secretary

National Bankshares, Inc.’s Secretary and Counsel to Retire

October 18, 2010

BLACKSBURG, VA–(Marketwire – October 18, 2010) –  James G. Rakes, Chairman, President and CEO of National Bankshares, Inc. ( NASDAQ : NKSH ) today announced that Marilyn B. Buhyoff, the Company’s Secretary and Counsel, will retire effective July 1, 2011. Mrs. Buhyoff, who will soon turn 62 years old, joined the National Bank of Blacksburg in 1987 and was named Secretary and Counsel of National Bankshares, Inc. in 1988. Mr. Rakes said, “We have been fortunate to have counted Marilyn as a part of our senior management team for over 23 years. We appreciate that she has given us sufficient time to plan for her departure by reassigning certain oversight responsibilities and to conduct a deliberate search for her replacement.” Mrs. Buhyoff commented, “It has been an honor to have spent a significant part of my career at National Bankshares under Jim Rakes’ leadership. Not only have

Read the full article →

Would A Foreclosure Moratorium Be ‘Very Damaging’ To Homeowners?

October 14, 2010

The Obama administration is resisting calls for a national foreclosure moratorium amid a foreclosure fraud scandal that has already forced some of the nation’s biggest banks to halt foreclosures in every state. Stopping foreclosures, the administration argues, would be bad for homeowners. “A national moratorium would be very damaging to exactly the kind of people we’re trying to protect,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on Wednesday, “because the consequence of that would be in neighborhoods that have been most affected by the foreclosure crisis, where you see lots of houses on the block empty, unoccupied, what it means is those communities will be living longer with houses unoccupied, with more pressure on their house price with the people still in their houses.” Wall Street agrees: “It would be catastrophic to impose a system wide moratorium on all foreclosures and such actions could do damage to the housing market and the economy,” the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a Wall Street lobbyshop, said in a statement. “It must be recognized that the mortgage market, investors and the health of the economy are all inter-related. Investors in the housing market–including American workers with pension funds, 401k plans, and mutual funds–would unjustly suffer losses in their savings from these actions.” Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Ally Financial have temporarily halted foreclosures after so-called “robo-signers” admitted they did not verify information in thousands of foreclosure documents they signed. Congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have asked for moratoriums and investigations. Regardless of the overall trajectory of home prices, consumer advocates said the most damaging thing for homeowners is the current situation. Dean Baker, co-director of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in an email to HuffPost that the threat of a foreclosure moratorium would give homeowners leverage to win mortgage modifications while doing nothing to hurt banks. “If a bank realizes that it will have to spend a lot of time and money cleaning up its paperwork to go through a foreclosure it may suddenly get more serious about offering a modification that will people to stay in their home,” wrote Baker in an email to HuffPost. “Also, even if that doesn’t happen, homeowners may be able to stay in their homes (rent and/or mortgagefree) for another 2-3 months while the banks get the paperwork in order. What’s the down side for the homeowner?” As for banks, Baker calls bull on fears that a moratorium could have catastrophic consequences. “The fact that the banks say a moratorium would be catastrophic should be taken as having absolutely zero value. There are few people on the planet with less credibility,” Baker wrote. “For the last two years everyone familiar with the housing market has been talking about the ‘shadow inventory.’ These are the hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes that banks have deliberately kept off the market. The reason is presumably that they were worried about glutting the market with foreclosed properties, depressing prices even more.” Ira Rheingold, director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, told HuffPost that a moratorium “is neither damaging or particularly helpful to homeowners.” “What’s damaging homeowners is the failure of Secretary Geithner and others in the administration to hold the servicers accountable for breaking the mortgage system and for violating the law. What’s damaging is Treasury’s failure to create and mandate a loan modification program that would actually help homeowners stay in their homes and stabilize their communities,” wrote Rheingold. “What would be helpful would be the imposition of this necessary timeout so that servicers can use this time to learn how to comply with the law and Treasury can finally figure out a solution to the problem of hundreds of thousands or millions of unnecessary foreclosures.” (Despite the self-imposed moratoriums by Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, foreclosures have continued in Florida, according to news-press.com in Fort Myers.) Alan White, a professor at Valparaiso University Law School, wrote in a blog post that the Obama administration is using the robo-signer scandal as a “scapegoat” when the real crisis facing the housing market is the the more than five million mortgages in default or foreclosure. “If every bank and servicer called off its moratorium today, and if all the state Attorneys General went away, we would simply go back to the agonizing process of dumping another 100,000 or so foreclosed properties on the market every month, while homeowners who want to make payments wait for months to get their workouts processed. Before the foreclosure fraud scandal hit we were already facing another five years of depressed and uncertain home prices, even assuming more homeowners now making payments don’t start falling behind.” Industry analyst Sean O’Toole, founder of ForeclosureRadar.com and a critic of the Obama administration’s approach to the housing crisis, said he agreed with Geithner that a moratorium would be damaging — but he said a moratorium would exacerbate problems created by recent accounting-rule changes and programs like HAMP . “The reality is that foreclosures are at an all time low as a percentage of delinquencies thanks to these policies which together allow banks to delay foreclosure and inflate assets,” wrote O’Toole in an email. “Clearly servicers should be required to follow foreclosure laws, but we need to keep in mind that one of the primary things plaguing the housing market at this point is uncertainty. Buyers are worried about shadow inventory, foreclosure waves, and when the bottom will be reached. These delays increase that uncertainty and hurt the housing market far more than they help.”

Read the full article →

Little-Noticed Bill Could Make It Harder To Challenge Foreclosures

October 7, 2010

UPDATE: An Obama administration official tells HuffPost that the White House has ‘concerns’ about the bill . Challenging foreclosures could become more difficult for homeowners if the president signs a bill that passed through the Senate last week. The little-noticed bill comes at a time when the validity of foreclosure proceedings across the nation have been called into question. The House passed the bill in April, and its brisk journey through the Senate has drawn scant attention, Reuters reports. If signed into law, it would require courts to accept certain documents that have been notarized out of state, streamlining foreclosure proceedings and stripping homeowners of one legal method of challenging a foreclosure. The legislation would come just as a foreclosure validity crisis is mounting: GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have admitted to not properly reviewing some of their foreclosure documents. The foreclosure controversies that have emerged in recent weeks throw doubts on the larger foreclosure system. A non-bank entity, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, has been initiating foreclosures, the Washington Post reports, exercising an authority that judges have ruled it does not have. In response to the mounting scandal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called on Tuesday for an investigation into foreclosure fraud . “This is a very big deal,” she told HuffPost. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters the timing of the bill’s passage was “suspicious,” implying that mortgage companies might have engaged in behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Read the full article →

The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine Elects Gil Van Bokkelen as Next Chair, Welcomes New Officers and Executive Committee

October 7, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC–(Marketwire – October 7, 2010) – The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), the national organization representing the regenerative medicine community, today elected Gil Van Bokkelen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Athersys, as its next chair and Ed Field, President and Chief Operating Officer of Aldagen, as Vice-Chair. A new Executive Committee, Secretary and Treasurer were also elected. ARM thanked outgoing officers for their outstanding service during its first year of operations.

Read the full article →

Female Crash Dummies To Debut In Government Tests (VIDEO)

October 5, 2010

The government admits it’s taken far too long to incorporate female crash dummies in its tests, and that is finally going to change, ABC News reports (watch the report below) . A new ratings system will also be implemented for 2011 tests. The idea is “more stars, safer cars,” according to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. “We think [the changes are] a step in the right direction,” says Adrian Lund of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Lund’s organization has used female dummies in side test crashes since 2003 and research has shown women can be more vulnerable in some types of accidents. “Smaller people have their seats further forward that tends to put their heads right in the middle of the window,” Lund added. WATCH THE FULL ABC NEWS REPORT:

Read the full article →

Chamber Of Commerce, Labor Department Partner To Find Gigs For Vets

October 2, 2010

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Labor announced a joint effort on Friday to assist members of the military transitioning to the civilian workplace, a difficult adjustment made harder by the sagging economy. One in five young veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – many of whom served in both – are unemployed. The partnership was announced at a press conference at the U.S. Chamber’s headquarters in Washington, across the street from the White House. The project is a massive attempt at networking: State directors from DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service will connect, using the Chamber’s network, with hundreds of employers and CEOs to pitch them on why and how to hire a veteran. “Yesterday, our employment representatives met with one employer at a time,” assistant secretary for veterans’ employment and training Ray Jefferson told HuffPost Friday. “Today, thanks to the launch of this pilot, we will be able to meet with hundreds of employers at once.” The project will focus on 14 states and build on an ongoing collaboration to encourage the hiring of disabled vets. The DOL is statutorily obligated to assist vets in finding work. Lt. Col. Christian Johnson, a fellow at the U.S. Chamber, is spearheading the vets program for the business organization. “When you think about it, there’s no other labor force, if you will, that comes with the experience that veterans do, whether it’s leadership, communication, working under stress. It doesn’t get any better than that,” he told HuffPost. “A lot of it is just helping educate employers out there.” The alliance is an unusual one: The Chamber has promised to spend tens of millions of dollars in 2010 to defeat Democratic candidates in the midterms and the White House has been harshly critical of the Chamber for working with Republicans to block its agenda in Congress. The two haven’t cooperated in a major way since the stimulus passed in the first weeks of the administration. A Labor Department aide said that the government will work directly with state and local chambers of commerce, which are less politically charged than the national organization. The public sector currently pulls much of the weight when it comes to hiring vets. According to DOL data , nearly 1 in 3 vets with a service-connected disability worked in the public sector; 1 in 5 is employed by the federal government. Deputy Secretary of Labor Seth Harris said that finding work for vets is the least the nation can do. “They put themselves in harm’s way for us. Now it’s our turn to fight for them,” said Harris. “When our young men and women return from serving their country, their country must stand ready to serve them in return. With this program, the Department of Labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are partnering to do just that.”

Read the full article →

House Overwhelmingly Passes Trade Sanctions Bill Targeted At China

September 30, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has approved legislation that would allow the U.S. to seek trade sanctions against China and other nations for manipulating their currency to gain trade advantages. The 348-79 vote Wednesday sends the measure to the Senate, where its prospects are unclear. Senate supporters hope to get a vote on a similar proposal after Congress returns following the November congressional elections. Supporters said the bill would allow the Obama administration to pressure China on an issue that they say has led to the loss of more than 2 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. over the past decade. The vote came as lawmakers scrambled to wrap up unfinished business so they can hit the campaign trail with a little over a month before the Nov. 2 elections. Polls show that the state of the economy and an unemployment rate that remains stuck at 9.6 percent are the top concerns of voters. The measure was passed by a wide margin with 99 Republicans joining Democrats to vote yes. Those in opposition included 74 Republicans and five Democrats. Supporters said the size of the vote should send a strong message to Beijing that Washington will not tolerate currency manipulation and other trade practices viewed as unfair to American workers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that in 20 years America’s trade deficit with China has gone from $5 billion annually to $5 billion every week, an imbalance she said demanded action by Congress to protect American jobs. “We do this because 1 million American jobs could be created if the Chinese government took its thumb off the scale and allowed its currency to respond to market forces,” she said in a speech on the House floor. American manufacturers contend that China’s currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent against the dollar. That makes Chinese products cheaper and more competitive in the United States and American products more expensive in China. The legislation would allow the imposition of stiff sanctions on Chinese imports. It would expand the definition of improper government subsidies to include a government’s manipulation of its currency to gain trade advantages. Currently, the Commerce Department does not consider currency manipulation as a government subsidy for which it can impose trade sanctions. During the House debate, supporters cited studies that they said show the legislation would boost American exports and create more manufacturing jobs in this country. “Some credible estimates are that we could return a million American jobs to this country,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., in urging support for the legislation. “We can either take bold steps or we can take baby steps.” Opponents said the legislation would boost the cost of clothing, toys and other goods that American consumers buy and also ran the risk of sparking retaliation by China against American exports. “The available evidence is that the price of many of these Chinese goods will go up 10 percent, a pair of shoes that a mother needs for her child to go to school … toys at Christmas, all become more expensive,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. Supporters rejected that argument, saying it is critical in hard economic times to protect U.S. jobs. “Without a job, you can’t buy goods at any price. This bill is about jobs,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich. Passage of the proposal was cleared when Levin led an effort to craft a compromise proposal that supporters believe will be better able to withstand a challenge before the World Trade Organization, the Geneva-based group that oversees the rules of world trade. Before the House vote, Chinese officials in Beijing reiterated that they support exchange rate flexibility but offered no new indications that they plan to accelerate the revaluation of their currency, the yuan. In June, Beijing promised a more flexible exchange rate but since that time the yuan has risen by only about 2 percent in value against the dollar. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress earlier this month that the administration stands ready to find a more effective strategy for pressuring China. He said the administration is not only focused on the currency issue but on such topics as rampant copyright piracy of U.S. products and various barriers the Chinese have erected to U.S. goods. In a statement, the Treasury Department said, “Today’s vote clearly shows lawmakers have serious concerns about this issue. The president and Secretary Geithner share those concerns. They have said repeatedly that China needs to allow a significant, sustained appreciation over time.” The administration has not taken a position on whether it will support the House bill. But trade experts said they believed the administration will use its passage as a way to pressure Beijing to accelerate its appreciation efforts. President Barack Obama raised the currency issue in a meeting with Chinese officials last week in New York. He is expected to pursue the issue in November at the summit of the Group of 20 major economies in South Korea. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is pushing a similar China currency bill in the Senate, said after the House vote that he will work to get a Senate vote on his bill during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections. “The Chinese ought to be aware that Congress is serious about confronting their currency manipulation,” Schumer said in a statement.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: After Summers, Which Path Will the President Take?

