPA of having only a “rudimentary” understanding of the situation there. Krancer, a frequent EPA critic who serves under pro-drilling GOP Gov. Tom Corbett, urged Garvin in a letter released publicly last week to allow any EPA probe to “be guided by sound science and the law instead of emotion and publicity.” DEP spokeswoman Katy Gresh said after the EPA announcement Thursday that “EPA does not seem to have presented any new data here. More than a year ago, DEP’s enforcement action addressed this issue and ensured funds were set aside to resolve the water quality issues for these homeowners.” She said DEP agrees that additional sampling is necessary in Dimock and is working with its federal counterpart. Cabot rejected EPA’s characterization of the sampling data and insisted that Dimock’s drinking water meets federal standards. “Cabot believes that the US EPA has a flawed interpretation of the data and has taken it out of context; this has resulted in an unwarranted investigation by US EPA regarding water quality. PADEP has extensively investigated alleged groundwater concerns in the Dimock area and concluded, using sound science, that it was safe,” Cabot spokesman George Stark said in a statement.

Read the full article →

FUZZY MATH: Exxon Says Yellowstone Spill Involved More Oil

January 19, 2012

BILLINGS, Mont. — Exxon Mobil says 1,509 barrels of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River during a pipeline break in Montana last summer – an increase of more than 500 barrels over the company’s earlier estimates. Spokesman Alan Jeffers said Thursday the company recalculated the volume after discovering the pipeline was completely severed during the July 1 accident near Laurel. Jeffers says pipeline breaches typically involve a crack or fissure. That was the assumption used to craft the initial estimate. The company has estimated costs related to the spill of $135 million. More than 1,000 Exxon Mobil contractors were involved in the cleanup effort. Only about 10 barrels of crude were recovered – less than 1 percent of the total spilled.

Read the full article →

Hedge Fund Employees Allegedly Part Of ‘Tight-Knit Circle Of Greed’

January 19, 2012

Federal prosecutors have arrested seven hedge fund workers, alleging that they were part of a “tight-knit circle of greed” that took home nearly $78 million in illegal profits. The scheme included one $53 million trade — the largest transaction ever to lead to a Manhattan prosecution — and came mostly from tips from one employee at Dell . The arrests are the latest in a recent government crackdown on insider trading . Four men were charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, among other charges, while three analysts who were charged in other documents, have already plead guilty and are cooperating with the government. The claim, “describes a circle of friends who essentially formed a criminal club, whose purpose was profit and whose members regularly bartered lucrative inside information,” Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York said according to prepared remarks . “It was a club where everyone scratched everyone else’s back.” The probe is part of a larger continuing investigation that resulted in the arrest and recent conviction of Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam on 14 counts of securities fraud and conspiracy . Rajaratnam is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence and was ordered in November to pay a record $92.8 million in a related civil case. Though prosecutors are touting the recent arrests as part of their “continuing efforts to ensure fair play on Wall Street,” a November report found that federal prosecution of financial crimes was on track to fall to a 20-year low. The report compiled Justice Department data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and found that 2011′s low level of prosecutions is the continuation of a trend spanning more than a decade. One explanation for the drop in prosecutions could be a boost in deferred prosecution agreements, which allow companies to voluntarily report their own misconduct and sidestep harsher punishments in court. The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have adopted deferred prosecution agreements in 2008 , according to The New York Times . The lack of prosecutions in the wake of the financial crisis has stoked anger among critics including the Occupy Wall Street movement. Government officials haven’t successfully prosecuted a single Wall Street executive or financial firm for their role in the meltdown. And it’s pretty unlikely that financial executives will be prosecuted for their actions during the financial crisis going forward. A former top investigator told the Wall Street Journal last month that prosecution of financial executives is “better left to regulators” to take civil actions.

Read the full article →

Ernan Roman: Damaging Your Customer’s Loyalty

January 19, 2012

For nearly two decades, my family and I have been repeat guests at a beautiful inn on the Chesapeake Bay. We were very loyal fans, until our recent stay during the holidays. I can no longer recommend this inn to others, which is something I’ve been doing enthusiastically since 1996… and we are not sure we will return. How could the customer experience have been so bad? On a personal note: based on our previous 18+ visits, my family has many great memories, (our kids describe it as their “second home”) so I will not identify the inn by name. But I do want to provide marketers of all industries with this cautionary tale. Our difficulties began with the room cleaning staff’s decision to take a box full of our holiday gifts — which did not look remotely like garbage, and was left at least twenty feet away from the nearest garbage can — and throw it out! For an example of a company which managed the customer experience beautifully, read this story: Build Positive Emotional Equity with Customer Care A Culture Problem The initial error of trashing our family gifts was serious, but on its own, it was evidence only of a serious training problem with the housekeeping staff. But the failure to respond with proactive care and concern for a valued repeat customer who received less than their very best is evidence of something far more serious, and of concern to every marketer: a culture problem. We saw an early glimpse of the very different culture during the first few moments at the property. Contrary to our 18+ previous visits, our repeat guest history was never acknowledged when we checked in. As we came to learn, the cultural changes permeated our guest experience. I am sharing this story because these types of cultural issues apply to all marketers, not just those in the hospitality industry. Damaging Our Loyalty The problems we experienced were many, but included: It took numerous calls and visits to the front desk by my wife and daughter, to create a sense of urgency about looking for our valuable missing gifts. Finally, the manager was good enough to get into the garbage dumpster and begin to search. However, in spite of my wife’s repeated requests to the front office staff that the manager search for multiple missing items, this message was not communicated. As a result only one of the missing gifts was found. An inability to apologize. Some front-line staff acted put upon, and as if they were doing us a favor by resolving a troublesome problem we had created. A manager’s disrespectful attitude the next day, when my wife reminded him that additional items were still missing. When my wife explained that we were not sure which, and how many, gifts were missing, as our 6 family members had exchanged many gifts, but would try to find receipts when we returned home, he snapped: “You should know what the other gifts were; I certainly would!” Failure of the General Manager to return our phone calls about the problem, or indeed to reach out to us in any way. As of the posting of this blog, 3 weeks after our visit, I still have not heard from the General Manager, (who was on property during our stay). We left feeling betrayed. While, we received monetary compensation for our problems, in the form of five nights of free lodging, and reimbursement for $160 of missing jewelry, there was no recognition or acknowledgement of the upset or inconvenience this caused us. We left feeling that we were viewed as bothersome guests who should have labeled the gift boxes in our room more clearly. We don’t know if we will return… because the culture of the place we loved has dramatically changed. Marketing Takeaways: Four Critical Points: For any industry, identify the points of weakness that might allow your team to: Develop an attitude that “the customer is probably wrong”. Not recognize and acknowledge a very loyal, repeat customer — and treat him or her accordingly. Allow management to be so removed from customers that they do not feel the need to quickly and proactively seek them out to offer assistance and apologies. Have no process for follow-up contact with a customer after a serious mistake. Ernan Roman is President of the marketing consultancy, Ernan Roman Direct Marketing. Recognized as the industry pioneer who created three transformational methodologies: Integrated Direct Marketing, Opt-In Marketing, and Voice of Customer Relationship Research. Ernan was recently inducted into the Marketing Hall of Fame. Clients include Microsoft, NBC Universal, Disney, Hewlett-Packard and IBM. Ernan was named to “B to B’s Who’s Who” as one of the “100 most influential people” in Business Marketing by Crain’s B to B Magazine. His fourth and latest book on marketing best practices is titled: Voice of the Customer Marketing: A Proven 5-Step Process to Create Customers Who Care, Spend, and Stay . Ernan is also the co-author of “Opt-In Marketing: Increase Sales Exponentially with Consensual Marketing” and author of “Integrated Direct Marketing: The Cutting Edge Strategy for Synchronizing Advertising, Direct Mail, Telemarketing and Field Sales.” www.erdm.com ernan@erdm.com

Read the full article →

Sen. Ron Wyden: My Letter to the Internet

January 18, 2012

Dear Friends: Today, thousands of websites have chosen to voluntarily go offline or modify their home pages with public service information. Some have called this a stunt. I say it’s a brave and poignant reminder that we can’t take the Internet for granted. The Internet has become an integral part of everyday life precisely because it has been an open-to-all land of opportunity where entrepreneurs, thinkers and innovators are free to try, fail and then try again. The Internet has changed the way we communicate with each other, the way we learn about the world and the way we conduct business. It has done this by eliminating the tollgates, middle men, and other barriers to entry that have so often predetermined winners and losers in the marketplace. It has created a world where ideas, products and creative expression have an opportunity regardless of who offers them or where they originate. Protect IP (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are a step towards a different kind of Internet. They are a step towards an Internet in which those with money and lawyers and access to power have a greater voice than those who don’t. They are a step towards an Internet in which online innovators need lawyers as much or more than they need good ideas. And they are a step towards a world in which Americans have less of a voice to argue for a free and open Internet around the world. Proponents of these bills say these arguments are overblown, but I say any step towards an Internet in which one person’s voice counts more than another is a step in the wrong direction. These are bills that should give us pause. These are bills that should be studied and debated. Congress should consult experts and consider alternatives and make 100% sure that any step it takes to police the Internet doesn’t change the Internet as we know it. This is why I put a hold on the Protect IP Act and its predecessor over a year ago and introduced a bipartisan alternative last month. The Senate, however, has scheduled a vote for Tuesday, January 24 at 2:15 PM to override my hold and move the Protect IP Act towards passage. This will be the deciding vote that determines whether PIPA and SOPA move through the Congress or are turned back for more sober discussion. We are up against a group of the biggest, most powerful, well-funded and well-organized interest groups in Washington. No one thought millions of Internet users would speak up or that those voices could overcome the power of these interests. Today you showed that the Internet is not just a platform for ideas, commerce, and expression, but also for political action that will defend those principles. Your voices must continue to be heard. Thank you for standing up for what’s important, for continuing to speak out and for demonstrating that we should always stand up for what we think is right regardless of the odds. This is an opportunity to reshape the way Washington operates, not just responding to narrow interests but hearing the voices of millions of Americans whose rights and livilihoods are affected by our actions. Sincerely, Ron Wyden United States Senator