September 21, 2010

Now that Larry Summers is leaving, the President has a decision to make. His choice of a replacement will send a signal about the next two years of economic policy. That signal can restore consumer confidence and reinvigorate the electorate, or it can lead to even more discouragement and despair. Today unnamed Administration officials floated the idea of naming a corporate executive to the position. That’s a trial balloon that should be punctured immediately. The thirty-year-old law school graduate who asked the President yesterday, ” Is the American dream over for me? ” might interpret a choice like that as a ‘yes’ — unless he also happens to be a Fortune 500 CEO. There’s some confusion around today’s news about Summers’ end-of-year departure. Was it a rushed announcement? Did Summers choose to leave, or did he get the axe? Bloomberg News observed that Summers’ departure leaves Tim Geithner as the sole remaining member of Obama’s original economic team, which adds up to something that looks very much like a shakeup. Or maybe not. The Bloomberg article also quotes Robert Gibbs as saying “it is not a surprise,” and it’s true that it’s common for Administration officials to leave after the midterm elections. For his part, the President lavished Summers with praise : “I will always be grateful that at a time of great peril for our country, a man of Larry’s brilliance, experience and judgment was willing to answer the call and lead our economic team. Over the past two years, he has helped guide us from the depths of the worst recession since the 1930s to renewed growth.” Despite the kind words, the Wall Street Journal reports that “Administration officials say Mr. Summers’ departure could reinvigorate the White House economic team.” And there’s this quote from the President’s town hall meeting yesterday (via David Dayen ): “Well, look, I have not made any determinations about personnel. I think Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have done an outstanding job… This is tough, the work that they do… they’re going to have a whole range of decisions about family… the bottom line is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working as well as it could?” But for those who are hoping that this move signals a change in policy, we can zigzag back to the “no policy change” camp if we take this quote seriously (from the WSJ article:) “Those who know Mr. Summers say his departure has more to do with the need to recover from two tough years in which he worked brutal hours and often did not sleep.” In other words, we don’t know nothin’. That means the Administration doesn’t have to pay the political price for looking like it’s in disarray. But it also means the President doesn’t get the benefit of looking as if he’s taking decisive action after seeing unsatisfactory results. Here’s what we do know: For middle-class Americans in search of economic relief, Summers’ departure is hardly what you’d call a setback. According to all reports it was Summers who insisted on introducing a smaller stimulus package, back when Obama had the political clout to get whatever he needed to fix the economy. We’re seeing the results in today’s “jobless recovery.” Ezra Klein quotes Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who said his departure is “a big victory for anyone who voted for change in 2008 only to see Summers work from the inside to water down Wall Street reform, block President Obama’s promise to protect Net Neutrality, and urge other pro-corporate positions.” The Bloomberg report tried to pin down the Administration’s thinking about possible replacements. But by citing a variety of unnamed sources (“one person familiar with White House discussion,” two people,” “one person”) we’re left with a cloud of unknowing: Administration officials are weighing whether to put a prominent corporate executive in the NEC director’s job to counter criticism that the administration is anti-business …White House aides are also eager to name a woman to serve in a high-level position … They also are concerned about finding someone with Summers’ experience and stature… That’s enough trial balloons to float an army of economists somewhere high above the clouds. (Whoever said “good idea” — hey, that’s not nice!) The President’s choice will be watched closely by discouraged Americans like those he met yesterday. His appointment of Elizabeth Warren last week sent an encouraging message, not only to progressives but to middle class Americans who seem to have resonated with Warren whenever they’ve seen her. But whatever glow the Warren appointment cast will soon be outshone, for better or for worse, by this appointment. Felix Salmon said that the idea of replacing Summers with a corporate executive is ” a bit weird ,” and that’s putting it mildly. I have nothing against corporate executives, having been one myself, but Salmon is right when he says that this position calls for an economist’s technical expertise. And that’s not even considering the political ramifications. With poverty on the rise, record joblessness, the employed middle class struggling to make ends meet, and staggering numbers of mortgages underwater, delinquent, or foreclosed, the selection of a wealthy CEO would probably set off a political firestorm. One CEO mentioned in press reports was Richard Parsons, former head of Time Warner AOL and current head of Citigroup. Parsons is a very sharp guy, but does the Administration really think it can fix its public perception problems by naming the head of Citigroup as his senior economic advisor? A CEO name that’s getting even more traction is Ann Fudge. Ms. Fudge served as a senior executive at Kraft Foods before becoming head of Young & Rubicam. She’s an impressive leader by any measure, and that includes the personal qualities she’s integrated into her management style (although I have to admit that in my own executive life I tended to get very impatient with “team building” exercises like the ones she reportedly pushed at Young & Rubicam.) Fudge’s background suggests she might surprise some people by bringing a more progressive perspective. But she brings some political baggage, too. She sits on the President’s Deficit Commission, which is becoming increasingly controversial because of its co-chairs’ shared antipathy toward Social Security. She also sits on the board of Novartis, and pharmaceutical companies aren’t very popular. Ann Fudge would be a great choice for a cabinet position with greater management responsibility — Commerce would be ideal — but putting any business person into this slot right now could pose real problems for the Administration. In any case, a CEO appointment won’t placate the executives who complain that “Obama doesn’t like us.” That’s just a ploy to intimidate him into giving him what they always want: less regulation. If he names an executive to this position, they’ll just use a new ploy. Besides, the Administration already has a senior business executive on its economic team: Jacob Lew, who is being nominated to run the Office of Management and Budget . Lew is both an economist and a former executive who was the COO of Citi’s Alternative Investments unit. That means the Administration already has its private-sector leader on board (although the fact that Lew received a $950,000 bonus after the bank was bailed out may make it something they’re not eager to advertise). But if he doesn’t pick an executive, who should he choose? The President could start by considering the economists who were right from the start — about deregulation, about the housing bubble, and about the need for stimulus. And for academic credentials, he could go straight to the top of that group by seeking out a Nobel laureate. Imagine the spike in consumer confidence we’d see if Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz got the nod. (Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?) Since the Republicans won’t work with the Administration anyway, there’s no downside. Alright, alright — I know. He won’t do that. But if not Krugman or Stiglitz, then who? Given the Administration’s appropriate emphasis on finding a woman for the slot, one interesting choice might be Janet Yellin, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She’s been a little more pro-growth and pro-employment than many of her peers. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, who’s been arguing cogently and forcefully for more stimulus spending, could be an excellent candidate. Our number one concern right now is jobs. So if we’re looking at men as well, Robert Reich would be an inspired choice. While he’s not an economist, he is a former Secretary of Labor. He’s also an articulate and outspoken advocate for policies that will put people back to work. Washington insiders might be appalled, but Reich would bring a much-needed perspective and would send an encouraging signal to disaffected voters. He’d also make a great spokesman for Administration policies. Jared Bernstein would be a very good choice, and as Joe Biden’s chief economic advisor he’s already on the team. (Maybe — I don’t know how the turf’s laid out in this Administration.) And while I’ve been critical of Jason Furman on a couple of issues (Wal-Mart, the so-called “excise tax”), he’s smart and dedicated and would provide an excellent counterbalance to some of the Administration’s other players. This is all just speculation, of course. But the President has the opportunity to set a new economic course for his Administration. By choosing a CEO he would be signaling a turn to the right, a capitulation to the special interests and political groups that will dog him no matter what he does. By choosing another economist in the Rubin/Summers mold, he would be telling a disgruntled American electorate that it can expect more of the same. But by selecting someone with a different outlook, he could help turn the economy around — while injecting new life into the political debate at the same time. __________ (Note to readers: Hey! Zach Carter and I have a new financial/economics blog over at Campaign for America’s Future — www.curbingwallstreet.org . Check it out — we’ll have economic commentary, updates on news items, and probably the occasional inappropriate musical reference, too. What’s not to love?) _____________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: When Doing More With Less Is Not A Good Idea

September 21, 2010

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan always does good work so its recent hearing, held Sep. 16, on ” The Contingency Acquisition Workforce: What is needed and how do we get there? ” merits reading, if only to better understand the state of governmental oversight of contractors. Let’s go straight to the prepared statements. From the opening statement of CWC Co-Chairman Christopher Shays: When you consider that the Department of Defense spent $384 billion on contracts in 2009 more than double the level of 2001 while its organic acquisition workforce actually declined, you are forced to suspect that opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse have multiplied. Many acquisition outrages could be avoided or at least mitigated by a more effective federal acquisition workforce in general. Our focus at this hearing, however, is more specifically the contingency acquisition workforce. That bureaucratic-sounding phrase simply means that we are talking about the federal civilian and military folks who define requirements, procure goods and services, manage contracts, and provide oversight and accountability in support of contingency operations. … What may be the simplest aspect of the acquisition workforce sheer numbers is already receiving attention. The DoD Strategic Human Capital Plan Update published in April 2010 describes initiatives intended to add 20,000 Defense acquisition personnel by 2015. That would bring the department’s total acquisition workforce to 147,000. That is a laudable increase, but one that would still lag the growth in acquisition activity and only slightly exceed the personnel count of 1998. Since that DoD plan update was released, Secretary of Defense Gates has spoken forcefully to his department on the need to recognize looming pressures on DoD appropriations and to achieve $100 billion of savings over the next five years. To his credit, Secretary Gates said he will not look to the acquisition workforce for cutbacks. But adequate funding will undoubtedly remain a challenge. The defense acquisition workforce currently stands at about 133,000 people, about 11 percent military and 89 percent civilian. That sounds like a lot of people until you notice that DoD also deals with 1.4 million active-duty, 846,000 Guard and Reserve, and 752,000 civilian personnel in non- acquisition jobs. So the DoD acquisition workforce is only about 4 percent of all the people connected with the department. And nobody disagrees that we need more of them especially since more effective acquisition can produce some of the savings that Secretary Gates demands. … Here’s the bottom line. The U.S. military has often stated that “Money is a weapons system,” and has invoked that statement to emphasize the importance of good stewardship of taxpayer funds. Without a fully trained and operational acquisition workforce, however, our money will be a weapons system turned against us in the form of waste, fraud, and abuse that erodes morale, undermines missions, and betrays taxpayers. That is why the Commission considers this hearing so important. Statement of Jacques S. Gansler, Ph.D. University of Maryland. Gansler chaired the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations, released in October 2007, popularly known as the Gansler report, which was scathing in its critique of U.S. Army acquisition and management programs, including contracting problems plaguing Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2007, our Commission recommended an increase in Army contracting personnel authorizations, both military and civilian. We recommended an increase of just under 2,000 people, which is a 38 percent increase, relative to the total people currently in the Army contracting career field, but only 70 percent of the 1990 levels, despite the increased workload that today’s professionals face. (In 1990, the Army had approximately 10,000 people in contracting. The Army lowered this level to 5,500 following the Congressional mandate to reduce the acquisition workforce, and has remained relatively constant since then. Yet, both the number of contract actions (workload) and the dollar value of procurements (an indicator of complexity) have dramatically increased in the past decade.) Three years later, in April 2010, the Army testified to the Wartime Commission that it has a five-year plan to grow Army contracting by 1,650 positions. Our Commission understands that growing the acquisition workforce cannot be accomplished overnight, but the pace at which the Army has approached this challenge makes acquisition appear to be of precarious value to the organization. While the Army is taking positive steps to grow its contracting personnel, it is not clear that there is sufficient momentum to make this timely. The Army is the DoD “Executive Agent” for contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the first time since the creation of a theater contracting command, an Army General Officer, Brigadier General Camille Nichols, is leading the command, which was previously led by the other Services first by the Air Force with a 2-Star General, then by the Navy with a 1-Star Admiral. But even with BG Nichols in place, the Army is unable to fill military or civilian contracting billets, in either quantity or qualifications, in her Joint Manning Document. As of today, both the Air Force and Navy have been able to staff 100 percent of their respective contracting command staffing requirements, whereas the Army has only met 80 percent of its personnel commitment (after its commitment was reduced to reflect the Army’s inability to staff Army positions). This continues to create a strain on the other Services, particularly the Air Force. Further, in accordance with its Section 849 report to Congress, the Army is to assume responsibility for contingency contract administration services in 2012, to ensure the acknowledged need for contract administration in theater occurs. Due to resource shortfalls, the Army subsequently determined its resources would not be ready for this mission until 2015. This means that DCMA continues to bear an Army load, straining its own mission. I cannot help but view these resourcing struggles in direct relationship to the unfilled General Officer positions, particularly that on the Army staff. Army contracting is still under civilian leadership, which, while exemplary, is not at the table with military officers making mission decisions. As we stated in our report, if the Army is serious about its commitment to support the expeditionary mission, it must channel more Soldiers to the contracting field, and they must do so rapidly and at an earlier point in their military careers. A further concern about Army resource readiness is the immediate and ongoing need for contracting officer’s representatives (CORs) for contract oversight. While the Department has done much to train and pre-identify CORs, the challenge of rapid unit turnover and mission change to stability operations, with its concomitant troop withdrawal, makes CORs an ongoing area of concern. Although tactical units are now out of Iraq, contracts remain. And with those withdrawing troops went technical expertise to oversee contract performance. Among the solutions being explored, we trust that the Department is examining the role the reserve component might play in providing continuity and professionalism. The importance of contract administration cannot be overstated – and we need a cadre of professionals to give it the attention it deserves. Statement of Daniel I. Gordon Administrator, for Federal Procurement Policy Office of Management and Budget: From 2001 to 2008, contract spending more than doubled to over 500 billion dollars, while the size of the acquisition workforce – both civilian and defense – remained relatively flat. This inattention to the workforce resulted in increased use of high-risk contracting practices and insufficient focus on contract management, as well as the especially troubling phenomenon of agency dependence on contractors to support the acquisition function. … Reducing Risk — Between FY 2000 and FY 2008, spending on high-risk contracts increased significantly, at least in part as a result of having an insufficient workforce to develop clear requirements, conduct rigorous market research, and structure contracts to promote competition. During that timeframe: — Contracts awarded without competition increased from $73 billion to $173 billion, and procurements that were open to competition, but generated only one bid, also increased from $14 billion to $67 billion. Spending on cost-reimbursement contracts increased from $71 billion to $135 billion, while spending on time and material (T&M) and labor hour (LH) contracts increased from $8 billion to $29 billion. Statement of Mark D. Shackelford Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition The Air Force Contracting career field is stretched beyond its limits and our personnel, whether deployed or remaining at home station, are experiencing the strains over an extended period of time. The Air Force is filling the Department of Defense’s wartime contracting mission by providing more than 80 percent of the joint contingency contracting individual augmentees. As a result, our contracting personnel are currently at a 1:1 dwell, meaning they are deployed for six months and stationed at home for six months. This 1:1 dwell rate is the highest operational tempo in the Air Force, and the contracting contingency personnel have sustained this rate since 2008 after being formally re-postured. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Policy and Procurement (OSD (DPAP)) determined fair share allocations for contingency contracting officers to be 29 percent Air Force, 57 percent Army, 6 percent Navy, and 8 percent Marine Corps. If the Air Force continues at this current level of contingency support, we risk overstressing our military contracting workforce, and will experience retention problems that will negatively impact mission stability at home station and our ability to support U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) missions. The bottom line is that the government has hired more auditors in the three years since the Gansler report came out. Yet it needs to hire more, a lot more. That would help explain, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, why the Army is planning over the next five years to move in house more than 4,000 acquisition jobs that are currently performed by contractors as part of a larger effort to bolster its buying workforce, service officials said last week.

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Now it’s Congress’ Turn to Quickly Move on Trade

September 21, 2010

I’ve spent a lot of time in my blog posts urging the Obama administration and Congress to take immediate action, from every available direction, to plug the 22 million employee “jobs gap” that is strangling our country today. And you can be sure that everywhere members of Congress went on the campaign trail this summer and will travel to this fall, they are hearing this exact same thing from voters. Luckily for Members in races this year, there are still five weeks remaining until the mid-term elections to talk with voters about job creation. For the nation, however, there are only a limited number of days left in this Session of Congress — less than thirty days for sure, even assuming a lame-duck session – to see some quick actions taken. Unfortunately, two big issues — energy and immigration — which are key to the future of the U.S. economy and our prospects for significant job creation will not be addressed at all in what remains of this Session, and, in all encompassing ways, maybe not even in the next Session. However, pieces of each could be legislated early next year which would quickly create some of those jobs we’re missing. And let’s be clear, the future of the U.S. economy and our prospects for significant job creation will be hugely impacted by how we eventually manage these two issues. As soon as possible next year, Congress should at least seek to agree on a renewable energy standard for the country that would require utilities to provide escalating amounts of power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy. And then it should tackle the promotion of home-efficiency retrofits, high-efficiency home appliances, natural gas-powered commercial trucks, and medium-cost electric vehicles, which would have significant job-creating effects. Regarding immigration, also early next year there are important hearings that should be held. In them, Congress needs to remind the American people and workers that most of the 11 million-plus unauthorized immigrants have been resident here for many years with the active encouragement of our federal and state governments and the business community, mostly doing jobs that businesses wanted to under-pay for. They have worked hard for years, and now they’re entitled to both pathways to legalization and a temporary worker program. Unauthorized immigration is not at all the culprit behind either the broad-based erosion of the American Dream or the current jobs crisis that many contend. Rather, it’s factors like declining unionization, the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage and wages in general for 90% of workers, and our grossly unbalanced foreign trade. The one area therefore where meaningful action still can and should be taken by Congress in the relatively few days remaining is trade reform, where at least three quick steps should be taken. Right now, around 40% of U.S. exports are to countries with which we have bilateral trade agreements, which we often fail to fully enforce, and many of them are out of touch with today’s global economy and where the U.S. stands in it. The other 60% of our exports are to markets with trade barriers, which need to be broken down in order to provide American manufacturers with level global playing fields. And while President Obama is rightly proud of recent increases in U.S. exports, the White House continues to largely ignore the U.S. trade deficit which is skyrocketing and crushing both our economy and millions of our workers. The Obama administration is abdicating on trade generally and, in the extreme, it is tolerating China’s trade abuses, proudly settling for China’s recent opening of its market to ” American pork and pork products ” (and little else), and endlessly studying — rather than acting upon — the fundamental economic rebalancing that must take place among the world’s major trading partners. Imports from China alone are now responsible for about 75% of our deficit in manufactured goods and 55% of our overall trade deficit. Those three quick-hit trade initiatives that Congress should quickly undertake before the end of the year are: 1. Hold hearings on the strategic and economic differences between a manufacturing and industrial strategy and a policy, and between the administration’s goal of “doubling (gross) exports over five years” and, instead, “increasing net exports,” which would create millions more jobs. Every other major developed nation plus China and India has a “manufacturing and industrial policy .” Unfortunately, the administration says that we need only a “manufacturing strategy “, which conveys an unwillingness to engage with the private sector at exactly the time in history when we need to do so the most and which won’t revitalize our diminished manufacturing sector or close our oppressive trade gap. 2. Take up and then vote down the President’s three pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. These three agreements will destroy many more American jobs than they will ever create. First negotiated under Bush but now embraced by Obama simply, it seems, for the sake of showing momentum, these three FTAs would allow, in the same way that NAFTA did, for massive imports into the U.S. with few opportunities for reciprocal exports of U.S. products. These agreements are particularly flawed in the areas of U.S. beef and agricultural exports and automotive and industrial textile imports into the U.S. They are more broadly flawed in their failure to account for the relative advantages afforded the three proposed trading partners by their value-added tax systems. FTAs must apply the same rules to both parties and to accept agreements that impose nonreciprocal tariff and tariff-elimination schedules violates the most basic concepts of free trade, which are fairness and balance . 3. Hold hearings regarding trade enforcement, which I am convinced will show that right now we do not either enforce our trade agreements very well or protect our domestic manufacturers, especially their hard-gained intellectual property. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said that, “There’s a danger in which we believe the only way to get new market growth is just to go get new trade agreements.” To his credit he has suggested a strategy that focuses less on bilateral deals and more on boosting exports through promotion and ‘more rigorous enforcement of trade rules’ . Yet he has received almost no encouragement from the White House on this approach, even after showing that just for our software and high-technology sectors, compliance with World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property rights by China and Southeast Asian nations would boost annual U.S. exports by $50 to $75 billion. In these hearings, Congress should also look at moving trade enforcement to a fully enabled and funded office in the Justice Department. Trade negotiation and the enforcement of agreements are distinct activities requiring very different skills, and enforcement best belongs with ‘enforcers’, not with those who negotiated the trade agreements. We all know that Congress failed to pass a meaningful jobs bill because of Republican resistance. As Ezra Klein said, “Republicans managed to take a jobs bill, weaken it to an unemployment benefits and state and local relief bill, weaken that to an unemployment benefits bill, and then weaken that bill.” As a consequence, the 30 million real unemployed workers have been left only with a series of palliative benefit extensions, which is hardly a valid mechanism for creating the millions of jobs destroyed by the Great Recession of 2007 and for attacking the record-level income inequality that has left 90% of American workers with stagnant wages for nearly two decades. Members of Congress have their work cut out for them. With the White House seemingly devoted to other issues, Congress needs to act yet this year on any areas it can which can yet chip away at the continuing absence of that much needed jobs bill. Let’s start with trade where Congress should take its oversight responsibilities seriously and begin to redirect the administration’s approach toward fair free trade. Let’s also, through this piece and in others to follow, start telling U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke that henceforth whenever they meet on global trade and investment issues, the trade principles outlined above should be paramount. The Global Services Trade Summit begins in DC tomorrow, and in addition to Ambassador Kirk and Secretary Locke, attendees will include Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce, India; Bruno Ferrari, Secretary of the Economy, Mexico; Pascal Lamy, Director-General, World Trade Organization; and trade ministers from around the world. They should all hear that from within the U.S. Congress, there are soon to be some ‘new sheriffs in town’ when it comes to U.S. trade. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Now it’s Congress’ Turn to Quickly Move on Trade

September 21, 2010

I’ve spent a lot of time in my blog posts urging the Obama administration and Congress to take immediate action, from every available direction, to plug the 22 million employee “jobs gap” that is strangling our country today. And you can be sure that everywhere members of Congress went on the campaign trail this summer and will travel to this fall, they are hearing this exact same thing from voters. Luckily for Members in races this year, there are still five weeks remaining until the mid-term elections to talk with voters about job creation. For the nation, however, there are only a limited number of days left in this Session of Congress — less than thirty days for sure, even assuming a lame-duck session – to see some quick actions taken. Unfortunately, two big issues — energy and immigration — which are key to the future of the U.S. economy and our prospects for significant job creation will not be addressed at all in what remains of this Session, and, in all encompassing ways, maybe not even in the next Session. However, pieces of each could be legislated early next year which would quickly create some of those jobs we’re missing. And let’s be clear, the future of the U.S. economy and our prospects for significant job creation will be hugely impacted by how we eventually manage these two issues. As soon as possible next year, Congress should at least seek to agree on a renewable energy standard for the country that would require utilities to provide escalating amounts of power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy. And then it should tackle the promotion of home-efficiency retrofits, high-efficiency home appliances, natural gas-powered commercial trucks, and medium-cost electric vehicles, which would have significant job-creating effects. Regarding immigration, also early next year there are important hearings that should be held. In them, Congress needs to remind the American people and workers that most of the 11 million-plus unauthorized immigrants have been resident here for many years with the active encouragement of our federal and state governments and the business community, mostly doing jobs that businesses wanted to under-pay for. They have worked hard for years, and now they’re entitled to both pathways to legalization and a temporary worker program. Unauthorized immigration is not at all the culprit behind either the broad-based erosion of the American Dream or the current jobs crisis that many contend. Rather, it’s factors like declining unionization, the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage and wages in general for 90% of workers, and our grossly unbalanced foreign trade. The one area therefore where meaningful action still can and should be taken by Congress in the relatively few days remaining is trade reform, where at least three quick steps should be taken. Right now, around 40% of U.S. exports are to countries with which we have bilateral trade agreements, which we often fail to fully enforce, and many of them are out of touch with today’s global economy and where the U.S. stands in it. The other 60% of our exports are to markets with trade barriers, which need to be broken down in order to provide American manufacturers with level global playing fields. And while President Obama is rightly proud of recent increases in U.S. exports, the White House continues to largely ignore the U.S. trade deficit which is skyrocketing and crushing both our economy and millions of our workers. The Obama administration is abdicating on trade generally and, in the extreme, it is tolerating China’s trade abuses, proudly settling for China’s recent opening of its market to ” American pork and pork products ” (and little else), and endlessly studying — rather than acting upon — the fundamental economic rebalancing that must take place among the world’s major trading partners. Imports from China alone are now responsible for about 75% of our deficit in manufactured goods and 55% of our overall trade deficit. Those three quick-hit trade initiatives that Congress should quickly undertake before the end of the year are: 1. Hold hearings on the strategic and economic differences between a manufacturing and industrial strategy and a policy, and between the administration’s goal of “doubling (gross) exports over five years” and, instead, “increasing net exports,” which would create millions more jobs. Every other major developed nation plus China and India has a “manufacturing and industrial policy .” Unfortunately, the administration says that we need only a “manufacturing strategy “, which conveys an unwillingness to engage with the private sector at exactly the time in history when we need to do so the most and which won’t revitalize our diminished manufacturing sector or close our oppressive trade gap. 2. Take up and then vote down the President’s three pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. These three agreements will destroy many more American jobs than they will ever create. First negotiated under Bush but now embraced by Obama simply, it seems, for the sake of showing momentum, these three FTAs would allow, in the same way that NAFTA did, for massive imports into the U.S. with few opportunities for reciprocal exports of U.S. products. These agreements are particularly flawed in the areas of U.S. beef and agricultural exports and automotive and industrial textile imports into the U.S. They are more broadly flawed in their failure to account for the relative advantages afforded the three proposed trading partners by their value-added tax systems. FTAs must apply the same rules to both parties and to accept agreements that impose nonreciprocal tariff and tariff-elimination schedules violates the most basic concepts of free trade, which are fairness and balance . 3. Hold hearings regarding trade enforcement, which I am convinced will show that right now we do not either enforce our trade agreements very well or protect our domestic manufacturers, especially their hard-gained intellectual property. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said that, “There’s a danger in which we believe the only way to get new market growth is just to go get new trade agreements.” To his credit he has suggested a strategy that focuses less on bilateral deals and more on boosting exports through promotion and ‘more rigorous enforcement of trade rules’ . Yet he has received almost no encouragement from the White House on this approach, even after showing that just for our software and high-technology sectors, compliance with World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property rights by China and Southeast Asian nations would boost annual U.S. exports by $50 to $75 billion. In these hearings, Congress should also look at moving trade enforcement to a fully enabled and funded office in the Justice Department. Trade negotiation and the enforcement of agreements are distinct activities requiring very different skills, and enforcement best belongs with ‘enforcers’, not with those who negotiated the trade agreements. We all know that Congress failed to pass a meaningful jobs bill because of Republican resistance. As Ezra Klein said, “Republicans managed to take a jobs bill, weaken it to an unemployment benefits and state and local relief bill, weaken that to an unemployment benefits bill, and then weaken that bill.” As a consequence, the 30 million real unemployed workers have been left only with a series of palliative benefit extensions, which is hardly a valid mechanism for creating the millions of jobs destroyed by the Great Recession of 2007 and for attacking the record-level income inequality that has left 90% of American workers with stagnant wages for nearly two decades. Members of Congress have their work cut out for them. With the White House seemingly devoted to other issues, Congress needs to act yet this year on any areas it can which can yet chip away at the continuing absence of that much needed jobs bill. Let’s start with trade where Congress should take its oversight responsibilities seriously and begin to redirect the administration’s approach toward fair free trade. Let’s also, through this piece and in others to follow, start telling U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke that henceforth whenever they meet on global trade and investment issues, the trade principles outlined above should be paramount. The Global Services Trade Summit begins in DC tomorrow, and in addition to Ambassador Kirk and Secretary Locke, attendees will include Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce, India; Bruno Ferrari, Secretary of the Economy, Mexico; Pascal Lamy, Director-General, World Trade Organization; and trade ministers from around the world. They should all hear that from within the U.S. Congress, there are soon to be some ‘new sheriffs in town’ when it comes to U.S. trade. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Obama: Reforms, Economy Are ‘Moving In The Right Direction’

September 20, 2010

In a town hall discussion broadcast live on CNBC Monday, President Barack Obama said the country’s economy is “moving in the right direction” — even if it doesn’t feel that way. Responding to questions from, in addition to the host John Harwood, a student, a Wall Streeter, a small business-owner and a self-described member of the middle class, the president acknowledged that “times are tough for everybody,” but pointed to his record so far as president and asked the audience to trust in his agenda. “We went through the worst recession since the Great Depression,” he said. “Those programs that we put in place worked. So now you’ve got a financial system that is stable. …The challenge is that the hole was so deep.” The tough questions came near the beginning. The chief financial officer for a veterans service organization, who called herself a “middle-class American,” said she was “exhausted of defending you” and “deeply disappointed with where we are right now.” “The life you describe, one of responsibility, looking after your family, contributing to your community, that’s what we want to reward,” Obama said in response. “I understand your frustration.” He proceeded to list his administration’s reforms on student loans, credit cards and “a whole host of things that we’ve put in place that do make your life better.” The president deflected criticism from Wall Street as well. He pushed back against the assertion that he has vilified business, saying the angry response to his reforms has been irrational. His citing of historical examples, such as the creation of Medicare, recalled that passage from a 1933 Time article he read in a speech in April — “Through the great banking houses of Manhattan last week ran wild-eyed alarm. Big bankers stared at one another in anger and astonishment…” — which refers to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. When SkyBridge Capital manager Anthony Scaramucci told Obama, in a question, that Wall Street feels like a “pinata,” the president said, to applause, “There’s a big chunk of the country that thinks that I have been too soft on Wall Street.” WATCH Obama respond to accusations that he’s been too tough on Wall Street: “Me saying you should be taxed more like your secretary, when you’re pulling home a billion dollars or a hundred million dollars a year, I don’t think is me being extremist or anti-business.” Throughout the speech, Obama insisted he was allied with businesses of all sizes. In response to a question from a small business owner who does monogram glass work, Obama pointed to the “eight tax cuts for small businesses so far” that his administration has passed, calling them “pro-business agendas.” He admitted, further, that his own political approach to this legislation hasn’t always been ideal, saying that he will be “setting a better tone so that everybody feels like we can start cooperating again, instead of going at loggerheads all the time.” The president’s argument, ultimately, was that reforms need to continue. Regarding housing, Obama countered the argument that allowing the market to fall naturally would help it more than continuing to prop it up. “We were very successful in keeping the housing market alive at a time when it had completely shut down,” he said. “My job as president is to think about those families that are losing their homes, not as some abstract numbers. I mean, these are real people.” He also touched on the possibility of a payroll tax holiday (“This is something that we’ve examined”) and on China’s capital restrictions. “What we’ve said to them is you need to let your currency rise,” he said about China. “We are going to continue to insist that, on this issue and on all trade issues between us and China, it’s a two-way street.”