Read the full article →

S.C. Supreme Court To Hear Carnival Cruise Case

January 17, 2012

CHARLESTON, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court has agreed to hear complaints brought by local residents, preservationists and an environmental group over Charleston’s expanded cruise industry. A lawsuit filed last year against Carnival Cruise Lines alleges, among other things, that the company’s vessels are a public nuisance in this historic city, that they amount to illegal hotel operations and that the liner’s signature red, white and blue smokestacks violate city sign ordinances. The court has agreed to hear the case without it first going to a lower one. No date for arguments has been set. The plaintiffs include Charleston residents, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and the Preservation Society of Charleston. After the suit was filed, the city and the State Ports Authority intervened on the side of Carnival. They asked the Supreme Court to take immediate jurisdiction saying the lawsuit threatens the maritime commerce making it a matter of statewide public interest. The plaintiffs said a lower court should hear the matter first. They said the complaint applies only to Carnival and that other maritime operations don’t infringe on the quality of life in quiet historic neighborhoods. They also said it’s a zoning matter similar to those heard routinely by trial courts statewide. The lawsuit asks a judge to block cruise operations that “constitute a nuisance” and declare illegal the use of the Union Pier area for a terminal. That’s where the Ports Authority is planning a new $35 million cruise terminal. “Ultimately the case was going to make it to the Supreme Court one way or the other because of the significant issues involved,” said Frank Holleman, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center representing the plaintiffs. “We thought it appropriate because it was a community and neighborhood-focused issue that it first be heard closer to the community and neighborhood involved. But we can understand, given the high-profile nature of the issue the Supreme Court decided otherwise,” he said. “The basic decision to be made by the court … is applying the language of the law – and here that is a series of zoning ordinances – to the facts as alleged.” The city and the Ports Authority said the case should be resolved quickly and “an expedited resolution has huge significance for all of the State’s ocean trade, not just for cruise ships.” While there have been seasonal cruises from Charleston for years, things changed in 2010 when Carnival permanently based its 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy here, creating a year-round industry. Charleston, which passed the nation’s first historic preservation ordinance more than 80 years ago, was warned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation last year that the growing industry threatens its historic character. Tourism is a $14 billion industry in South Carolina and 2010 study for the Ports Authority found cruises account for about $37 million of that. _____ Associated Press writer Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Congress Occupied: Hundreds Swarm Capitol Hill To Represent 99 Percent

January 17, 2012

A diverse crowd of hundreds from around the country descended on Capitol Hill Tuesday as the Occupy movement tried to get its point across to a Congress returning from a long recess. “We came to add to the numbers, to be heard,” said Rosetta Star, a social entrepreneur from Asheville, N.C. “We came to inspire others; we came to inspire our children. We came because we can’t sit still and pretend like nothing is going wrong, when we feel like the collective bus of the country is getting driven off a cliff.” (CLICK HERE FOR LIVE UPDATES) Star, who with her husband, Jack, runs the restaurant Rosetta’s Kitchen and a compostable packaging firm, Jack’s Boxes , as well as a third business, said she wanted Congress to stop paying the majority of its attention to the most fortunate. “Our systems are flawed by a for-profit mentality, and therefore the needs of the masses are being ignored for the profits of the few,” said Star, who is managing to make a go of her own entrepreneurial ventures while balancing activism. “We make a living between hustling for those three different small businesses,” said Star, who traveled to Washington with her four children and one of their friends, as well as her father. “We even make a living enough that we got a hotel when we came to Occupy.” “Grandpa and the boys camped” though, she added. Ryan Blackwell, 18, of Columbia, Mo., said he joined up with Occupy D.C. a week before Thanksgiving, much to his parents’ displeasure. “Let’s just say I had to defriend them on Facebook,” he said. For all his difficulty with his family, Blackwell saw in Tuesday’s gathering a chance for his voice to be heard. “It’s gorgeous,” he said, referring to a crowd that started small, but was well into the hundreds by early afternoon. “We want our rights back.” Like Star, the teenager pointed to a growing economic disparity in America, but also named as infringements things such as the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act , which codifies indefinite military detention of American terrorism suspects . “It’s evil,” he said. Roland Fellot, 52, a health inspector from Silver Spring, Md., volunteered to carry a sign calling for the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, the measure repealed during the Clinton administration that allowed banks and investment houses to unite their businesses. Many blame the measure for allowing banks to get infected with the toxic mortgage assets that sparked the 2008 meltdown. “The connection to Occupy is that when the backers of removing this actually got their way and they did away with it, that was just a typical example of the top 1 percent, the wealthy, influencing enough politicians here on Capitol Hill to get what they want,” Fellot said. But he said the message demonstrators want to convey is larger than a bill or two. “The Occupy movement and the issue about 1 percent is so much beyond just one or two acts. It’s about the whole system,” Fellot said. “The super wealthy have always been heard, and they’ve usually gotten what they wanted. What’s happened of late is they’re the only ones who get heard.” “Congress has been screwing us for far too long, and I’m not okay with that, and neither are a lot of people,” said Deejay Paredi, 20, of Charlotte, N.C., also singling out the NDAA, which President Obama signed on New Year’s Eve. “It’s really taking our rights away, and most Americans do not even realize what’s going on,” Paredi said. “So I feel like it’s up to those of us who are aware to make ourselves heard. Most of this I feel is being done on the down-low. Unless you actually care and are actually interested in what’s happening in the government — most people aren’t and don’t care — you don’t know that this is happening.” The crowd was largely calm, although a handful of people were arrested for apparently testing the limits of the boundaries set by Capitol Police. One man, William Griffin, was charged with assault on a police officer, a police spokeswoman said. Members of the protest tweeted at the time that police instigated the altercation. Nathaniel Schrier, Clinton Boyd and Heron Boyce were charged with crossing a police line, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Prostesters also walked the halls of Congress without apparent incident, visiting members’ offices, although many lawmakers still had not yet returned to work. By Tuesday afternoon, hundreds of protesters spread out through the halls. Overall, the protest had much the feel of 2009′s Tea Party rallies, minus the tri-corner hats. There were even a handful of the “Don’t Tread On Me” flags that have become iconic for the conservative movement. Rosetta Star said the atmosphere did not surprise her. “I believe that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement have a huge amount in common,” she said, noting that she has reached out to more traditionally conservative groups in her community on the belief that they share similar problems. “If we could figure out what we all have in common, then we could truly be the 99 percent,” she said. “The 99 percent right now is a slogan that’s been taken but hasn’t actually been represented. People are trying to, and it’s true that the negative situations are being experienced by the 99 percent.” Star said she thought moments like Tuesday’s protest would help raise that awareness. “I believe that we are going to hit a tipping point, and it’s kind of un-ignorable and unavoidable,” she said, with her 3-year-old clambering around on her back. “The tipping point for me would be when 99 percent of the people become politically active, they participate on some level with what’s happening around them in the world that they’re living in, other than just their own families immediate needs.” One big difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement is that the Tea Party was organized in part as a deliberate electoral effort that helped the Republican Party take over the House of Representatives in 2010. It is not clear what impact Occupy will have in the fall’s campaign season, although Democrats have been trying to harness at least some of the energy and feelings expressed by the movement. Still, Star said that she will keep at it whether others do or not. “I will always fight the good fight regardless of the expected outcome so that I can always feel clear looking at myself in the mirror, and looking back and reflecting on my own life and my own choices,” she said. “Apathy is the worst poison in my mind.” Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook .

Read the full article →

Startup Evisors Bets On E-Advice

January 17, 2012

By Deborah L. Cohen CHICAGO (Reuters) – As a student at top U.S. universities, Norwegian entrepreneur Fredrik Maro quickly learned it’s not always what you know but who you know that can advance your career. So he and three fellow Harvard business school alumni set out to build a company based on the premise that everyone should have a shot at reaching advisors with direct knowledge in their field at an affordable price. Their online startup, Evisors , provides a range of consulting expertise for aspiring students, entrepreneurs and others. “I realized there could be a business model here built around democratizing the access to all these great people with all this great know-how, making the people you need to know available to everybody, not just a select group,” said Maro, who was introduced to costly and exclusive consulting networks in niche areas such as hedge funds during his own stint at the global management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. Maro and his cofounders began developing Evisors as MBA students, eventually bootstrapping the venture with less than $25,000 of their own money. To keep costs down, they outsourced site development to engineers in India. “We were very focused on a lean startup model,” said Maro, noting that much of the online platform had to be rebuilt once the venture began scaling up. Realizing they couldn’t start off being all things to all people, the cofounders focused first on what they knew best: helping aspiring students with admissions strategies for elite schools and career moves. The topic had particular resonance for Maro, who spent countless hours studying for the SATs during mandatory army service in Norway. “I got into Penn (University of Pennsylvania) despite what must have been a terrible, terrible application,” he recalled, adding that Evisors consultants are enlisted to help with everything from mock admissions interviews to resume reviews. Expert advice, bargain price New York-based Evisors, which launched in beta in September of 2010 and went live about a year later, has amassed about 1,200 experts who charge anywhere from $30 to $700 an hour for advice in the form of a phone consultation or email. The average rate is about $100, far below elite consulting networks, Maro said. The venture has to date sold more than 1,000 sessions. Evisors takes a cut of the proceeds, typically 30 percent for first-time users, in exchange for facilitating the match and handling details such as toll-free phone calls, file sharing and billing. Michael Mayhew, chairman of Integrity Research, a research advisory firm to institutional investors, said Evisors has tapped an un-served market. Other online consulting networks such as Zintro are focused squarely on financial services, he said. “I do think there is a going to be first mover, branding type advantage,” Mayhew said. Surprisingly, the site hasn’t had to work too hard to recruit advisors, relying instead on its founders’ network and word-of-mouth referrals. Consultants set their own rates and are later evaluated, with their scorecard made public to potential customers. Ben Schumacher, a Harvard business school alumnus and director of strategy for the teachers’ network Teach for America, is among the site’s highest-volume consultants, offering career advice to recent graduates and mid-career executives alike. “When I see clients succeed, I get addicted to their success,” said Schumacher, who recently finished his 90th consultation and typically charges $195 per hour. Access to seasoned alumni from top schools has been appealing to a variety of universities, which have contracted Evisors to develop proprietary consulting networks for their students. The University of Cambridge was the first of some 20 schools, said Maro, whose company gives the universities a break on rates due to volume. Business connections Beyond career advice, Evisors has progressively honed other sweet spots, with entrepreneurial consulting emerging as its second-biggest area. A quick glance at experts in this area revealed a host of startup founders as well as a project director at a large museum. “A conversation or two with the right individual is very valuable,” said Alan Mark, a member of the New York Angels, among the investors that have provided nearly $700,000 in startup capital to Evisors. “This can be really helpful for small business and individuals who otherwise wouldn’t have access to these experts.” Dr. James Maisel, a retina surgeon and serial entrepreneur, found an advisor with specialized venture capital expertise in medical technology to help with a pitch to potential VC investors. The total cost: less than $500. “We got the IT advisor from a New York venture capital firm that has been in the business for a number of years and was familiar with our space,” said Maisel, whose venture, ZyDoc, uses speech recognition to aid in medical transcription. “He could not have been more well-suited to help us.” Those are the types of success stories Evisors is betting on for growth. “We’re getting these people into schools,” Maro said. “We’re getting startup funding. We’re getting people into their jobs.” Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

What Do You Owe Your Kids?

January 17, 2012

My spouse and I started saving for college when each of our daughters was born. We’ve set money aside faithfully every month for the last 14-1/2 years. With a little luck, we’re on track to pay for three college educations in full. But then we’re done. My daughters will be footing the bill for their automobiles, weddings and home down payments — just as my husband and I did. We’re showing them how to earn, save, invest, spend and use credit wisely — so if they dive deep into debt as adults, they’ll have to swim out by themselves. We believe our job is to prepare them to be independent and productive adults, not to carry them financially forever. A lot of baby boomers share that sentiment, according to a new study by MetLife, which surveyed three generations on family financial obligations: baby boomers (1946-1964); Gen Xers (1965-1976); and Gen Yers (1977-1990). All three groups agreed that parents should support children through their college years (76%) and provide help during a financial emergency that’s not of the child’s doing (78%), such as an illness or job layoff. But the oldest group is less willing to subsidize their adult children. “Young families are devoted to kids, whereas boomers have said, ‘you know I paid for their education, it’s time they take care of themselves,’” said John Migliaccio, director of research and gerontology for the MetLife Mature Market Institute. “The reality of retirement needs becomes more apparent for boomers because they’re closer to it.” Only one-third of baby boomers received help with college from their parents, compared with 46 percent of Gen-Xers, but about three-quarters of boomers said they had supported their own children through college. “A lot of young men went to college instead of going into army because of draft and the Vietnam War, and (college enrollment) started dropping off after that point,” said Migliaccio. “Boomers saw the economic value of a college education; they got better jobs and realized how important it is economically. There’s also an issue of increasing inflation in college education costs in that period of time.” But when it comes to support outside of education, boomers are less likely to step up to the plate. For example, just 44 percent of boomers felt a parent has at least some obligation to help their children with a home down payment, compared to 53 percent of Gen Yers. One possible reason: Gen Yers are just entering the housing market themselves — 44 percent of this group rents, compared to 11 percent of boomers — so they have more immediate experience with the difficulties of coming up with a downpayment. As for financial hardship, nearly half of Gen Yers believe a parent has a definite responsibility to help their adult children, compared to just 40 percent of boomers. And those credit card mistakes? Some 13 percent of Gen Yers feel a parent is “highly obligated” to bail out kids who get in trouble with credit card debt — compared with 8 percent, of boomers. Those willing to shell out dough for kids in the red would offer no more than $5,000. Moreover, 70 percent of boomers say enjoying retirement takes precedence over leaving an inheritance; just 64 percent of Gen Xers and 57 percent of Gen Yers agree. Is this more evidence that boomers are the ultimate “me” generation? No, Migliaccio says — they’re just worried about their looming retirement: 86 percent of Americans surveyed believe they have a strong or absolute responsibility to accumulate enough money for retirement to avoid turning to family members for financial support as they age. “Some people looking at it as, ‘the best way to protect my kids and grandkids is to take care of myself and make sure I don’t become a burden,’” said Migliaccio. (Check out our slideshow below for five other surprising findings from the survey.) My personal feeling is that subsidizing grown children sends a destructive message: “You can’t do it on your own.” Coming from a family of eleven kids, I had to be self-reliant by necessity. But learning to manage your own financial life builds character and confidence. That said, if my girls grow up to be the productive citizens we expect, and I find myself with a winning lottery ticket in hand, I might change my tune and spring for a vacation to Tuscany. Tell us how you feel: What do parents owe their children?

Read the full article →

Kathleen Gurney: How Are You Planning to Approach 2012? Are You a Resolver or Do You Have an Alternate Plan?

January 17, 2012

As 2012 unfolds, are you spending your time working to achieve your well-planned goals and resolutions, or are you hanging back waiting to allocate your time, energy and talents to face what 2012 and your current circumstances have in store for you at the time? In my business of giving people insight into their financial behavior, I see very different approaches to life planning with very different results. Despite those differences in perspectives, they all benefit from receiving objective feedback in what they’re doing and how they would profit from incorporating another point of view. This is a description about two very different ways of thinking about and living life. The first is what you might call the “well-planned life,” the life with purpose defined and measured by high achievement, goal-orientation and completion. This life has been described by many experts, particularly in college commencement addresses. At one such address reported in the Harvard Business Review a couple of years ago, Clayton Christensen, a Harvard professor, advised students to create a purposeful and well-planned life strategy early on and stick to it so that their life would be reflective of what mattered most. For Christensen, a high achiever, life planning had been a struggle with reaching the balance between focusing on achievement of goals and spending time on less well-defined goal achievements as family and friends, which don’t reveal concrete and immediate results. He gave examples of his peers who achieved great success in business but fell short in their social and personal lives with high rates of divorce and alienation from friends and family. Certainly, their new year’s resolutions would never have included such failures and discontent in those aspects of life. But, as Christensen notes, people with a high need for achievement commonly misallocate their resources favoring concrete measures such as money and career advancement. So, if you’re a “resolver,” you’ll want to think about a more expansive plan for making your new year’s resolutions and more general life plan to include those personal and social aspects of your life that you may short-change by habit. You’ll want to jump out of your skin and experiment with a very different way of thinking and approaching life planning which will undoubtedly be initially uncomfortable. The second way of thinking about life and how to approach it might be called the “reactive life.” This mode of thinking starts from an entirely different perspective — life-planning is not a project to be completed with a check list of objectives to be achieved, but rather an unknown destination to be explored. The belief is that, in reality, there is no way of knowing and predicting the best plan for a purposeful life or new year as external factors are unknown. These factors will play a significant role in dictating appropriate solutions to choices that may crop up. “Reactors” scoff at regimented plans with objectives, structure and a fixed focus on purpose and goal achievement. They approach their life-planning with a set of ideals and values as a pre-cursor or filter by which they then make current decisions in how to achieve those ideals in allocating their time, talents and resources. It’s easy from a distance to see the benefits of each perspective, but people often don’t have that ability to perceive themselves and their actions in a meaningful way while playing out their mindset and life orientation. So, it would seem a plan incorporating a balance of the two would be most advantageous. As Americans, it’s not easy if you’re a “resolver” to deviate as we are reinforced for our concrete high achievement, just as it’s a challenge to be a “reactor” following a less-defined plan in a nation of high achievers who are motivated by more concrete measures of achievement. We have to break through those barriers and know that our goal can be balance. Once you come up with and live according to your more balanced purposeful plan, life appears to unfold as a well-designed project, well-conceived from the start and adjusted along the way toward a well-balanced fruition.