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren: Fighting to Protect Consumers

September 17, 2010

Over the past several weeks, the president and I have had extensive conversations about the vital importance of consumer financial protection. The president asked me, and I enthusiastically agreed, to serve as an Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He has also asked me to take on the job to get the new CFPB started — right now. The president and I are committed to the same vision on CFPB, and I am confident that I will have the tools I need to get the job done. President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American. The new consumer bureau is based on a pretty simple idea: People ought to be able to read their credit card and mortgage contracts and know the deal. They shouldn’t learn about an unfair rule or practice only when it bites them — way too late for them to do anything about it. The new law creates a chance to put a tough cop on the beat and provide real accountability and oversight of the consumer credit market. The time for hiding tricks and traps in the fine print is over. This new bureau is based on the simple idea that if the playing field is level and families can see what’s going on, they will have better tools to make better choices. If the CFPB can succeed at leveling the playing field, we can go a long way toward repairing a gaping hole in the budgets of millions of families. But nobody has ever thought or argued that the consumer bureau can fix everything. Lost jobs, stagnant incomes, rising costs for college, dwindling retirement savings — there’s a lot of work to be done. When she was 16, my grandmother, Hannie Reed, drove a wagon in the Oklahoma land rush. Her mother had died, so she was up front with her little brothers and sisters bouncing around in the back. When I was growing up, she talked about life on the prairie, about marrying my grandfather and making a living building one-room schoolhouses, about getting wiped out in the Great Depression. She was hit with hard challenges throughout her life, but the moral of her stories was always the same: she would solve her problems one at a time by pulling up her socks and getting to work. It’s time for all of us to pull up our socks and get to work. Cross-posted from WhiteHouse.gov .

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren: Fighting to Protect Consumers

September 17, 2010

Over the past several weeks, the president and I have had extensive conversations about the vital importance of consumer financial protection. The president asked me, and I enthusiastically agreed, to serve as an Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He has also asked me to take on the job to get the new CFPB started — right now. The president and I are committed to the same vision on CFPB, and I am confident that I will have the tools I need to get the job done. President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American. The new consumer bureau is based on a pretty simple idea: People ought to be able to read their credit card and mortgage contracts and know the deal. They shouldn’t learn about an unfair rule or practice only when it bites them — way too late for them to do anything about it. The new law creates a chance to put a tough cop on the beat and provide real accountability and oversight of the consumer credit market. The time for hiding tricks and traps in the fine print is over. This new bureau is based on the simple idea that if the playing field is level and families can see what’s going on, they will have better tools to make better choices. If the CFPB can succeed at leveling the playing field, we can go a long way toward repairing a gaping hole in the budgets of millions of families. But nobody has ever thought or argued that the consumer bureau can fix everything. Lost jobs, stagnant incomes, rising costs for college, dwindling retirement savings — there’s a lot of work to be done. When she was 16, my grandmother, Hannie Reed, drove a wagon in the Oklahoma land rush. Her mother had died, so she was up front with her little brothers and sisters bouncing around in the back. When I was growing up, she talked about life on the prairie, about marrying my grandfather and making a living building one-room schoolhouses, about getting wiped out in the Great Depression. She was hit with hard challenges throughout her life, but the moral of her stories was always the same: she would solve her problems one at a time by pulling up her socks and getting to work. It’s time for all of us to pull up our socks and get to work. Cross-posted from WhiteHouse.gov .

Read the full article →

Video: Van Rijn Says Expected Yuan Gains Won’t Please Congress: Video

September 16, 2010

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) — Arnout Van Rijn, chief investment officer for Asia at Robeco Hong Kong Ltd., talks about China’s currency policy. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the U.S. will use every available tool to urge China to let its currency rise more quickly, including congressional pressure and a twice-yearly report on foreign- exchange markets. Van Rijn also discusses Japan’s intervention to weaken the yen and the impact of currency policies on Asian stock markets. He speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Van Rijn Says Expected Yuan Gains Won’t Please Congress: Video

September 16, 2010

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) — Arnout Van Rijn, chief investment officer for Asia at Robeco Hong Kong Ltd., talks about China’s currency policy. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the U.S. will use every available tool to urge China to let its currency rise more quickly, including congressional pressure and a twice-yearly report on foreign- exchange markets. Van Rijn also discusses Japan’s intervention to weaken the yen and the impact of currency policies on Asian stock markets. He speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Adams Says U.S. Should Include G-20, IMF in Yuan Talks: Video

September 16, 2010

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) — Tim Adams, a former U.S. Treasury undersecretary in the George W. Bush administration who’s now a managing director at the Fairfax, Virginia-based Lindsey Group, an economic advisory firm, talks about the U.S. stance on China’s currency policy. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said yesterday the U.S. will use every available tool to urge China to let its currency rise more quickly, including congressional pressure and a twice-yearly report on foreign-exchange markets. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Why Getting Tough With China Won’t Solve Our Jobs Problem

September 16, 2010

With unemployment in the stratosphere and the midterm elections weeks away, politicians naturally want to show voters they’re committed to getting jobs back. So now they’re getting tough on China. But it’s a dangerous ploy based on wishful thinking. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told the Senate Banking Committee Thursday the Administration is “examining the important question of what mix of tools, those available to the United States and multilateral approaches, might help encourage the Chinese authorities to move more quickly.” Translated: We’re on the verge of threatening them with trade sanctions. Even this didn’t satisfy the Senators. Charles Schumer (D-New York) charged that trade with China “diminishes America, our standard of living here in America, and America as a world power.” Richard Shelby (R-Ala) demanded to know why “the administration protecting China by refusing to designate it as a currency manipulator” — a designation that could lead to trade sanctions. On Wednesday the U.S. filed a pair of complaints against China with the World Trade Organization, alleging China was unfairly denying American companies access to its market. Meanwhile, several Democrats facing elections in November are introducing measures that would allow companies to pursue sanctions against China for manipulating its currency. It’s true China has kept the value of its currency artificially low relative to the dollar. If China allowed its currency to rise, Chinese exports would become more expensive to us and our exports would be relatively cheaper to them. This would help shrink the trade imbalance. It’s also true China has dragged its feet. In June, the U.S. stopped short of branding China a currency manipulator after China promised to reform its ways. But since then China’s currency has risen just 1 percent relative to the dollar. America’s trade imbalance with China is growing. In the first half of this year, China exported $119 billion more goods and services to us than we did to them — putting the two nations on course to exceed last year’s $227 billion trade gap. But it’s naive to assume all we have to do to get Chinese to do what we want is to threaten them with tariffs. First, they might retaliate. Remember, China is the biggest foreign investor in U.S. Treasury securities, with holdings of more than $843 billion. If China were to start selling off large amounts, America’s borrowing costs would soar — and we’d end up worse off. Second, it’s already costly to China to keep its currency artificially low — requiring that China buy loads of dollars. So why would anyone suppose that making it more expensive for them would bring China around? China has been willing to bear this huge cost because its export policy doubles as a social policy, designed to maintain order. Each year, tens of millions of poor Chinese stream into China’s large cities from the countryside in pursuit of better-paying work. If they don’t find it, China risks riots and other upheaval. Massive disorder is one of the greatest risks facing China’s governing elite. That elite would much rather create jobs than allow its currency to rise substantially and thereby risk job shortages at home. Third, even if China did allow its currency to rise against the dollar, there’s no reason to think this would automatically generate lots more American jobs. American exports would become cheaper to Chinese consumers. But Japan, Germany, and other major exporters would also demand a piece of the action. Unemployment is high in all developed nations, and every government is under pressure to create more jobs. Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers — whose goods would suddenly become more expensive to American consumers — could simply shift their production to other nations with lower currencies. Indeed, as Chinese wages have begun to rise, Chinese manufacturers have already started to shift production to Vietnam, Indonesia, and other low-wage outposts of Southeast Asia. What worries me most about all this tough talk about China is it diverts attention from the real problem. American isn’t suffering high unemployment because we’re buying too much from China and not selling them enough. Trade with China is a small portion of the U.S. economy. Twenty million Americans lack jobs because American consumers — especially America’s vast middle class — can no longer spend what’s necessary to keep nearly everyone employed. After three decades of stagnant middle-class wages, during which almost all the economic gains have gone to the top, we’ve finally reached a day of reckoning. The middle class can no longer borrow vast sums by using their homes as ATMs. They can’t squeeze more working hours out of two wage earners. And they have to start saving for retirement. The central challenge we face isn’t to re-balance trade with China. It’s to re-balance the American economy so its benefits are more widely shared. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

James M. Russell: The Progressive Role of Billionaires

September 10, 2010

Last month, 40 billionaires from around the United States announced that they had signed ” The Giving Pledge ,” an initiative started by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates, stating their plans to donate the majority of their personal fortunes in their lifetime or after their death. Among the other signers are Star Wars director George Lucas, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Texans T. Boone Pickens and Laura and John Arnold, who made their money through natural gas trading with John’s Houston-based hedge fund Centaurus Energy. Buffett says the pledge “is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their wealth and how it will be used.” If presented correctly, however, the pledge could also be a conversation that changes the debate on taxation in the United States. Their timing was fitting, considering the day’s other news: U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said at the Center for American Progress that “America is a less equal country than it was 10 years ago,” in part because of former President Bush’s tax cuts for the super wealthy. Geithner’s statement is undoubtedly true. A recent Institute for Policy Studies report concludes that, over the past 50 years, the brunt of this country’s tax burden has been shifted onto the middle class. Through tax cuts and write-offs, the super-wealthy have benefited from a “two-tier” tax structure: one for them and another for everybody else. Another report issued last year reveals income inequality in this country is the worst it’s ever been. The report’s author, Benjamin Saez of the University of California at Berkeley , found that in 2007 alone the top 10th of one percent of American earners took home nearly 6 percent of all income. And according to Lawrence Mishel at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning research organization in Washington, D.C., the 400 American households with the highest incomes enjoyed a much faster pace of income growth than the vast majority between 1992 and 2007. The pledge signers have made it clear that they want to make the world a better place in a big way. Their commitment leaves little doubt that this is more than a huge tax write-off. But maybe they could help us even more by talking more about what rich people shouldn’t be able to write off. Or maybe they could just follow the lead of a group of wealthy Germans who recently volunteered to give more of their income to their country’s federal government. After all, as Mike Lapham of the Responsible Wealth Project at United for Fair Economy, points out, “A philanthropist might build a road … but philanthropy could never build and maintain the interstate highway system and state and city roads we all … depend on.” By voluntarily offering more, our American philanthropists could use this platform to advocate for humane federal tax policies across the board. Buffett and Gates — staunch advocates of progressive taxation — could also help by reminding other billionaires of the responsibility that comes with wealth. Buffett’s outspoken support for higher taxes on the wealthy has, in the past, earned him the ire of some of his fellow billionaires. In 2007, for example, he blasted the U.S. tax system for being dramatically uneven. According to The Times of London , Buffett said that without avoiding higher taxes, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on $46 million in annual income, while his secretary was taxed 30 percent on $60,000. He has also testified before Congress on behalf of the recently expired estate tax. Meanwhile, Gates’ father, Bill Gates Sr., is leading an initiative to pass a personal income tax in Washington state for those making more than $200,000 a year. In a time of political standstill, these billionaires could multiply their influence by adding to the debate on other progressive policy topics, like campaign finance reform in the wake of the Citizens United case and the restoration of a robust estate tax. Already, without Buffett or Gates, some of these billionaires have called on Congress to reinstate the estate tax, while another small group of millionaires wants the Bush tax cuts to expire. In a recent poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans said they support campaign finance reform and nearly 88 percent oppose the Citizens United decision, which negated important limits on corporations’ campaign contributions. With many of these philanthropists also being major political donors and one (Bloomberg) a public officeholder, it’s time for them to raise their voices on behalf of the American public. They earned their money — and this responsibility too. This originally appeared in the Fort Worth Weekly.

Read the full article →

George T. Haley: When Government Fails: Grade F for Exchange Rates and Manufacturing

September 7, 2010

Our government has failed to honor its social contract with the American people. The second paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence presents the first and most explicit social contract between the U.S. government and its people. The contract reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The social contract requires that the government provide the environment necessary for an industrious, competent and hard-working people to achieve reasonable levels of Life, Liberty and Happiness. To our founding fathers, these pursuits included the environment to earn a comfortable living wage or income. The government has failed to provide this environment and is in breach of contract. In recent years, the U.S. government has complained vociferously that China has maintained its currency at an artificially low value. Chinese goods in the U.S. are cheaper than they should be and American goods in China are more expensive, contributing to our massive migration of manufacturing, loss of jobs and external debt. President Obama has gone to Beijing, hat in hand, to get China to revalue its currency. The U.S. government’s policies of quiet persuasion have failed. In April, Treasury Secretary Geithner made a hurried trip to China and extracted meager promises from the Chinese to raise the renminbi’s value. The Chinese appeared as surprised as the American people at what ensued: the Obama Administration accepted a vague Chinese offer to address the issue in the future – maybe. In a cultural context, the Chinese saw Secretary Geithner’s trip as a sign of weakness, as a kowtow. They saw their political power demonstrated by imposition of their will. Our elected representatives and businesspeople have admonished the President for not taking a stronger stance on China’s currency manipulation. Other nations have also complained about China’s currency manipulation. Following an inquiry, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ruled that ” the renminbi remains substantially below the level that is consistent with medium-term fundamentals .” Regardless, the Obama administration has refused to act and to label China a currency manipulator. China agreed to the IMF review only after it softened standards for determining if countries manipulate their exchange rates to boost exports. The new IMF standards give countries like China ” the benefit of any reasonable doubt ” when evaluating their policies. Increasingly certain that it will encounter no significant backlash, China continues to assert that its currency is valued correctly and does nothing to comply with the IMF’s findings. For Americans, the U.S. policy of appeasement has failed because it places American prosperity, employment and trade balances in foreign governments’ hands. Through appeasement, the government has neglected to provide an environment where American workers and domestic companies can compete successfully in global markets, or even in their domestic markets. Generally, international markets determine currency exchange rates. When foreign governments intervene, they defeat the effectiveness of market mechanisms. Consequently, the U.S. government must intercede on behalf of American workers and domestic companies. By appeasing China on its currency manipulation, the U.S. government has outsourced compliance of its social contract with Americans to a foreign government. To its credit, the Chinese government appears more intent on meeting its social contract with the Chinese people. Many point to China’s low wages as the engine of its rapidly growing exports of manufactured goods and as the reason for its export prowess. Yet, they ignore the fact that China had to overtake Germany in exports to become number one – not the U.S. In 2009, China overtook Germany to become the world’s largest exporter. Germany has an economy roughly a quarter the size of the U.S’s with wage rates about 66% higher than those of the U.S. Germany is a “… leading exporter of machinery, vehicles, chemicals and household equipment ….”, all manufactured goods. Among developed economies, Germany has performed best in recovering from the recent economic crisis. Germany provides clear proof that governmental policies abiding by social contracts can create jobs rather than export them. Germany shows that companies from industrialized nations can provide living wages to their employees and still compete in international markets with manufactured goods. On the other hand, the U.S. government, regardless of the party in power, voluntarily chose to convert the U.S. into an economy that makes nothing and whose greatest export is its people’s prosperity and jobs. This is not the American people’s choice. Hence: U.S. government’s exchange-rate administration – Grade F U.S. exchange-rate policies’ benefits to manufacturing – Grade F Ruling on the U.S. government’s breach of its social contract – Guilty Our founding fathers had an answer for the situation in which we find ourselves: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…” We live in a democracy and our ballot boxes should speak on this issue.

Read the full article →

NetApp Appoints New General Counsel

September 7, 2010

SUNNYVALE, CA–(Marketwire – September 7, 2010) – NetApp ( NASDAQ : NTAP ) today announced the appointment of Matthew Fawcett to the role of senior vice president, general counsel, and secretary. He replaces former Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary Andy Kryder, who is retiring after 10 years of service at NetApp.

Read the full article →

Robert Hormats: The State Department’s Jobs Agenda

September 6, 2010

Normally, my blog entries are short and succinct. (Or, at least, I hope so!) But I wanted to use this entry to provide a bit more depth about one of the State Department’s highest priorities: supporting American jobs. As President Obama underscored in his address to the nation on August 31, “Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work.” Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department is focusing fully on that goal by advancing an international economic policy that promotes opportunity and job growth for Americans. The primary task of the State Department’s international economic policy is to promote American economic success in the global economy. That means crafting policies that help create — and sustain the growth of — well-paying, productive American private sector jobs. We do so by using a wide range of tools: promoting exports, protecting intellectual property rights, expanding trade opportunities, attracting foreign investment, supporting a fair business environment abroad and drawing on the successful experiences of other countries. Secretary Clinton has made our jobs agenda a top priority and is leading our efforts to ensure that our diplomacy supports American workers. As the Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, this is my central focus — as it is for our entire team here at the State Department. We also recognize that a strong domestic economy, with high levels of employment and growth, is the fundamental base for a strong foreign and national security policy. Our overriding aim is to connect with the concerns and aspirations of the American people. While many of us in the Department actively engage with representatives of other countries to promote American interests abroad, we are engaging at least as actively on the home front with leaders of businesses — large and small — as well as labor and farm groups. Our international economic policy must earn the support of these groups by delivering tangible benefits to them, or it will not be sustainable — especially at a time when so many Americans are feeling economic pain. And the most tangible benefit we can deliver is to demonstrate that what we are doing abroad increases the ability of American companies to generate good jobs at home. To achieve this, we are taking action in several key areas: Implementing the President’s National Export Initiative. The President has set the goal of doubling American exports over five years to support two million new U.S. jobs. To achieve this goal, we have mobilized senior officials here in the Department and in our embassies abroad. As Secretary Clinton has noted, “Other businesses from other countries have a strong partnership with their government; whether it’s state-owned enterprises from China or private companies from Europe, they often have much more support from their governments than we have in recent years given to our businesses.” The Obama Administration is stepping up its efforts to support U.S. companies competing in global markets — and the State Department is actively supporting this effort. We believe that American businesses should receive the same enthusiastic and forceful support from the top levels of our government as foreign competitors receive from theirs. This is vital to creating jobs at home. Exports currently support 10 million American jobs. We know that by helping more companies, particularly small and medium sized companies, to export and tap new markets, we can substantially boost that figure. But we also know that many of the largest American companies are our biggest exporters. They frequently must compete against national champions abroad supported by foreign governments. So we work closely with them to actively advocate for their export sales. The profits our companies make from sales abroad play a key role in funding more research and investment at home. And that will lead to new hiring and additional well-paying jobs for Americans. Secretary Clinton has mobilized her team here in this Department and all of our embassies to ensure that our businesses are being fully supported overseas. And she personally has been a strong advocate on her trips abroad. Day-in and day-out we work alongside colleagues in the Department of Commerce under Secretary Locke’s leadership and with other agencies. Our embassies provide enormous support to American businesses in foreign markets. Our diplomats are also traveling across this nation to help American companies learn how our embassies can provide information and contacts for the development of business opportunities in other countries. In fact, a group of our ambassadors to Middle Eastern nations will visit several American cities in mid-October. And we have similar plans for our Asian, Latin American and Central European Ambassadors. Opening markets abroad — and keeping them open. We pursue reverse trade missions and comparable programs because trade is a contact sport. As President Obama noted, 

”We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.” The President is exactly right. There is a temptation during periods of high domestic unemployment to turn inward. But that is exactly what we should not do. That would cost us jobs, not increase them. Instead, we must take greater advantage of opportunities to increase our exports. With 95 percent of all the world’s consumers living abroad, expanding trade must be a central component of any job creation strategy. Ambassador Ron Kirk and his team at the Office of the United States Trade Representative are leading the effort to further open markets abroad. We, at the State Department provide strong support. The Administration’s key priorities include the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will provide new opportunities in the Pacific for American workers and companies. Completing the Doha trade round with ambitious and mutually beneficial results is another priority. We, and our trading partners alike, need to determine whether we can achieve the greater level of ambition necessary to make an agreement feasible. We are also using forums like Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council (TEC), where State plays a central role, to achieve more open markets. The State Department also supports the efforts of USTR and the Commerce Department to enforce the rights of American companies under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other agreements. Together, we press governments in myriad ways to end discrimination against American goods, farm products and services. The strong alliance between USTR, Commerce and the State Department on these matters demonstrates to other nations our resolve to defend our interests whenever violations occur. Protecting American Intellectual Property. Our greatest assets in today’s knowledge-based economy are the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. President Obama has declared the Administration’s commitment to “aggressively protect our intellectual property… It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century.” Led by Vice President Biden and a top White House team, senior officials of the State Department in Washington and abroad are carrying out the President’s commitment to ensure that intellectual property is being protected around the world. My colleagues and I meet regularly with business leaders, union officials, and leaders of the technology, entertainment and pharmaceutical industries to identify problems in this area and forge effective responses. Protecting our intellectual property — the patents, copyrights, trademarks, innovative technologies, and creative products that drive our economic growth against piracy, counterfeiting, forced transfer, and discriminatory procurement practices — is a core interest of the United States. The stakes for American jobs are high. The information and telecommunications sector alone — one of the many sectors in our country that depend on intellectual property and constant innovation — employs five million people. And we want to enable American workers and businesses to continue innovating, creating, and designing the products that will ensure our prosperity for years to come. Ensuring that their innovative products are protected against counterfeiting and various other techniques that jeopardize their intellectual property is essential to doing this. Ensuring a welcoming environment for foreign investment. From the time of our founding through today, foreign investment has made an important contribution to American economic growth and job creation. The strength of the foreign investment we attract is testimony to the strength of our economy. And investments by foreign-based companies in the U.S. employ a great many Americans: Currently, foreign direct investment in the United States supports roughly 5.5 million American jobs — in highly unionized and largely non unionized states alike. About 4.6 percent of all American private sector workers are employed by foreign-based multinational companies that invest here; two million of these are in manufacturing jobs. Foreign investments account for nearly 15 percent of the research and development in the United States and 18.5 percent of our goods exports. We must and will firmly enforce American laws that require the careful review of investments that could have adverse national security implications. But the vast majority of foreign investment does not come under that heading. And through visits by U.S. officials abroad and the work of our embassies and missions we seek to demonstrate that we — along with governors and mayors throughout the country — welcome that investment. The State Department, utilizing our embassies abroad, helps foreign investors better understand American laws and regulations. We also emphasize the great opportunities foreign investors have to succeed in our country’s very open business environment, highlight the security of investments here, and communicate the benefits of our first-class workforce. Fairness and transparency in international business practices. In an effort to achieve a truly level playing field for American businesses overseas and in so doing to sustain and increase the jobs these companies support at home, the State Department and others in the Administration are working to build an effective international anti-corruption regime. We aim to galvanize the world’s leading economies to support a clean business environment. Both bilaterally and through multilateral fora, we are encouraging other countries to step up and enforce strong anticorruption measures. We have also strengthened our enforcement actions under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; this includes taking measures against foreign companies for actions falling within the scope of U.S. jurisdiction. In addition, we have pressed for international commitment to a robust peer review of implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption. With our G-20 partners, we have formed a G-20 Anticorruption Working Group, which will make comprehensive recommendations on international efforts to combat corruption. We have called for enactment and enforcement of transnational anti-bribery legislation among the world’s leading economies, in concert with the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Forging new partnerships. The international economic geography has changed dramatically over the last decade. New economic powers have become important players in global finance, trade, investment and technological innovation. A key part of our jobs agenda is working with them to expand exports, encourage more investment in the U.S., and strengthen cooperation to promote growth, balance and stability in the global economy. Increased engagement in such forums as the G-20 and in bilateral arrangements such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China, the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, the U.S.-Russian Bilateral Presidential Commission, and similar dialogues with Brazil, South Africa and other nations will be important instruments to establish a more solid framework for our bilateral and multilateral economic relationships. In many of these dialogues, parallel business-to-business commissions meet to strengthen private sector commercial collaboration. These forums also provide vehicles for encouraging the newly rising economic powers to assume responsibilities for the international economic system, and international norms and rules, consistent with their commercial and financial strength and their shared interest in the openness and stability of the international economy. Progress in such areas will significantly improve prospects for American firms and job growth. Learning from other nations. As in so many other nations these days, many Americans are unemployed and large numbers have been so for a long time. Several nations are currently struggling with average unemployment of even greater duration than ours — and some of them have drawn on past experience to craft new policies to address these problems. Our embassies abroad carefully track the economic problems and policies of other nations. And we work closely with experts in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to share experiences. Working with the Department of Labor — and using our international outreach — we in the State Department can inform the U.S. economic debate by distilling the practices and programs of other nations to reduce their levels of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, and by convening experts from other nations to identify policies that could be applied here. We will continue to bolster American efforts and policies to support jobs and prosperity at home. The State Department and the entire Obama Administration are dedicated to promoting, protecting, and enhancing American prosperity in this rapidly changing world.