Read the full article →

BofA ATMs Turned Into ‘Truth Machines’

January 17, 2012

Bank of America customers in San Francisco hoping to make a quick withdrawal got a surprise last weekend when local activists placed stickers criticizing the bank’s investments on ATM screens across the city. The Rainforest Action Network reports that some of its members helped turn the ATMs into what they called “truth machines” using stickers that were “designed to look exactly like BoA’s ATM interface.” Writing on their blog, the group explained the false ATM menus : [T]hese new menus offered a list of everything BoA customers’ money is being used for, including investment in coal-fired power plants, foreclosure on Americans’ homes, bankrolling of climate change, and paying for fat executive bonuses. This isn’t the first time in recent months that activists have challenged the supremacy of massive U.S. banks. In November, Bank Transfer Day offered a chance for customers of too-big-to-fail financial institutions to close their accounts and transfer their funds to local banks or credit unions. Meanwhile, BofA has been creating enough bad press for itself, with a near-foreclosure caused by a typo , a bride who was unable to deposit wedding checks because she didn’t take her husband’s name and a man who was asked to pay interest on a $0 credit card balance all in the last three months. Via RAN.org h/t Maria Popova

Read the full article →

Brady Boyd: Which Master Are We Serving?

January 17, 2012

“The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” –Proverbs 22:7 (NIV) Debt is the new master of our culture. It rules over many of our homes, it certainly dominates our federal and state governments, but sadly it is now the master of many of our churches. Proverbs warned us about this and told us plainly that when debt is the master, the poor are enslaved and we become servants to a master that is not always kind. New Life Church has $23 million of debt after building our current meeting space and purchasing some other properties. When the decision was made to borrow the money eight years ago, the church was growing really fast and giving was on the increase. The leaders felt the debt was manageable and could be paid off easily in a few years. It was a solid decision at the time. Since then, our church has suffered through a scandal, a shooting and a shrinking local economy. Suddenly what was once manageable became the master, a master that has kept us from some vital ministry opportunities in our city and world. When we wanted to serve the poor, we instead had to send in mortgage payments to a credit union. This past Sunday, our church took a historic first step to move the mountain of debt, and we will, with God’s wisdom and help. It may take days, months or even years, but we are determined to be debt free, untangled from the world system of debt and interest payments and better yoked with real kingdom purposes. The Scripture above reflects what most families and churches have bought into: a world system that tells us immense debt has no consequences. But it does. Imagine what our churches could do if we focused as much on solving the housing shortage that keeps the working poor in the shadows, living in cars with their children, as we did dreaming up the next building project to expand our campuses? I am not against big buildings because large, growing families need space to meet and to do ministry. I just want balance. I want us to live simple lives, avoiding extravagance, especially when it keeps us from the real ministry of Jesus in our cities. If Jesus saw a working single mom living in a car with her children, he would buy apartment complexes and then maybe, a place for them to worship, later. What has the debt at our churches kept us from doing in our cities? That’s the big question we’re answering right now at New Life. It has been revelatory for me to talk with our people about this. The light has come on for all of us and we’re beginning to imagine and dream about ministry that can really change people’s lives. Let’s make sure we are serving the right master, not a world system that gives us easy money and then makes us servants who then have to ask permission to do the things we have already been told to do by our true Master.

Read the full article →

Robert F. Brands: 2012 Innovation Resolution: Turning Ideas Into Money

January 17, 2012

Innovation is an indispensable force that turns ideas into money. It is the lifeblood of any organization. In order to implement sustainable innovation in 2012, you need to define innovation in a manner that makes strategic sense for your organization, and have the know-how to properly construct and use a process, plus the will to keep the process on course. The task may seem daunting at first, but it’s possible to develop a disciplined strategy that delivers Innovation time and time again for sustained long-term profitability. Make developing that strategy your 2012 New Year’s resolution. ” Robert’s Rules of Innovation ” outlines specific steps to implement Innovation. Here are some tips: 1. Define your organization’s needs. What type of innovation are you trying to achieve? An incremental innovation that introduces a new process or feature? Or a transformative breakthrough that completely changes the marketplace? The latter is more difficult to achieve but holds the greatest potential. Choosing the path that makes the most sense for your organization will help in the Innovation process. 2. Formulate a new product development process. Each organization’s NPD process can have a different number of steps, so long as they form a structured plan. A three-stage plan may include: Stage 1 product definition, where a product is examined for its brand strategy, profit potential, and competitive analysis. If the product is a “go” then it moves to Stage 2: the qualification process where a first article product is made and tested for quality assurance. Finally, Stage 3 is Revenue where the product is launched. 3. Create a road map to success. The key elements are examining quality of projects, capability of managing them successfully, and capacity of the organization for maintaining a portfolio of well-managed projects. No matter what NPD process you decide to use, stick to the road map to ensure that each stage, and tasks within each stage, are clearly defined. 4. Some more guidelines for progress: remember to stick to your go/no-go criteria for moving forward with developments. All projects should undergo the same scrutiny, regardless of who suggested it! Also, many organizations are incorporating a “discovery phase” into the Innovation process to allow for more experimentation. This step is beneficial for making decisions based on long-term sustainable Innovation, and not on current budget restraints alone. In a world of increasing business competition, Innovation is key to a company’s survival. Creating an Innovation strategy that makes sense for your organization is entirely feasible, and an absolute must for creating profit for your company. Here’s to a New Year of innovation!

Read the full article →

Rabbi Steve Gutow: In Dr. King’s America the Unemployed Deserve Simple Human Dignity

January 17, 2012

As our Congress members return to Washington to resume the debate on helping the unemployed just weeks before that extension expires, I hope they find great inspiration from this week’s holiday honoring Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Reverend King’s legacy does not belong to just one epoch. Just as the lessons of Moses have taught the generations that followed, the teachings of Martin Luther King inspire us today as they did decades ago when he delivered his holy words. The striking monument only recently unveiled on the National Mall is lined with quotes that exhort us to be driven by justice, tireless and unwavering in pursuit of a better world. They remind us that King’s calls for justice were universal, including economic justice. “I have the audacity to believe,” reads one inscription, “that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.” For many today, as when he first spoke those words in 1964, that belief remains audacious. Despite another 200,000 new jobs created last month, unemployed applicants still outnumber job openings by about four to one. For those millions unable to find employment in jobs that do not exist, merely waiting it out is not an option. House payments are still due, food and medicine must still be purchased, and cars still need gas. For them, unemployment insurance is a lifeline. These payments help cover existing expenses while they continue to look for work. In 2010, federal and state unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people out of poverty. Keeping so many, including about one million children, out of dire straits is success not so much regarding statistics, but success in helping our neighbors stay well-fed, healthy, and sheltered. For those who like overarching answers and statistics, unemployment insurance is intrinsic to sustaining our economy’s fragile recovery. Spending on food or clothing helps local retailers. Unemployment insurance enables the continuation of exactly the kind of local spending that encourages small business to increase inventory and make new hires. Cutting these benefits or limiting who can get them, as some suggest we do, will not create jobs. Instead, it will hurt businesses, halt the economy, and hamstring would-be workers. It is hard to find employment when, unable to afford the payments or even just gas, one has to sell his or her car. Yet in spite of all this, Congress came close to letting this basic insurance expire for almost two million Americans at the end of last year. What a tense time that was for so many who were simply seeking three square meals a day while they searched for work. The economic recovery requires confidence. Businesses that are confident they will have customers tomorrow and consumers confident that they can spend on necessities without having to choose leaving their home or putting off doctors’ visits keeps money flowing in our communities. But what we are getting from Congress is anything but confidence. Instead, those who are out of work received a temporary patch that postponed the fight until Congress returns next week. Here again, our elected officials would do well to spend some time walking around Reverend King’s memorial feeling the power of his wisdom and his character, of our potential. The unemployed and their challenges are challenges for every one of us in America. As the great Reverend King said, “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.” In our generation, as in past and future generations, Congress must listen to Martin Luther King. Temporary extensions or stalled battles are not solutions. We have the opportunity to help, to prevent the completely avoidable slide into poverty and hunger for those looking each day to return to work. A full one year extension to weather the slow recovery is the right thing to do for our economy, it is the right thing to do for families and individuals who should not have to ask for help, and it is the right thing to do for the pursuit of justice. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world do one iota less?

Read the full article →

When Romney Ran Bain Capital, His Word Was Not His Bond

January 16, 2012

America has been learning a lot lately about “the Bain way.” The damning 28-minute video “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” put out by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC, and the new book “The Real Romney,” by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, have shed light on the strategies that Mitt Romney’s old private-equity firm, Bain Capital, used to generate outsize returns for its investors.

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: Wild Cards, Economic and Political

January 16, 2012

President Obama is exceptionally lucky when it comes to the weaknesses of the Republican field and its stunning penchant for mutually assured destruction. Who would have expected, for instance, that Newt Gingrich’s billionaire-backed super-PAC, aiming to destroy front-runner Mitt Romney, would produce a documentary advertisement on private equity slightly to the left of what we might have expected of Michael Moore? Or that Gingrich, reprimanded by leading free-market ideologues, would then request that the ad be pulled? In this hilariously bungled caper, Marx meets the Marx Brothers. But it remains to be seen whether Obama will be as lucky when it comes to the shape of the economy as the election year unfolds. Some of what will occur this year is partly within the president’s control; much is not. Consider the several vulnerabilities of the still fragile recovery: The Jobs Mirage. Democrats were cheered and Republicans caught off guard when the Labor Department’s December jobs numbers showed a net increase of 200,000 jobs — a nice improvement over previous months. However, a closer look showed that some 42,000 of these were seasonal courier jobs — all the people hired to deliver holiday gifts purchased via Amazon and other online vendors. Jared Bernstein, the former senior Administration economic advisor now at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, calculates that the 200,000 jobs number should be deflated by about 30,000. This brings it closer in line with other recent months, and suggests that the economy is still a ways from a strong recovery. The biggest problem retarding a strong recovery is that wages are lagging far behind the economy’s productivity growth. Recent Federal Reserve statistics show that consumers increased their borrowing to finance their holiday spending, but that can’t last unless wages begin following. Stronger economic stimulus is beyond the control of the administration, given the Republican strategy of wall-to-wall legislative roadblocks. The one thing that Obama could do that he isn’t doing is a more aggressive stance on relief for underwater homeowners. With housing prices still falling in nearly every metropolitan area, the housing sector is still depressing the overall economy. Euro-Drag. From the perspective of Obama’s re-election, probably the best case for the Euro this year is that the leaders of the EU keep kicking the can down the road and keep the currency from collapsing. But that may not be good enough. (As the Financial Times ‘ Martin Wolf puts it, the can is filled with gasoline.) Even if the Euro holds together, the price Europe’s financial elites have extracted for keeping weaker European economies afloat is prolonged austerity. That not only depresses Europe’s prosperity but weakens U.S. export markets. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s European diplomacy has been directed at one goal: The European Central Bank should behave more like the U.S. Federal Reserve and flood European credit markets with cheap money. But the ECB, responsible to austerity-minded political leaders, is only going part of the way. The S&P’s downgrading of the sovereign debt of nine nations that use the Euro only pours oil on the flames. For the most part, Europe’s self-inflicted financial folly is beyond the reach of the Obama Administration. But it could sink the U.S. recovery and Obama’s prospects. The Oil Slick. Iran’s continued nuclear program is among the most vexing of foreign policy challenges. The West has had some success in keeping Iranian oil off world markets. The Iranians, in turn, have threatened to block the shipping lanes of the crucial Straits of Hormuz, a 19-mile-wide shipping lane through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. Reportedly , the Obama administration has told the Iranians that this could be considered crossing a red line, close to an act of war, and that closure of the strait would be met by military force. But this game of geo-political chicken also has grave consequences for the price of oil. Even if shipping lanes stay open, oil supply could come under pressure. The price of oil has stayed well-behaved, ironically enough, because the weak recovery has depressed demand. But a spike in the price of oil could be a spike in the heart of economic growth. According to standard political-science analysis of presidential re-election chances, the most important single factor is the state of the economy in the presidential year. This means not just the absolute unemployment and economic growth numbers, but whether voters feel things are improving. Yale’s Ray Fair, whose economic model has been uncannily accurate in predicting presidential winners, surprised many observers last November, when he projected a narrow Obama win based largely on improved economic growth in 2012. But Fair’s economic projections now look quite optimistic. Bottom line: It is hard to recall a presidential year when there were so many economic wild cards, any one of which could tip the election’s outcome. On the other hand, it is hard to recall a weaker or more bizarre Republican presidential field. Which will prove decisive? Despite what is likely to be a mediocre economic picture at best, and the demonizing of Obama by his opponents, and the disappointment in this president on the part of many of his most fervent 2008 supporters, by next November Obama may yet strike a plurality of voters as the safer and saner of the candidates. But any number of imponderables could upset that calculus. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a Senior Fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril .

Read the full article →

Remote Alaska Town ‘On The 5-Yard Line’ Waiting To Reconnect With World

January 15, 2012

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The ice that has cut off a remote Alaska town for months will connect it to the world again when crews build a path over it to carry fuel from a Russian tanker that was moored a half-mile from the town’s harbor Sunday morning. Workers were waiting for disturbed ice to freeze again so they could create some sort of roadway across the 2,100 feet from tanker to the harbor in Nome, upon which they’ll rest a hose that will transfer 1.3 million gallons of fuel. A storm prevented Nome’s 3,500 residents from getting a fuel delivery by barge in November. Without the tanker delivery, supplies of diesel fuel, gasoline and home heating fuel Nome are expected to run out in March and April, well before a barge delivery again in late May or June. The tanker began its journey from Russia in mid-December and has slowly made its way toward Nome, stalled by thick ice, strong ocean currents and one Alaska’s snowiest winters in memory. It picked up diesel fuel in South Korea, then headed to Dutch Harbor, Alaska, where it took on unleaded gasoline. Late Thursday, the vessels stopped offshore and began planning the transfer to Nome, more than 500 miles from Anchorage on Alaska’s west coast. A Coast Guard cutter cleared a path through hundreds of miles of Bering Sea ice for the tanker. Now, residents await the journey’s final leg, which comes with its own hurdles: In addition to waiting for the ice to freeze, crews must begin the transfer in daylight, a state mandate. But Nome has just five hours of daylight this time of year. “It’s kind of like a football game. We’re on the 5- yard line and we just want to work into the goal line,” said Sitnasuak Native Corp. board chairman Jason Evans, whose hometown is Nome. Sitnasuak provides fuel and other services to the region. Despite the complicated logistics of delivering fuel by sea in winter, Sitnasuak opted for the extra delivery after determining that it would be much less costly and more practical than flying fuel to Nome. A Coast Guard spokesman didn’t know how long it will be before fuel flows as crews must wait 12 hours, or until about 5 a.m. local time Sunday (6 a.m. Pacific), to ensure that the disturbed ice has refrozen. “We were able to successfully navigate that last bit of ice,” Coast Guard spokesman Kip Wadlow said. “We were able to get it pretty much right on the money, in the position that the industry representatives wanted to start the fuel transfer process.” The crew of the 370-foot tanker Renda was working to ensure the safe transfer of the fuel through a segmented hose that will be laid on top of the ice to the harbor, located about 2,100 feet from the ship, Wadlow said in a telephone interview from Nome on Saturday night. Once crews create a suitable path for the hose to rest on, its segments will have to be bolted together and inspected before the fuel can begin to flow. Though the transfer must start during daylight, it can continue in darkness, Betty Schorr of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has said. It could be finished within 36 hours if everything goes smoothly, but it could take as long as five days, she said. Earlier Saturday, Evans gave details of the transfer process. Once the hose is laid down, he said personnel will walk its entire length every 30 minutes to check it for leaks. Each segment of hose will have its own spill containment area, and extra absorbent boom will be on hand in case of a spill. Evans said he hopes the crew will begin unloading Sunday. Evans, however, cautioned that delivering the fuel is only half the mission. “The ships need to transition back through 300 miles of ice,” he said. “I say we’re not done until the ships are safely back at their home ports” in Seattle and Russia. ___ Online:

Read the full article →

How To Compete With Amazon

January 14, 2012

By Janaka Stucky for Poetry Foundation If you’re reading this, you’re probably at least tangentially aware of what happens among readers, writers, publishers, and booksellers when someone says the word “Amazon.” People get emotional. Of course, Amazon’s Kindle has revolutionized the booming e-book market over the past few years, and you can obsessively check your sales against that crappy no-good Billy Collins any time you want, but now there’s also this new mobile app that allows would-be patrons to scan a book on the shelf of their local retailer to check its price against Amazon’s offering. Not only that, but Amazon initially gave customers who used this “service” a $5 discount off their next purchase for carrying out this free-market espionage in their competitors’ physical stores. Amazon’s announcement was followed almost immediately by anger, articulated most prominently in a strongly worded piece by Richard Russo in the New York Times . Over at Slate , Farhad Manjoo fired back the next day in an almost comically inflammatory article , positing that “buying books on Amazon is better for authors, better for the economy, and better for you.” Really? Both articles generated passionate debate about whether Amazon’s move amounted to corporate bullying that undermined local commerce, or whether it empowered readers in a struggling economy to support as many authors as possible through rock-bottom prices. Tangentially, the debate also revolved around whether readers should altruistically support independent bookstores by agreeing to pay higher prices, or act as any other savvy consumer would and hold out for the best bargains. As an author, a publisher, a consumer, and a former indie bookstore employee myself, I found both articles provocative, to say the least. However, my critique was directed not at Amazon, but rather at the independent bookstores that I treasure so fiercely. Why? Because in order to survive, bookstores must stop trying to compete with Amazon. I should pause here to clarify that when I use the word “bookstore,” I mean “independent bookstore.” Considering that barely any bookstore chains are left standing, this should be fairly apparent—but just in case any of you might think I’m talking about the few remaining Barnes & Noble or Borders megastores that still rise like brick-and-mortar colossi over the exurbs, I’m not. It’s perhaps telling about the divide over this issue that Slate ’s pro-Amazon article appeared in its Technology section and was penned by a technology columnist (and nonfiction author), while the New York Times ’s anti-Amazon piece was an op-ed written by a Pulitzer Prize–winning novelist (who consulted with several other novelist friends before writing it). The simple fact is that even if all the bookstores in the country formed some sort of improbable coalition designed to undermine Amazon’s hold on the market, an IndieBound on steroids, they would fail. Amazon has a dynamic infrastructure with relatively low overhead that not only capitalizes on the latest technological developments but has begun driving them as well. Some market analysts speculate that Amazon sales will account for 50 percent of all book sales in the US by the end of 2012, which is stunning since book-selling has actually become the minority revenue stream for Amazon now that the company has branched out into a market for everything from video games to sex toys. Amazon has become a primary competitor not just to Barnes & Noble but also to Walmart, eBay, Apple’s iTunes, and even Netflix. Amazon’s influence has allowed it to position itself not only as the largest bookseller in the country but also as a distributor. This means that it has effectively cut the middleman out of publishing, allowing it to offer books to the reader at the lowest price while paying the publisher a larger percentage of the sales. For me as a publisher, this means that not only can you get the latest title from my press, Black Ocean, for less from Amazon, but my little indie press will also probably make more off that purchase than if you had bought it at your local bookseller. (QUICK PRIMER: Amazon pays 45 percent of cover price to publishers through its Advantage program. Bookstores typically pay 60 percent of cover price, but then many distributors (who broker the sales between publishers and bookstores) take anywhere from 20 to 50 percent off what’s left from that. Consequently, our profit on a book sold to Amazon will be roughly $2 per book, while it’s closer to $1 when sold through the older publisher-distributor-bookstore model. Meanwhile, our profit is closer to $7 if you buy books directly from our website—so if your primary concern is supporting the people who produce the books you love, you should consider buying directly from the publisher as an alternative.) So if Amazon offers books for less to the consumer, and the publisher turns a higher profit for each book sold, why even have bookstores at all? Because in the 21st century, the service a bookstore provides isn’t just book-selling; it’s being the cultural center that book lovers need in their communities. Unless bookstores can not only acknowledge their role as beacons of culture, but really embrace that role and market themselves as such—as long as they try in vain to compete with one of the world’s largest retailers at its own game—they will slowly lose ground as they steadily morph into increasingly bizarre hybrids of book-music stores, bookstore-cafes, and bookstore–tapas restaurants, until they simply become businesses that sell the latest quirky breakout novel on the side to customers who’d rather pay $15 for a sandwich and a cup of coffee than for a book. Every publisher and editor I know bitterly jokes about how she “didn’t get into this business for the money.” I know most booksellers feel the same way, though when what little money you were making starts to disappear it’s hard to remember that. But it’s the very act of remembering that will help guide bookstores toward staying relevant and successful in the age of Amazon and e-books. If all you want to do is sell something for a profit, then the book business is one of the last places you should be working. But if what you want to do is promote a love for reading and the books you love to read, then you can begin transforming your store into a valuable resource for other people who share your passion. Here in the Boston area, two bookstores have managed to not only survive but thrive: the Harvard Bookstore (not affiliated with Harvard University) in Cambridge and Brookline Booksmith in Brookline. These two stores have a few elements in common that have undoubtedly contributed to their lasting success: In addition to new books, they also sell a great selection of used titles at lower prices. They have robust websites that offer options to buy online with quick local delivery (the Harvard Bookstore even offers next-day delivery by bicycle to select areas) as well as blog posts and features. They have interesting and revelatory staff selections. They each host over 100 readings a year (Brookline Booksmith hosts around 150, and Harvard Bookstore is closer to 300). Both stores have been enthusiastic with their response when approached by Black Ocean to sell our titles. It’s the last three points that I’d like to elaborate on. In his Slate article, Manjoo states somewhat obtusely, “Amazon suggests books based on others you’ve read; your local store recommends what the employees like. If you don’t choose your movies based on what the guy at the box office recommends, why would you choose your books that way?” Of course, anyone who actually shops at bookstores knows this argument holds no water. When I enter a bookstore, the staff selections are usually the first or second section I go to (after I browse the sale items, of course…). A well-read staff that can anticipate their customers’ interests are one of the greatest assets any bookstore can have. To illustrate this point, I’ll use an example from my own life. I was reading online the other week when I came across a new book out from a new indie press called Siglio in Los Angeles: an art book of religious paintings from Rajasthan, selected and compiled by the French poet Franck André Jamme, called “Tantra Song.” It was late at night and I knew I had to have it right away, so of course I immediately navigated to Amazon to check out the book’s price and availability. Much to my chagrin, it was out of stock and available only from a third-party seller for the astronomical price of $300. I promptly navigated to the website of the publisher, which also admitted that the book was out of stock, but generously provided a list of bookstores that might still carry it. Scanning the list for stores in Massachusetts, I saw that one of my favorite new resources for wonderful art books, Guy Pettit’s Flying Object out near UMass Amherst, was on the list. I went directly to Flying Objects’ website, saw that it had one copy left, and picked it up for $40 plus $2 shipping and handling. Since then Amazon has promised to have it in stock by mid-January, and is of course selling it for $14 less than what I paid for it—but in my hour of need, it was Guy Pettit’s visionary selection that came through and earned my business. I have no regrets about paying the full cover price and, to debunk another of Manjoo’s specious arguments, spending those 14 “extra” dollars isn’t going to prohibit me from buying more books I want in the future. An expertly managed selection of books may be great, but it’s still useless unless you can actually get customers to look at what you’ve got in the first place. This is where the almighty in-store event comes into play, and it’s really at the heart of what distinguishes a bookstore from an online retailer, what makes a bookstore a center for culture in its community, unlike a Walgreens. Lorem Ipsum Books in Cambridge provides an interesting case study. It was started by book lover and tech prodigy Matt Mankins. As Mankins tells it, he basically started the bookstore as a sandbox for software programs he was building to make his small store competitive in a global arena online while still selling through a brick-and-mortar store locally. He designed a program that, with a few clicks, scans in a title and automatically sets a competitive price based on what other used-book retailers are selling it for online. Another click, and the store’s copy goes up for sale alongside the competitor’s copies on numerous sites (such as Alibris, AbeBooks, and, yes, Amazon) at the programmed price. This system carried Lorem Ipsum along for seven years, while Mankins’s eclectic collection earned the store adoration from its local clientele. But the store isn’t located along one of Boston’s subway lines, so it doesn’t enjoy the same citywide patronage that other more prominently located bookstores do. At the same time, Lorem Ipsum has close to 3,000 square feet of floor space, with handmade bookshelves and a jaw-droppingly high antique tin ceiling—in other words, it’s a very cool place to have a reading. So when an art gallery in Harvard Square that had become the go-to event space for Black Ocean closed its doors for good a little over a year ago, I approached Lorem Ipsum about doing an event there. Mankins had moved to New York at this point, but left a young and energetic staff in place that was eager to get a series going in the store. We booked our best-selling author, Zachary Schomburg, for his Boston appearance there, and close to 40 people showed up. Perhaps only 10 or 15 of those 40 people actually bought books that night, but since then more and more poetry readings have been booked there, along with album release parties for local indie bands and art openings for local visual artists. Over the past year, through some dynamic programming, Lorem Ipsum has started to become a real presence in the larger community, and Mankins says that since the push to have more events, their overall sales have improved too. Is a store like this going to be run out of business by Amazon’s new app? Not likely. A number of stores across the country fit similar profiles: RiverRun Bookstore in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, hosts around 150 readings annually, and their staff selections are celebrated by readers all the way down in Boston; Prairie Lights in Iowa City is also known for its readings, which it even streams online; Magers & Quinn in Minneapolis has close to 150 readings a year and boasts a small but exciting rare and antiquarian collection alongside its new and used titles. All these bookstores have one more thing in common: they have sold (and currently stock) one or more of Black Ocean’s titles. Now, clearly the handful of Black Ocean books these stores sell each year doesn’t make a hair’s difference for their bottom line, but their presence on the shelves speaks to the store’s interest in, and support of, independent publishers—more specifically, poetry—and the customers who read those books. People who read poetry are the unsung customer base for independent bookstores: they are avid readers, they love books as physical objects, they will religiously attend author readings, they read books on a variety of subjects, and they buy more books annually than anyone else I know. By catering to the type of person who reads poetry, these successful bookstores have perhaps unwittingly remained focused on what devoted patrons of bookstores really value: variety over homogeneity, literature over media, humanity over technology, and community over price. By being the type of bookstore that poetry readers will go out of their way to visit, and by being a third place in our social lives that fosters community and human interaction, these stores have become—through the nuanced fact of their physical being—something that Amazon, by its very business model, is the antithesis of: a space where we experience history, and thus also time. At first glance, the idea of “catering to poetry” may seem like a hard sell. After all, “no one reads poetry anymore,” and the truth is no one ever really did. Poetry books will remain a paltry portion of the market for a long time, but the people who read poetry will continue to spend hours browsing the aisles of their local bookstore—smartphones tucked quietly away in their coat pockets. If bookstores can learn to embrace these odd readers as secret representatives of the type of person who’s at the core of their customer base, rather than get sucked into a doomed downward spiral of price slashing on the latest best-selling hardcover, they will remain relevant and attractive to the customers they need in order to survive. Poetry, the least profitable and most esoteric of all the genres, can save the bookstore. Read more at PoetryFoundation.com