Read the full article →

Tom Pappalardo: Gold & Silver Trading Biggest Scam in History Financial Armageddon Could Result

September 6, 2010

For those with a good memory this is the promised follow up to my piece on the manipulation of the silver market and its very scary ramifications. Before we get into the possible end of civilization as we know it details, a recap is in order. Andrew Maguire of London blew the whistle on JP Morgan Chase’s very likely profound manipulation of the silver market to the CFTC. As financial government watchdog agencies are wont to do these days, they did their best to sweep it all under the carpet. How the SEC handled Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme is a prime example of this. This matter is not a ponzi scheme but it is a the largest scam ever going into the trillions of dollars territory. But back to Maguire who was quite determined to clean up the business of commodities trading. He goes public with powerful compelling evidence of JP Morgan Chase’s manipulation of the silver market. This happens on a Kingsworld radio show. The next day someone tries to kill him by ramming a car into Maguire’s car. Maguire and his wife who was also in the car are hurt pretty bad but survive. After this in their infinite wisdom the commodities watchdog the CFTC decides to have a meeting with most of the key players in commodities trading but exclude Maguire from attending. At this meeting a secret is revealed that could easily tear apart the fabric of our barely functional financial system. The secret is that for every 100 ounces of gold and for every 100 ounces of silver traded on paper there is only one actual ounce of gold and one actual once of silver to back up these trades. Given that yearly there is trillions of gold and silver traded on paper this is the literally biggest scam in the history of scams. Now the guy who let this cat out of the bag didn’t think it was a big deal using the logic that as long as the buyer was paid the value of his purchase at the time he wants to sell it doesn’t matter if his purchase was backed up by an actual commodity. This cavalier attitude does seem to reflect the mind set of people working in our financial system that everything is smoke and mirrors except the money being exchanged. It is quite possible and even probable that someone with enough financial resources and the will to do it could turn our financial system upside down and make an enormous profit from it. This person would have to have no loyalty to western currency and the financial well being of western countries. So let’s assume a very wealthy Asian wants to take a shot at getting into Bill Gates’s wealth status. From what I gather the game plan would be a simple one. That is buy enormous amounts of what I like to call the paper version of silver and gold and buy even more actual silver and gold. Then start a run on Comex by demanding to replace your paper with actual gold and silver. The next part is for me admittedly a bit fuzzy so my play by play of this could be off a bit but I believe the general idea fits the situation. Given that commodities’ trading is a relatively small community, if the player of this scenario has purchased enough of these metals and starts demanding their paper be replaced with the real thing, their demands should cut fairly deep into Comex reserves and then the rumor mill will kick in big time. It shouldn’t take long for the word to get out that there is more paper of gold and silver out than actual gold and silver exists to back it up. Once this gets on the street it should not take long for the Comex reserves to get wiped out. Then financial chaos is right around the corner. However as chaos swirls around them those that possess actual silver and gold will see their investment shoot up perhaps skyrocket in value. I believe a conservative estimate would be to rise anywhere from 2 to 4 times in value. However given the volatility of anything financial these days I fully expect it to zoom to 5 to 10 times in value. That’s the good news if you are sitting on actual gold and silver but the bad news is really really really bad because the basis for all valuation including the stock market, the dollar the euro etc. etc. is gold and silver. Remove silver and gold from the valuation process and as one financial analyst recently told me the stock market probably drops to 25 percent of its value the dollar probably loses 30 percent of its value and so on. These figures are guesswork and possibly conservative but what is not a guess is that the value of stocks, the dollar, the euro and more will lose big chunks of their value enough to throw our fragile financial system into chaos. The value of silver and gold are bedrocks for building the valuation of currencies the stock market and other financial entities. Remove a bedrock and the house comes tumbling down or at least a good part of it probably most of it. Financial Armageddon anyone, sure we have already looked that bullet in the eye and dodged it. However, many financial wizards have predicted it could still occur and none as far as I know took into account the wipeout of the silver and gold reserves. However back to the gutsy whistleblower Maguire, he was scheduled to be interviewed back when all this broke out by all the big news outlets. However, quite suddenly all of these major media sources cancelled these interviews. So unless someone you know who is into the silver market brought this to your attention, it likely went completely under your radar. Presumably, the government the wolves of Wall Street and every other financial player who has a lot to lose are working hard to keep this on the way down low for as long as possible. I can’t really blame them for this given the impending catastrophe revealing this secret will release. However the trigger for all this going public is likely the DOJ and SEC’s investigation of JP Morgan Chase’s manipulation of the silver market. Once this investigation comes to a close there has to be some consequences which the media can’t completely ignore and then the stink storm hits the fan for most of us and for those that own silver or gold their personal value jumps up quite a bit. Between silver and gold, silver gives the much stronger appearance of giving an investor a more viable short term reward. Since the DOJ and SEC started investigating JP Morgan Chase’s very likely manipulation of silver, you no longer see silver pushed down hard after it has rallied up. In fact an interesting phenomenon has taken place recently regarding silver. Silver and gold used to be joined at the hip in that both would go up and down together as a matter of course. However, silver has continued to go up regardless of when gold goes down. Even more remarkably, silver has recently continued to go up even if the stock market goes down. This shocking behavior of silver only strengthens the case that JP Morgan was manipulating the silver market. That the silver market has such staying power is not really surprising given the big picture of high deficits, a weak dollar, a weak euro. Silver stands out as a relatively safe investment perhaps the safest investment anyone with a some extra money can make. Right now its just under $20 an ounce which is a whole lot more affordable for the average person than gold at around $1250 per ounce. Obviously, if any of you readers have some money and you can afford to sit on for 6 to 18 maybe 24 months, it is my opinion that buying actual silver or gold especially silver is one hot investment. I suggest this time frame because I suspect within ½ to 2 years the investigation of JP Morgan Chase’s obvious manipulation of the silver market will be concluded and made public. The government will no doubt drag this out as long as they can which is why I foresee this possibly lasting a good 2 years. It’s also possible that within that time frame, some enterprising filthy rich person is willing to blow up the silver and gold market to make to make themselves super rich. I wouldn’t just take my word on any of this. If this subject grabs your interest I strongly recommend you listen to an interview between Andrew Maguire and Adrian Douglass of GATA. GATA is the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee and was organized in January 1999 to advocate and undertake litigation against illegal collusion to control the price and supply of gold and related financial securities. When you hear these two speak about the inevitability of the biggest fraud in the history of man being exposed you cant help but feel that its just a matter of time before what I like to call the big bang hits our financial system. One of the questions Douglass asks Maguire is why it was allowed to happen that we now only have 1 ounce of gold and 1 ounce of silver to back a 100 ounces of each that is being sold on paper. As I recall Maguire thinks it happened because at a low point it was a quicker way to juice the financial markets and eventually it all just got way out of control. I see a parallel in the steroids era of baseball and sports in general. After the baseball strike put the sport in a dark period, the lords of baseball looked the other way while some players juiced themselves up so they could hit more home runs in one season than had ever been hit before. This created a major buzz for baseball and quickly took them out of this dark period. However when the stink hit the fan baseball would be forever tarnished and would never be the same. Apparently the fools that run our government and our financial world also looked the other way and took the short term upside gambling against the long term loss. The question begs to be asked if and when this big bang hits given all the other bullshit that the protectors of all financial have allowed to be fostered upon the general populace, will said general populace ever again trust the members of the Fed Reserve, big banks the Secretary of Treasury etc etc ad nauseam ever again. There sure isn’t much left to trust so this new catastrophe ought to really wipe out any vestige of trust the peons of Main street still have for any and all of the big financial players. I doubt if this will lead to people stuffing cash into their mattresses but it will probably lead to the creation of more state run banks like the one that now exists in Montana. To any of you who read my first piece on the silver market please accept my apology for not keeping my promise of following up right away with a second piece. If you care for an explanation, at first I delayed because the BP oil spill seemed like more than enough of a major downer for everyone to handle and I didn’t want to pile on. Then I got distracted and lazy. Now after a two week vacation I feel renewed enough to finally keep my promise. Hope it was worth the wait. Lastly a note of caution given that I am recommending you readers to spend your hard earned cash on an investment, for those thinking of jumping into buying silver or gold or any investment, when contemplating making any purchase especially big ones, there are two lines not to cross. Crossing these lines is a leap from risk taking to gambling and I strongly recommend you don’t gamble with your money. In my considered opinion an action becomes a gamble when you risk something you can’t afford to lose like betting your rent money. The other line not to cross is taking unnecessary risks. I am not suggesting you should live like you are in a straight jacket but with money it’s usually best to be cautious. Taking lots of unnecessary risks can become as addictive as betting on the ponies or sports. The reason for this is both give you an adrenaline rush. The more someone takes unnecessary risks the more likely they will get burned. With that in mind please be conscious, be cautious be smart and pick your battles or risks wisely.

Read the full article →

Video: Locke Says U.S. Doesn’t Want Trade Wars, Protectionism: Video

September 2, 2010

Sept. 3 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke talks about the country’s trade with China and other nations. China expressed “serious concern” over U.S. moves to step up enforcement of trade laws, saying they would upset international commerce and would not improve U.S. industrial competitiveness. Separately, the Obama administration rejected a plea from U.S. manufacturers to increase duties on imports from China to compensate for the effects of a weak yuan. Locke talks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Locke Says U.S. Doesn’t Want Trade Wars, Protectionism: Video

September 2, 2010

Sept. 3 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke talks about the country’s trade with China and other nations. China expressed “serious concern” over U.S. moves to step up enforcement of trade laws, saying they would upset international commerce and would not improve U.S. industrial competitiveness. Separately, the Obama administration rejected a plea from U.S. manufacturers to increase duties on imports from China to compensate for the effects of a weak yuan. Locke talks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Eric Schurenberg: Social Security Turns 75, Starts Cadging from the Kids

August 24, 2010

On Saturday, Social Security turned 75 years old. AARP chapters around the country held corny birthday parties, but they didn’t invite Stephen Goss, Social Security’s chief actuary. That might have spoiled the fun. Just a few days before, Goss and his team produced an annual trustees report acknowledging that, for the first time since 1983, the program has begun to run at a deficit-and, except for a few years in the near future, it would continue to run deeper and deeper in the red through its 150 th anniversary and beyond. That’s a heck of a depressing birthday present; it’s also a pretty grim milestone if you one day were hoping to get a decent return on a lifetime of Social Security taxes. I imagine you have some questions. What’s all this mean? Social Security used to draw more in taxes than it paid in benefits, which helped shrink the federal deficit. Now there’s a shortfall in Social Security’s cash flow, which means the system will make the deficit worse. To paraphrase the actuaries’ specific forecast: Unless taxes rise or benefits fall, the system will operate at a deficit this year and next, return to a surplus through 2014, then sink back below the surface in 2015 and never come up. Doesn’t the Social Security trust fund cover that? No, silly. All those years of surplus in Social Security were recorded in a book entry dubbed the “trust fund,” but the non-marketable special Treasury bonds that make up the fund don’t represent any assets that can be cashed in to pay benefits. What the trust fund does is give the system authority to tap the Treasury to pay for benefits, but it doesn’t help the Treasury come up with the money. The fact is, to cover benefits, you and I and Secretary Geithner and his successors have to pony up the old fashioned way-by borrowing, raising taxes, or cutting benefits elsewhere in the federal budget. Wait a minute. That’s no different from what we’d have had to do if there was no trust fund. Bingo. If you’d rather hear it from the horse’s mouth, Allan Sloane notes that this passage appeared in the 2009 Trustees’ report (though it was curiously missing from the 2010 edition): Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance [bond] redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public. Are current beneficiaries going to lose out? Really rich ones might pay more income taxes on their benefits, as well as they will on their income. But no politician is suicidal enough to touch current retirees’ benefits. Are workers going to lose out? Something will have to give to keep the system solvent, and it will inevitably be given by those of us still in the workforce. The Administration has been floating the idea of gradually raising the age at which you become entitled to full benefits. A plurality of today’s workers will retire at 62, as those before them did, but they would get a lot less than under current law. However, that’s not what taxpayers want: The most popular proposed fix for Social Security is to apply payroll taxes to every dollar that high earners earn. (Right now they’re taxed-and receive benefits based on-income only up to $106,800.) Tax rich people? Easy. And that will solve the problem? If you tax the rich enough and cut benefits enough, you can make the system self-supporting on paper. But remember, “self-supporting” in Social Security accounting means drawing on the trust fund. “Drawing on the trust fund” is just code for more borrowing, taxes or benefit cuts elsewhere in the economy. By 2037, Social Security will soak up 10 percent of all income tax receipts-on top of what the system collects in Social Security taxes. I thought Social Security was the easy entitlement to fix . It is, in the sense that you can easily see what needs to be done to make the numbers add up–as opposed to Medicare, about which no one has a clue what to do. But the fact is, we don’t fix Social Security by making the numbers add up. Social Security is a political construction, not a P&L statement, and its survival in anything like its current form depends on its seeming fair and logical to voters. Today, politicians trip over themselves promising to protect Social Security benefits. But as the boomers qualify for Social Security and Medicare and the oldest fifth of the nation start to suck up more and more of the wealth produced by their kids and grandchildren, that might change. Robert Ball, former chief actuary of Social Security, predicted that one day a President would be elected promising to cut Social Security. Hard to imagine now, but if it happened, economic historians would trace that President’s campaign back to 2010, the year that Social Security stopped paying for itself. More on CBS MoneyWatch: Shouldn’t we just privatize Social Security? Social Security and the Federal Debt: Why You Should Worry

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Corporate Rotten Eggs

August 22, 2010

There are rotten apples in every industry. Or perhaps I should say rotten eggs. One especially rotten egg is Jack DeCoster, whose commercial egg agribusiness, which goes under the homey title “Wright County Egg,” headquartered in Galt, Iowa, sends eggs all over the country under many different brands. Those eggs have now laid low thousands of Americans with salmonella poisoning, and may well infect thousands more. DeCoster is recalling 380 million eggs sold since mid-May. Another commercial egg company, also headquartered in Iowa, and in which DeCoster is a major investor, is recalling hundreds millions more. It’s not clear how recall rotten eggs are recalled. They’re not like Toyotas. They’re already in our food supply. But this is only the beginning of the story. Thirteen years ago when I was Secretary of Labor, DeCoster agreed to pay a $2 million penalty (the most we could throw at him) for some of the most heinous workplace violations I’d seen. His workers had been forced to live in trailers infested with rats and handle manure and dead chickens with their bare hands. It was an agricultural sweatshop. Several people in Maine told me the fine wouldn’t stop DeCoster. He’d just consider it a cost of doing business. Evidently they were right. DeCoster’s commercial egg business has a record that would make a repeat offender blush. In 2003, DeCoster pleaded guilty to knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants (who don’t complain about unsafe working conditions, below-minimum-wage pay, and unsanitary facilities). DeCoster paid a record $2.1 million penalty for that one. In the 1990s he was charged by Iowa authorities for violating state environmental laws governing the runoff of manure into rivers. He continued to violate environmental laws so often that the Iowa Supreme Court approved an order barring him from building more hog structures. In 2002 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission fined DeCoster’s operation $1.5 million for mistreating female workers. The charges included rape, sexual harassment, and other abuses. Earlier this year, DeCoster paid another fine to settle state animal cruelty charges against his egg operations in Maine. In other words, the current national salmonella outbreak is just the latest in a long series of DeCoster corporate crimes. He’s fostered a culture that disregards any law standing in the way of profits. Along the way, DeCoster has abused the environment, animals, his employees, and his customers. Corporations that play fast and loose with one set of laws are likely to cut corners on others. Look at Massey Energy Company, which owned the mine where 27 miners were killed several months ago. Massey also had a long record of law breaking, and had racked up an even longer list of alleged violations and settlements. Or consider BP, whose malfeasance even before the Gulf spill, included workplace safety violations, deaths, and other environmental disasters. When I was Secretary of Labor, Bridgestone-Firestone’s refused to install safety equipment resulted in the maiming or deaths of its workers in Oklahoma. A few years later, its faulty tires caused still more deaths. Some CEOs are just bad citizens, and the corporations they head get the message that the public be damned. Too often, though, one level or agency of government doesn’t know about corporate malfeasance turned up by another level or agency of government. This is especially true when violations are settled out of court, as is now common. Government doesn’t have nearly enough inspectors or lawyers to bring every rotten egg to trial. A national database of corporate crimes and settlements would tip off federal, state, and local inspectors to rotten eggs like Jack DeCoster’s agribusiness, Massey Energy, BP, Bridgestone Firestone, and other serial corporate offenders. Scarce inspection resources could be targeted at them rather than at the good eggs. Consumers could benefit as well. And the rot wouldn’t spill over to other companies now under competitive pressure to treat fines and penalties as the costs of doing business. Before we can get rid of corporate rotten eggs we need to know about them. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Video: Akbar Says U.S. Flood Aid in Pakistan May Help Relations: Video