Read the full article →

The American Social Welfare State Means Relief For (Almost) Everybody

January 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has taken to accusing President Barack Obama of trying to turn the United States into a European-style social welfare state . The hyperbole about Obama’s actions aside, the United States already is a social welfare state — almost right up there with the Europeans — if you measure the total amount of drain on the Treasury caused by spending and subsides on such things as health care and retirement. The one big difference is that in the American social welfare state, a lot of the benefits go to the rich. “We spend a tremendous amount on private social welfare through tax subsidies,” said Christopher Faricy, a political science professor at Washington State University whose forthcoming book is about our divided welfare state. “It just goes to a drastically different population than what we usually associate with welfare programs,” Faricy said. Direct government social welfare spending pays for such signature programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment. But there’s also a whole other world of social-welfare measures in the tax code — called tax expenditures — that benefit individuals and companies. The two biggest tax breaks with a social welfare purpose are the exemptions for employer-sponsored health benefits (which cost the U.S. Treasury about $184 million a year in foregone revenue) and for contributions to 401(k) and other retirement plans and pensions ($113 billion). In stark contrast to social programs that involve the actual outlay of tax dollars, the tax breaks vastly favor the rich over the middle class and the poor. The biggest benefits accrue to people who can afford to put a lot away for their retirements and have generous health insurance plans. Even the charitable-donation exemption (which costs the Treasury about $43 billion a year) favors those in the higher tax brackets, because they get a bigger federal subsidy for each dollar they give. Based on direct spending on social welfare programs as a proportion of the total economy, the U.S. (at 16.2 percent) lags behind every country in Europe except Slovakia, according to data analyzed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . By contrast, when it comes to tax breaks with a social purpose, the U.S. — at 2 percent of gross domestic product — leads the pack. “Once tax expenditures for social welfare programs are included in social spending figures, the U.S. welfare state is a similar size to those in Europe,” Faricy said. Faricy’s research focuses on how there are essentially two American social welfare states — one for each political party — and they ebb and flow depending on which is in power. But the point is: “They both believe in massive government subsidies.” While the Democratic welfare state — based on direct spending — redistributes wealth from the middle class and the wealthy to the poor, the Republican welfare state — based on tax breaks — redistributes wealth upwards. “The top 20 percent receive 80 percent of those benefits,” Faircy said of social welfare tax breaks. “The middle class gets some from the Republican welfare state, but not as much as the rich,” Faricy said. And since the Democratic welfare state primarily serves the needy, “the middle class is getting squeezed at both ends,” he said. Faricy said there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the politics surrounding the Republican welfare state. While opponents of social programs often complain that what they call entitlement spending is allowed to grow unrestrained, Faricy argues that the tax expenditures are even more protected from the budget process, as there’s no actual line item for the revenue that each of them costs the Treasury. “The only way to get rid of these tax expenditures is to pass a tax bill,” Faricy said — and that’s no simple task. “If you considered it spending, then we’d revisit it annually,” he said. Faricy also argues that tax expenditures distort the economy. “Look at areas where we’ve had bubbles: housing; health care, the financial industry,” he said. Subsidized health insurance has resulted in people overbuying health care, subsidized mortgages have encouraged people to buy oversized homes, and subsidized 401(k)s have generated huge proceeds for Wall Street, he said. “There’s a correlation between the areas that we spend the most on through the tax code and industries that have cost problems,” he said. ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter or on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

‘The Real Romney’: 2008 Campaign Aides Say ‘The Bain Way’ Didn’t Work

January 13, 2012

The failure of Mitt Romney’s first run for the White House was, in many regards, an illustration of how inapplicable a background in private equity is to presidential politics, conclude the authors of a sharply reported new book on the former Massachusetts governor. Obtained in advance by The Huffington Post, the book “The Real Romney” is an exploration of Romney’s business and political careers by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, who have followed him from their perch at the “Boston Globe.” Set to be released on Tuesday, the book includes numerous nuggets from Romney’s failed effort to win the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2008. For example, his campaign’s first top strategist, Alex Castellanos, had suggested adopting the phrase “Yes, we can,” only to watch as Barack Obama snatched it first, the book reveals. Also, former Sen. Judd Gregg, who served as Romney’s national co-chairman, felt uninvolved with strategy decisions, blaming his freeze-out on the “egos” of campaign staffers, the authors report. Plus, Romney’s South Carolina team pleaded with the campaign’s national headquarters to drop its focus on social issues in favor of an economic message to steer clear of flip-flopper accusations. The underlying thesis of “The Real Romney” is the most important part of the book: Despite pitching himself as someone who could bring CEO-like leadership and free-market-like efficiencies to politics, Romney exhibited a style ill-suited for the campaign trail, the authors report. The result was a decision-making process that was too slow and plodding for the fast-paced world of politics. Mandy Fletcher, the director of Romney’s Florida campaign, said she had originally been attracted to Romney because “he was the turnaround guy and the business guy.” But she also said that the delays and conflicts in the national campaign’s decision making demonstrated that “running the campaign is a very different kind of business. In the business world you have a lot of time, weeks if not months and, on some projects, years” to make and implement critical decisions. “In the campaign it may be an hour or minutes.” Warren Tompkins, Romney’s senior adviser in South Carolina, came to the same conclusion: “The glaring deficiency in the whole operation was the lack of an overall strategy, no single person that at the end of the day raised his hand and said, ‘This is what we are going to do.’ Somebody has to run the railroad. The irony of it is all is here’s a man who sets up apparatus to make decisions, look at the bottom line, cut to the chase, and the campaign was everything but that.” There are numerous examples of internal staff frictions caused by the management style that Kranish and Helman turn up. They quote Doug Gross, Romney’s 2008 campaign chairman, lamenting, “We had a lot of data but no information” and certainly not the strategy needed to build the coalitions necessary to win the caucuses. They quote Bruce Keough, Romney’s former New Hampshire campaign chairman, as being struck by how duplicative many staff positions were. As he looked around, the problem seemed obvious. It was, as one aide put it, the “Noah’s Ark campaign.” There were two of everything, it seemed, including the competing media teams. The Romney campaign spin had been that the candidate loved the creative tension, but Keough had noticed a change in the candidate’s attitude since the Iowa loss. “Mitt was a little less certain that he had the best campaign that money could buy,” he said. The authors report that Castellanos (perhaps a source for much of the book’s material) contemplated resigning over that Noah’s Ark approach, which was alternatively described as “the Bain way” in reference to the private equity company that Romney had led. The campaign was splitting dangerously into factions, further heightening the state-versus-Boston tension that had been boiling for months. The new media team was on board — [Stuart] Stevens and [Russ] Schriefer — and Castellanos suddenly felt his authority in question. He protested to Romney and members of the inner circle, according to several people with knowledge of the conversations, and was told that this was not a demotion but rather an implementation of “the Bain way,” a reference to Romney’s management style at Bain Capital. Romney said he wanted as many smart minds as possible in the room, with ideas fought over and the best rising to the top. Castellanos considered resigning but, out of loyalty to Romney, agreed to stay.” It’s hardly rare for internal disagreements to plague a candidate’s staff, and certainly not for one filled with high-profile consultants. But Romney and his Bain-way ethos was supposed to bring businesslike order to the process. In “The Real Romney,” his aides declare that perception always outpaced reality and that a business mind-set didn’t lend itself to a campaign setting. Even Romney seemed to acknowledge as much when, as the New Hampshire primary results trickled in, he sent Castellanos an email admitting that he had been wrong to wrangle over the campaign’s theme. “Alex. Well, change was it — just like you said from the beginning,” Romney wrote. “Never found a better word for it. Change it is. And change we will have — soon. Hope for the better … Mitt.” “I never had a strategist,” Romney is quoted as saying at another point in the book. “I had all the pieces of the puzzle but didn’t fit them together.” All of which may explain why Romney is performing much better as a candidate four years later. This time around there was neither a debate over the message — it was Mr. Fix It from the start — nor internal staff competition. He became, in short, a more adept politician. Looking ahead to 2012, Romney concluded that he needed a different kind of campaign. He looked again to his close circle of advisers in Boston, who had learned from their mistakes and grown and changed in the intervening years … In preparation for the second try, Stuart Stevens, who came with years of experience in presidential campaigns, moved to Boston and was empowered as chief strategist. The two bickering media teams of 2008 were reduced to one. After spending $2 million to win Iowa’s straw poll in 2007, Romney would refuse to participate four years later. Instead of spending millions of dollars on early campaign ads, he would hoard his campaign cash. And rather than devoting countless hours to wooing evangelical leaders, he would say that the time for discussing his religion had come and gone. Read Article VI of the Constitution, he would say, quoting it: “No religious test.”

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Texting Is Killing Real Business Communication

January 13, 2012

Whether it’s a business or personal interaction, multiple studies show that as much as 50-65 percent of the communication is nonverbal. That means that people who are addicted to text messaging and email may be sending only half the message, and receivers often misinterpret even that half. Yet the use of text messaging for business purposes continues to grow, in concert with more of Gen-Y entering the workplace, and a continuing increase in the global rate of texting by everyone. This total rate for 2011 has been estimated at 7 trillion, or nearly 225,000 text messages sent every second, according to the Quora statistics website. But are these text messages an efficient and appropriate business tool? Where body language is part of the message, it definitely is not. Let’s look at the most commonly recognized forms of body language, and see how they apply to business: Eye contact. The eyes are the most powerful part of our body language, and can express everything from happiness, annoyance, interest, to pain. Frequent eye contact is interpreted as honesty and forthrightness. Staring is interpreted as too aggressive. These are obvious in person, but lost in a text message. Posture. If you are trying to appear dominant or authoritative, stand erect with shoulders back. A slumped position usually indicates insecurity, guilt, or weakness. A dominant sounding text message, on the other hand, generates anger rather than acceptance. Mirroring. Most people feel more comfortable and open with people in a similar position to themselves. An example would be sitting down to meet with a key vendor, rather than standing to deliver demands. Good managers practice this one for personnel issues. Handshake. This, of course, comes into play to signal openness or goodwill at the beginning of an interaction, and agreement at the end. Palm-to-palm contact is important for sincerity. This cultural icon is totally missing from text messages and emails. Hand-to-face. Even when the words sound good, hand-to-face movements such as holding the chin or scratching the face shows concern or lack of conviction. If a person is covering his mouth while telling you something, he may be lying. Facial expression. A critical message delivered with a smiling face will have a totally different impact than one delivered with an angry face. ‘Smiley face emoticons’ were invented to simulate this in text messages, but they don’t always work, because the sincerity is lost. Arms and legs position. Folded arms or crossed legs, perhaps turning away slightly, indicates a lack of interest and detachment. Later uncrossed arms and legs may be a sign of acceptance of your position or terms. An extrovert will have toes pointed out, introvert will keep them pointed in. None of these come through in texting. Space occupied. Some people stand up and move around to be more dominant, maybe even threatening. Even sitting, you can stretch your legs to occupy more space. Standing while talking on the phone will make your voice sound more urgent. Maybe all CAPS will satisfy this one. Sure, there are many cases where a 10-word text message, or 140 character tweet will communicate a simple message more efficiently than a face-to-face discussion. But most business processes, like negotiating a contract, closing a sale, customer support, or managing employees, are much more complicated than just words. Overall, the most successful people in business learn to use the right tool for the right job. I’m supportive of using text messaging for agreeing on a time and place for a customer visit, but when I read that text messages are the new pink slips for layoffs, that’s just wrong!