August 19, 2010

Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) — Ghouse Akbar, director for the Akbar Group, talks about the flood catastrophe in Pakistan and the opportunity the U.S. may have to strengthen relations through foreign aid.¶ Akbar, speaking with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness,” also discusses the company’s plan to assist with rebuilding efforts. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Five Washington Excuses for Ignoring the Jobs Crisis

August 19, 2010

” Slowly but surely we are moving in the right direction. We’re on the right track. ” ~ Barack Obama, Aug. 18, 2010 President Obama’s pollyanish comments coupled with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ outburst against “the professional left” reveal just how out of touch the Obama Administration is with the tens of millions of everyday Americans who are engulfed by the jobs crisis. Obama and Gibbs are miffed at liberal pundits for complaining about the Administration’s concessions on everything from health care and financial reform to jobs creation. But Obama’s real problem isn’t Arianna Huffington or Paul Krugman. For now, liberals have no place else to go–and they’ll never cross over to the Republican Party. Instead, the Administration should be very worried about the more than 29 million Americans who have lost their jobs or are forced into part-time work. Unemployment is stuck at 9.5 percent–and that’s just the narrowest measure of joblessness. The more accurate Bureau of Labor Statistics jobless rate (U6) is over 16.5 percent. (This includes people who have stopped looking for jobs and those working part-time involuntarily.) Five workers are competing for every job opening while the average length of unemployment is over 35 weeks. If it weren’t for unemployment insurance and food stamps, we’d have Depression era soup kitchen lines going round the block. Since the 1930s struggling workers like these have flocked to the Democratic Party, which they viewed as the party of jobs. Now they’re not so sure, and the party risks losing its mass base Our current unemployment trough, by far the longest and deepest since 1937, directly violates the social compact that glues together modern industrial societies — the tacit commitment that business and government will produce a full-employment economy. When that promise goes unmet for long periods, chaos ensues. It is not an accident that the rise of fascism in Europe during the 1930s corresponded with a prolonged period of high unemployment. Unfortunately, rearmament and war also are tools to put people back to work. Our political and business leaders are playing with fire by failing to seriously address the jobs crisis. Wall Street gamblers tore an enormous hole in our economy, destroying 8 million jobs in a matter of months. Those jobs still haven’t come back and may never return. Therefore, it is the fundamental purpose of government to relentlessly attack the problem, just as we did during the Depression, with long-term funding to get people into decent, sustainable jobs. But instead of shouldering this responsibility, far too many politicians and public officials of both parties hide behind spurious arguments. Here are a few of the most outrageous: “The unemployed have only themselves to blame”: It’s remarkable how many politicians and pundits argue that joblessness is sky-high because unemployed people haven’t developed “the skills they need to compete successfully in the 21st century.” We expect that kind of twisted logic from anti-worker conservatives who think that unemployment insurance keeps workers from finding jobs (even if there are no jobs). But it’s downright pathetic when a Democratic administration sings from the same hymnal. Here’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at the pulpit: “The share of workers who have been unemployed for six months or more is at its highest level since 1948, when the data was first recorded, and we must do more to ensure that they have the skills they need to re-enter the 21st-century economy.” Dear Tim: Now that your Wall Street buddies have wrecked the economy and you’ve bailed them out, there are no jobs–except maybe for derivatives traders. What skills enable people to find nonexistent jobs? “Unemployment is a lagging indicator — the jobs are coming “: The Obama Administration and Democratic Party leaders fall prey to their own version of trickle down economics when they argue that their mammoth Wall Street bailout and puny, short-lived stimulus program will bring back jobs for regular Americans (eventually). Money was no object when it came to bailing out every bank and investment house that could possibly be put on life support. By some estimates the financial sector got over10 trillion in bailouts. Economists Nouriel Roubini and Stephen Mihm estimate that Goldman Sachs alone got60 billion in direct and indirect taxpayer largess. This huge cash infusion worked like a charm: Financial elites quickly got back to collecting fat bonuses and reopened their casinos, setting the stage for Financial Collapse 2. The Administration looked the other way. Then came a modest stimulus package designed to prime the pump with tax cuts, public works bills and programs to quickly push money into the economy. The Administration hoped that this primed pump — plus a resuscitated financial sector — would bring unemployment down below 8 percent by the mid-term elections. Unfortunately, that part of the plan didn’t work: The stimulus was far too small and diffuse to restore the millions of jobs that the financial gamblers had destroyed. We now need 22 million new jobs to get back to 5 percent unemployment. That’s a tall order — the equivalent of creating 640 Apple Computer companies, with 34,000 employees each. “We can’t afford a job creation program — it’ll increase the deficit”: It’s certainly true that the deficit is growing rapidly as a result of the Wall Street crash and bailouts. But if we want the deficit to shrink, we’ll have to put people back to work so that they start paying taxes again. We also need to place a significant windfall profits tax on the very financial elites who wrecked the economy. We wouldn’t have a deficit problem if our politicians had the will to truly tax the super-rich — those earning3 million or more a year. (More on this below.) “US workers are overpaid. Cut wages by about 20 percent and the jobs will come back”: Apparently many officials and business leaders actually believe this. Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, for example, argues that during the Great Depression, workers’ refusal to take more wage cuts during a period of deflation kept employers from hiring, driving unemployment to new heights. So…now that Wall Street has run off with the taxpayers’ money, the taxpayers need to live with less so they can have jobs. (Never mind that we’ve already stumbled through decades of stagnant wages.) Wage cuts indeed are badly needed — on Wall Street. “Government interference is creating uncertainty in the private sector and keeping companies from creating new jobs”: The government haters, reinforced by the know-nothing Tea Partyites, really believe that if government would just leave private enterprise alone, it would generate jobs for all. Maybe these folks didn’t notice that the crash we just lived through happened precisely because the government let the free market run wild. It’s probably impossible to convince ideologues that the private sector can’t police itself or create millions of new jobs all on its own — even though we’ve known this for more than 80 years. The Republican Party, hiding behind this ideology, hopes to see the economy collapse again so it can reap the rewards in November. (Might the giant Wall Street firms quietly engage in a capital strike to retard economic growth and help anti-regulatory Republicans recapture Congress? No, they wouldn’t do that… Would they?) The Republicans are hoping that by the time they take power again, the economy will quickly right itself and they can take the credit. That and the Tooth Fairy will bring us new jobs. The Republicans are playing a very dangerous game that is likely to worsen an already severe jobs crisis and send our nation into uncharted and dangerous territory. We can’t tackle the jobs crisis until we’re willing to tackle Wall Street. Both Democrats and Republicans have stood idly by as the wage gap has turned into a Grand Canyon of inequality. (In 1970, the top 100 CEOs made 45 times more than the average worker; in 2008, they made 1,081 times more. See The Looting of America ) Almost no one in Washington has the nerve to challenge Wall Street’s socially useless and reckless financial games. They’re afraid to say that it’s wrong that the top 25 hedge fund managers made as much money during 2009 as 658,000 teachers — or that the top ten hedge fund managers “earn” $900,000 an hour . The money for job creation is right there, in the hands of the elites who profited so handsomely from the financial meltdown they helped create. The American people are hungry for proposals to rectify this injustice. Why not turn Wall Street’s ill-gotten gains into programs that put our people back to work? Here’s a plan we’ll probably never hear from Democrats, Republicans or the Tea Party: Place a windfall profits tax on the super-rich who profited from our bailouts to pay for the jobs that these gamblers destroyed. Call it a windfall profits tax or a financial transaction fee. But really it’s reparations, long overdue. Tens of millions of Americans are suffering through no fault of their own. These working people didn’t buy houses they couldn’t afford. They didn’t gamble their life’s savings on derivatives and securitization.. They just went to work one day and were told their job was gone. They came home to find their neighborhood disintegrating as the housing bubble burst around them. All thanks to reckless financial games on Wall Street. Unless the Obama Administration finally organizes a major assault on the jobs crisis, there will be no relief for Mr. Gibbs or his boss. Many angry Americans — liberals and conservatives — will turn against the party in power. Too bad we no longer have a real Party of Jobs to support. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

Read the full article →

Fannie, Freddie Reform: The Government Needs To Continue Propping Up The Mortgage Market, Say Banking Execs

August 17, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP, ALAN ZIBEL ) — The Obama administration invited banking executives Tuesday to offer advice on changing the government’s role in the mortgage market. Their response: stay big. While the executives disagreed on the exact level of support needed, the group overwhelmingly advocated the government should maintain a large role propping up the nearly $11 trillion market. Bill Gross, managing director of bond giant Pimco, said the economic recovery required more government stimulus, particularly in the housing market. He suggested the administration push for the automatic refinancing of millions homes backed by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. Refinancing those homes at the lowest mortgage rates in decades would give Americans more money each month. That would boost consumer spending by $50 billion to $60 billion and lift housing prices by as much as 10 percent, he said. Without such stimulus in the next six months, Gross said, the economy will move at a “snails pace.” Treasury officials have said they have no plans to enact such a plan, which has been the subject of intense rumors on Wall Street in recent weeks. Tuesday’s conference at the Treasury Department is the administration’s first of many steps toward restructuring the troubled industry. So far, rescuing Fannie and Freddie has cost the government more than $148 billion. That number is expected to grow. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pledged “fundamental change” to the structure of Fannie and Freddie. The mortgage giants profited tremendously during good times but burdened taxpayers with losses when the housing market went bust. He said the two companies weren’t the only cause of the financial crisis, but made it worse. Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages and package them into securities with a guarantee against default. They have ensured that millions of Americans can get home loans — even after the housing market collapsed. The two companies, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration together backed about 90 percent of loans made in the first half of the year, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance. Geithner did not offer a specific exit strategy for Fannie and Freddie. He agreed that the government could remain involved in the mortgage system by guaranteeing investors in mortgage-backed securities get paid, even when borrowers default. There is a “strong case to be made” for such an arrangement, Geithner said.’ But Geithner suggested that Fannie and Freddie’s replacements could pay the government to insure the loans. That money could be tapped if the housing market collapses and would ensure taxpayers do not get hit with losses in the future. “It is our responsibility to make sure that we create a system that is not vulnerable to these same failures happening again,” Geithner said. Republicans are expected to pick up seats in Congress in November and the Obama administration will need support from both parties to enact changes next year. The Obama administration’s management of Fannie and Freddie has been under fire for months from Republicans on Capitol Hill. In December, the Treasury Department eliminated a $400 billion cap on how much money it would give the mortgage giants to keep them from failing. Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, accused the Obama administration of excluding critics of the government’s role in the mortgage system from Tuesday’s conference. In a letter to Geithner, Bachus said Treasury appears to be “laying the groundwork for a predetermined policy outcome that looks uncomfortably similar to the failed status quo.” But the industry executives and experts at the conference seemed to agree that the government should maintain a role in the mortgage market, even if Fannie and Freddie disappear someday. Where they disagreed was on the level of government involvement and whether it should be reduced gradually. Gross advocated the biggest government role. He said Fannie and Freddie’s function should be consolidated into one government agency that would issue mortgage-backed securities. Without such a solid guarantee, mortgage rates would soar, he warned. Gross said he is skeptical of having those securities issued by the private sector, saying that doing so would favor “Wall Street as opposed to Main Street.”

Read the full article →

Video: Gapen Says GSE Overhaul May Soften U.S. Housing Market: Video

August 17, 2010

Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) — Michael Gapen, senior U.S. economist for Barclays Capital, talks with Bloomberg’s Julie Hyman about the outlook for the housing market and the possible impact tighter policies governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have on the housing recovery. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan gathered housing-industry stakeholders to seek advice as the administration prepares a housing-finance overhaul to be delivered in January. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: HUD’s Donovan Discusses Mortgage Finance, Housing Market: Video

August 17, 2010

Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan talks about the mortgage-finance system and the outlook for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Donovan speaks with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: HUD’s Donovan Discusses Mortgage Finance, Housing Market: Video

August 17, 2010

Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan talks about the mortgage-finance system and the outlook for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Donovan speaks with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Fannie, Freddie Reform: Treasury Department Holds All-Star Conference To Discuss Ailing Lenders

August 17, 2010

WASHINGTON — Talk of shrinking the government’s involvement in the mortgage market is growing. Just don’t expect action any time soon. A conference Tuesday at the Treasury Department is the first of many steps toward restructuring the nearly $11 trillion mortgage market. So far, rescuing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has cost the government more than $148 billion. That number is expected to grow. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will address the conference but is not expected to offer an exit strategy Tuesday. The administration has said it won’t offer its plan until next year. Officials are pledging dramatic changes to the structure of Fannie and Freddie, which profited tremendously during good times but burdened taxpayers with losses when the housing market went bust. “We will not support a return to the system where private gains are subsidized by taxpayer losses,” Geithner said in remarks prepared for the conference. With Republicans likely to pick up seats in Congress in November, however, the Obama administration will need support from both political parties for the changes it proposes. Reflecting this reality, Geithner will say Tuesday that “the failures that produced the system we have today were bipartisan. The solution must be as well.” Executives and mortgage experts are prepared to tell Obama officials that that the government must stay in the business of backing U.S. mortgages even if Fannie and Freddie disappear someday. “At the end of the day, the government will still have a very large role to play,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a panelist at the event. Others include mortgage executives from Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co, plus Bill Gross, managing director of bond giant Pimco and Lewis Ranieri, one of the creators of mortgage bonds. The Obama administration’s management of Fannie and Freddie has been under fire for months from Republicans on Capitol Hill. In December, the Treasury Department eliminated a $400 billion cap on how much money it would give the mortgage giants to keep them from failing. Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., has called that a “taxpayer-backed slush fund” and called for the support to be wound down. Many in the mortgage industry say that’s not realistic. “There has to be a game plan,” said Paul Leonard, vice president of government affairs at the Housing Policy Council, a mortgage industry group. “You can’t just pull the plug on them.” Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages and package them into securities with a guarantee against default. They have ensured that millions of Americans can get home loans – even after the housing market collapsed. The two mortgage giants, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration together backed about 90 percent of loans made in the first half of the year, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance. At some point the government will have to scale back the level of support it provided the housing and mortgage markets during the recession and financial crisis. “The government’s footprint in the housing market needs to be smaller than it is today,” Shaun Donovan, President Barack Obama’s housing secretary, said in prepared remarks. Most of the plans being circulated to reshape the mortgage market call for the government to guarantee that investors who buy mortgage-backed securities receive their money even if borrowers default. Under this system, Fannie and Freddie could either be returned to private ownership or phased out completely. Fannie and Freddie, or their replacements, would pay the government to insure the loans. That money could be tapped if the housing market collapses. “A government guarantee is both a desirable and necessary component of the country’s housing finance system,” wrote John Gibbons, a Wells Fargo & Co. executive vice president, in a letter last month to the Treasury Department.