Read the full article →

EPA Board Rejects Appeal Of Shell Arctic permit

January 13, 2012

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell’s quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters has received a boost with the affirmation that its federal air permits for the Chukchi Sea were properly granted. The EPA Appeals Board on Thursday rejected challenges to the air permits brought by Alaska Native and conservation groups. Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith said in a formal announcement that the decision means Shell, for the first time, has usable air permits that will allow its drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, to work in the outer continental shelf off Alaska’s northwest coast in 2012. “Achieving usable permits from the EPA is a very important step for Shell and one of the strongest indicators to date that we will be exploring our Beaufort and Chukchi leases in July,” Smith said. Drilling is strongly opposed by conservation groups that contend oil companies cannot clean up a spill in ice-choked waters, and that the remote Chukchi and Beaufort seas are too far from ports, major airports and other infrastructure for an effective cleanup if there’s a blowout. Earthjustice attorney Colin O’Brien, who represented groups that filed one of four air permit appeals, said it an email response to questions that the decision could be appealed in federal court, but that it was too early to speculate about potential next steps. He said EPA took shortcuts when it issued the permits and failed to fully protect Arctic air quality as required by the Clean Air Act. “These permits pave the way for Shell to emit thousands of tons of harmful air pollution into the pristine Arctic environment, at levels that may be harmful to nearby communities and the environment for years to come,” he said. “We are disappointed that the Environmental Appeals Board decided against us and allowed EPA’s permit decisions to stand. A Shell subsidiary has applied to drill up to three exploratory wells in the Chukchi during the open water season this year and additional exploratory wells in 2013. The company hopes to use a second drill for exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast, and awaits a decision on the appeal of its air permit. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in December approved Shell’s Chukchi drilling plan with one important stipulation. The agency said Shell must still drilling into hydrocarbon zones 38 days before sea ice is projected to engulf the drill site to make sure it has time cope with a spill or a wellhead blowout. That would cut the drilling window by about one-third. A successful appeal of previous air permits played a part of Shell’s decision to cancel drilling for 2011. In that case, the appeals board concluded that analysis of the impact of nitrogen dioxide emissions on Alaska Native communities was too limited. The board remanded the permits to allow the agency to fix permit problems. The appeal filed by Earthjustice contended that Shell’s new permit was based on pollution estimates that were inherently unreliable because they are based on equipment that Shell did not identify and that the EPA never intends to test. Shell faces other hurdles before it can send its drill ships and support vessels north. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement must approve Shell’s oil spill response plan for the Chukchi.

Read the full article →

The Possible Winners Of A Plan To Slash Greece’s Debt

January 13, 2012

* Funds positioned for talks to succeed or fail * Part bank-owned funds among the players * Size of fund holdings may derail deal By Tommy Wilkes and Sophie Sassard LONDON, Jan 12 (Reuters) – Hedge funds are positioning to profit from a plan to slash Greece’s towering debt pile as Athens enters final talks that could sway the country’s membership of the euro. York Capital, the $14 billion fund part-owned by Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse, New York-listed Och Ziff , and $10 billion-strong Marathon Asset Management are among those who collectively may have built up sufficiently large positions to scupper the bailout deal, several sources close to the debt restructuring told Reuters. The deal asks creditors to voluntarily write down 50 percent of the notional value of their bond holdings. But hedge funds may opt out, hoping that Athens will let them get away with it to save itself political embarassment. “I think we’ll hold out. People are so slow in Europe and by the time they’ve got everything in place logistically this might be the one window where investors might be paid back in full,” said one hedge fund manager who owns Greek bonds. The stakes for Greece are high. Without the deal, the international lenders will not bail Athens out a second time, which means it will likely default around March 20, when a 14.5 billion euro bond falls due. But hoping that Greece will pay out after all looks increasingly like a dangerous strategy. According to three senior euro zone sources on Thursday, the country is likely to force all creditors into the deal. “Unless these guys are all teaming up and getting a really good law firm, I still think it’s going to be touch and go,” said one of the sources close to the talks. “I think politically it would look bad for the Greeks and the Europeans to let (a payout to hedge funds) happen… This is the exact thing the official sector hates.” Funds that have bought credit insurance on the bonds they own could gain by staying away however, if the changing of Greek bond contracts would be seen to amount to a default and trigger Credit Default Swaps (CDS). BETS ON BAILOUT? Reuters spoke to thirteen sources including hedge funds, advisors and sources familiar with current Greek debt trading, but they declined to reveal details of their strategy in the Greek debt restructuring. New York-based York Capital Management, part-owned by Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse, is among the funds to have bought Greek debt, two of the sources said. One source familiar with the firm said it owned a chunk of a Greek bond maturing in March, and was betting there would be a last minute bailout for the country. Och-Ziff Capital Management, the $28 billion fund founded in 1994 by Daniel S. Och, also has a position in Greek bonds, three sources said. Och Ziff and York declined to comment. Many funds have followed a more traditional strategy of buying the Greek bonds at distressed prices from banks keen to get the toxic paper off their books. This means that these funds might sign up to the deal, if the terms on offer are better than the price they paid for their bonds. Others might hold out, hoping enough creditors will do the same and enabling them to exact a better payout from Greece. Some 206 billion euros of Greek debt is in private hands, but it is unclear how much of that is owned by hedge funds. Up to 25 percent of private creditors have not been identified, according to one source close to the talks. DECADES OF EXPERIENCE Other firms with an interest include Madrid-based Vega Asset Management, which resigned from the committee representing private creditors in talks over the bailout last year. Founded in 1996 by former Banco Santander star trader Ravinder Mehra, Vega was once among Europe’s largest hedge funds, managing close to $12 billion before suffering outflows. Vega declined to comment. Two New York-based funds with decades of experience profiting from buying distressed debt are also involved. One is Marathon Asset Management, a member of a private sector creditor-investor committee negotiating with Greece. A $10 billion credit focused fund run by Bruce Richards, it has an emerging markets credit team which specialises in distressed corporate and sovereign debt. The other is Greylock Asset Management. It is headed by Hans Humes, who represented some $40 billion of creditor holdings during Argentina’s record-breaking restructuring, and now sits on the steering committee. Funds who have bought Greek debt in the last few months are likely to have paid anywhere between 20 and 45 cents on the euro, depending on the maturity. By signing up to the deal, which is for a 50 percent haircut, they would still make a profit.

Read the full article →

Big Bank’s Profit Plunged Last Quarter

January 13, 2012

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase’s income fell 23 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 after the bank set aside a large sum for litigation reserves and its investment banking income declined. The largest bank in the nation said Friday it earned $3.7 billion, or 90 cents per share. The results fell short of the 93 cents per share estimated by analysts surveyed by FactSet. Revenue fell 17 percent to $22.2 billion. For the full year, JPMorgan Chase & Co. posted record net income of $19 billion, compared with $17.4 billion in the prior year. The New York bank set aside $528 million for additional litigation charges in the quarter, the latest sign that the banking industry is still dealing with the fallout from poorly-written mortgages from years past. Volatility in stock and bond markets caused by Europe’s debt crisis also hurt JPMorgan’s investment banking business. Fees declined 39 percent to $1.1 billion. Debt underwriting fell 40 percent, and stock underwriting fell 65 percent. JPMorgan also had to book a loss of $567 million loss from an accounting rule that applies to the value of its own corporate debt. Because the value of its debt rose in the fourth quarter, the bank would theoretically have to pay more to buy it back in the open market. When that happens, accounting rules require that the bank record a charge against earnings. Corporate bond prices recovered in the fourth quarter after declining sharply in the third quarter. In another sign that American households are becoming more stable financially, JPMorgan said more credit card customers have been paying their bills on time, leading to lower losses for the bank. JPMorgan was able to take a profit of $730 million by reducing its loan reserves set aside for credit card defaults. That was good news. As the largest bank in the country serving 50 million customers, JPMorgan’s results provide a pulse for how well the U.S. economy is performing. JPMorgan’s stock fell 2.3 percent to $36.01 in pre-market trading.

Read the full article →