Read the full article →

Pioneer Power Solutions Appoints Andrew Minkow as Chief Financial Officer and Director

August 12, 2010

FORT LEE, NJ–(Marketwire – August 12, 2010) –  Pioneer Power Solutions, Inc. ( OTCBB : PPSI ) (“Pioneer”), a manufacturer of electrical equipment for utility, industrial, commercial and wind energy applications, announced the appointment of Andrew Minkow as its Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer effective immediately. Mr. Minkow was also appointed to our Board of Directors.

Read the full article →

Toyota Acceleration Probe: Initial Investigation Finds No Electronics Problems

August 11, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP, KEN THOMAS) — A government investigation into runaway Toyotas has found no new safety defects beyond problems with accelerator pedals that explain reports of sudden acceleration in the vehicles, according to preliminary findings released Tuesday. Safety experts have said vehicle electronic systems could be to blame for the problems that have led to Toyota’s massive recalls but the review by the government, while still at an early stage, has not found any evidence of those issues. Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, has recalled about 9.5 million cars and trucks since October in a quality crisis that has threatened to undermine the Japanese automaker’s reputation for building safe vehicles. Following congressional hearings, the Transportation Department and NASA have been investigating what may have caused unintended acceleration in Toyotas. The government has received about 3,000 complaints about sudden acceleration and estimated the problem could be involved in the deaths of 93 people over the last decade. The Transportation Department said it had not found any new causes of the problems beyond two previously identified in the recalls — floor mat entrapment and sticking accelerator pedals. Toyota said in a statement that the remedies the company has “developed for sticking accelerator pedal and potential accelerator pedal entrapment by an unsecured or incompatible floor mat are effective.” The automaker said it has inspected more than 4,000 vehicles and “in no case have we found electronic throttle controls to be a cause of unintended acceleration.” Investigators with NASA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have reviewed event data recorders, or vehicle black boxes, on 58 vehicles in which sudden acceleration was reported. In 35 of the 58 cases reviewed, the black boxes showed no brakes were applied. In about half of those 35 cases, the accelerator pedal was depressed right before the crash, suggesting drivers of the speeding cars were stepping on the accelerator rather than hitting the brakes. Fourteen cases showed partial braking. One case showed pedal entrapment and another showed that both the brake and the pedal were depressed. Other cases were inconclusive. The black boxes are devices that track a number of details about a vehicle around the time of an accident, including which pedals were applied and how fast the car was traveling. Olivia Alair, a Transportation Department spokeswoman, said the review of the black boxes was “one small part” of the investigation, which is expected to be completed later in the fall. Alair said they were still at an “early period in the investigation” and experts with NASA and NHTSA were “conducting research at labs across the United States to determine whether there are potential electronic or software defects in Toyotas that can cause unintended acceleration.” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and NHTSA Administrator David Strickland briefed members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the findings of the government review. LaHood and Strickland declined comment following the meeting. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has led a House investigation into the Toyota recalls, said following the briefing that the findings did not settle the issue of whether electronics could be a culprit. “We’ve got a long ways to go. We are not ready to make a conclusion one way or another,” Stupak told reporters. Toyota has said its own investigation had found a number of explanations for the sudden acceleration, including pedal entrapment by floor mats, sticking gas pedals and the misapplication of the pedals. The company has said it had not found any cases in which the electronic throttle control was the cause. Steve St. Angelo, Toyota’s chief quality officer for North America, said in a live chat on the microblogging site Twitter earlier Tuesday that the automaker had identified two causes — floor mat entrapment and sticking pedals. “We are confident that it’s not the electronics,” St. Angelo said in a tweet. Toyota paid a record $16.4 million fine for its slow response to an accelerator pedal recall and is facing hundreds of state and federal lawsuits. The automaker has sought to address the problems by fixing millions of gas pedals in recalled vehicles. Congress is considering upgrading auto safety laws in the aftermath of the Toyota recalls. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences is conducting a more sweeping review of unintended acceleration in cars and trucks across the auto industry. The panel is expected to report its findings in fall 2011. AP Business Writer Stephen Manning contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Video: Purisima Says Spending Cuts Won’t Hurt Philippine Growth: Video

August 9, 2010

Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) — Philippine Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima talks with Bloomberg’s Susan Li about the country’s finances and economy. President Benigno Aquino plans to more than halve spending growth next year, instituting a freeze on hiring and new buildings and cars, to narrow the budget deficit from the projected record this year. Purisima speaks from New York. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Joseph A. Palermo: University of Phoenix Mantra: Always Be Closing

August 6, 2010

“Always Be Closing” is the slogan of “Premiere Properties,” the fictional Chicago real estate office in David Mamet’s play, Glengarry Glen Ross. “Always Be Closing” is not only the theme of Mamet’s examination of the tyranny of the “bottom line” over human relationships, but also appears to be the driving principle behind the “University” of Phoenix’s administrators who crafted guidelines for their enrollment officers. So cynical are Phoenix’s instructions to its underlings they might even defy Mamet’s imagination. The goal is simple: rope in as many unsuspecting students as possible into as much bankruptcy-proof financial debt as possible: Creating Urgency : Getting Them to Apply NOW Remember. . . . *Students don’t buy benefits *They buy to ease or avoid pain *Finding and burrowing into that pain moves the sale to a CLOSE *Also, the close of the sale is really just a beginning Any institution that calls itself a “university” yet tells its enrollment officers to “burrow” down deep into the “pain” of its students with the aim of hooking them into government-subsidized debt to rake in the profits not only doesn’t deserve to be accredited, but should be barred from having any access to federal student aid programs. It turns out that if a for-profit “college” can “close” the sale (enrollment) of a student who only stays in school for a couple of weeks it gets to pocket a big share of that student’s federal aid. Pretty Sweet, Uh? Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa is right now trying to change this unsatisfactory situation. In the last 10 years enrollment in these for-profit diploma mills, which have their hands deep inside the till of federal student aid programs, grew from 600,000 to two million students. The federal financial aid to students at the for-profit “universities” has gone from $4.6 billion in 2000 to more than $23 billion in 2010. And the “University” of Phoenix and other “for-profits” won’t even release their dropout rate numbers! When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under George Kutz recently sent out “secret shoppers” to enroll in the “University” of Phoenix, and other for-profit “colleges,” it found that 100 percent of the time — in fifteen out of fifteen cases, (and all caught on video tape!) — the enrollment officials followed the “Always Be Closing” guidelines. Fifteen out of fifteen times they refused to answer students’ basic questions, denied them the opportunity to speak with a financial aid counselor, and even refused to provide them with information about the size of the loan they were about to sign and the timetable for repayment. The incentives are all wrong. Instead of being there to help students receive an education at an affordable cost to better prepare them to join the workforce, these “for-profits” are employing the most egregious money-grubbing tactics to bilk their students and the federal government. How’s that for an Alma Mater? Senator Harkin and the GAO’s work has exposed once and for all how utterly corrupt these for-profit “universities” and “colleges” really are. At a time when the faculties of public colleges and universities are being told by their administrators how they should imitate the for-profits like the “University” of Phoenix because they represent some sort of idealized “private sector” efficiency model Senator Harkin’s and the GAO’s revelations are all the more stunning. In California, the community college brass recently tried to ram through a transfer of credit deal with Kaplan as a way to stretch its budget. Luckily, the faculty senate refused to go along. Harkin and the GAO have just driven a stake in the heart of the monster that insists on privatizing public colleges and universities. The “University” of Phoenix, which is owned by something called “the Apollo Group,” (probably named after the moon landing because its profits are astronomical), has resisted providing documents to Harkin’s committee, the most important body in the federal government dealing with education. And where is Arne Duncan our vaunted Secretary of Education? Too busy privatizing public K through 12 schools to be bothered with reining in the for-profits that are ripping off America’s college students. The only “student learning outcomes” these for-profit corporations posing as colleges recognize are those that fill their own pockets with tax dollars that are supposed to be going to deserving students who just want an education.

Read the full article →

Video: Solis Says Small Businesses Not Using Job Incentives: Video

August 6, 2010

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton and Julie Hyman about the outlook for the U.S. labor market and government job incentives. Private payrolls that exclude government agencies rose by 71,000 last month after a June gain of 31,000 that was smaller than previously reported, Labor Department figures in Washington showed today. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Hubbard Says Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended to 2012: Video

August 5, 2010

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) — Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business, talks about tax cuts passed during the administration of George W. Bush that are set to expire Dec. 31. Hubbard also discusses U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s pledge to speed implementation of new financial rules. Hubbard talks with Matt Miller and Lizzie O’Leary on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Former Treasury Secretary O’Neill Discusses Tax Policy: Video

August 5, 2010

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) — Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, a senior adviser and consultant to Blackstone Group LP, talks about the need for “fundamental tax reform” instead of a political debate over the extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Geithner: America Is Less Equal Today Partly Due To Bush Tax Cuts

August 4, 2010

The country is less equal today than it was just a decade ago thanks in part to the Bush tax cuts, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday. “[T]he policies put in place by the previous administration, prior to this great recession, have left us with a terrible legacy of challenges,” Geithner said during a discussion on fiscal policy at the Washington-based Center for American Progress . “And America is a less equal country today than it was ten years ago, in part because of the tax cuts for the top 2 percent put in place in 2001 and 2003.” The Bush tax cuts, credited with job creation during the George W. Bush administration, are now credited with expanding the nation’s ever-increasing national debt. More jobs have been destroyed than the tax cuts could ever claim to have created, and with the economy in a moderate recovery the tax cuts have become less an economic issue than a political one: Most Republicans, hoping to push their supply-side theories, want to extend them in hopes that the rich will spend, invest and create jobs in the process; Democrats, in an attempt to appeal to deficit-conscious voters, want them to expire so that the increased government revenue can be used to pay down the national debt. Economists and policymakers, while not discounting the positive effects that continued tax cuts can have on the economy, have stressed that the best course would be to allow the cuts to expire. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a noted libertarian who was not opposed to the tax cuts when proposed during his tenure, has advocated that they should be allowed to expire. The administration, too, is advocating their demise. And on Wednesday, Geithner laid out an argument touching not just on the fiscal and economic benefits — he touched on the fairness of it all, too. “The most affluent 400 earners in 2007 — who earned an average of more than $340 million dollars each that year — paid only 17 percent of their income in tax, a lower rate than many middle class families,” he said. “The legacy of the crisis is millions of unemployed Americans, idled factories, a national debt swollen by eight years of deficit spending and growing income inequality. “We live in one of the richest economies in the world,” the Treasury Secretary continued. “But one in eight Americans is on food stamps today.” Macroeconomic Advisers, an economic consultancy led by former Fed governor Laurence H. Meyer, estimated this week that allowing only those Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans to expire would trim about 0.2 percent from growth over 2011 and 2012. But while the group warns against letting all of the tax cuts expire, the demise of those benefiting the rich — though likely to result in a nominal hit to growth — would be worth it, the group said. “[G]iven the still tentative recovery… we believe that the consideration of such large tax increases should be delayed until the economy is growing more strongly,” the consultancy said in its report. “An intermediate, and safer, near-term strategy is to let expire in 2011 just those provisions affecting high-income individuals while extending the other provisions until they can be considered in the context of a healthier economy.” Geithner argued Wednesday that extending the cuts for the rich “would hurt economic recovery by undermining confidence that we are prepared to make a commitment today to bring down our future deficits. “Fiscal discipline requires hard choices and we must be prepared to make them,” he said. “[T]here is no credible argument to be made that the purpose of government is to borrow from future generations of Americans to finance an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent.”

Read the full article →

Video: Grasso Says Geithner Understands Financial Rules Balance: Video

August 2, 2010

Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) — Richard Grasso, former chief executive officer of the New York Stock Exchange, talks about the outlook for enforcement of new U.S. financial rules. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the federal government will move swiftly to carry out the mandate of legislation designed to overhaul financial regulation. Grasso speaks with Matt Miller and Lizzie O’Leary on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kimmitt Says U.S. Needs Favorable Corporate Tax Policy: Video

July 29, 2010

July 29 (Bloomberg) — Former Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt talks about the need for favorable U.S. corporate tax policy to attract foreign investments. Kimmitt, speaking with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness,” also discusses the U.S. economy and growth outlook. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Arianna Huffington: Fear Factor: What’s Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers?

July 27, 2010

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs lauded Elizabeth Warren as “a terrific candidate” to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: “I don’t think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her.” So why isn’t the White House rushing to nominate her for the position? In a word: fear. The same fear-based approach that caused the administration to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus before her name had even been uttered on Fox News is once again rearing its head in the decision-making process over Warren. This time, it’s not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama’s backbone turning to mush — it’s the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out). According to the National Journal , the banking industry “privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency.” Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times , “whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks.” Warren is far and away the best person for the position. Picking her is a no-brainer. For many high-level positions, such as a Supreme Court justice, a president will often say he’s looking for the “best candidate” when, in fact, there isn’t one “best candidate.” But this is that rare occasion when there truly is a single best candidate. When it comes to heading the Consumer Bureau, there is Elizabeth Warren — and there is everybody else. Not only is she one of the country’s foremost experts on bankruptcy law and the multiple ways in which banks trick and trap consumers, she’s been the leading advocate for the creation of the agency, which the banking industry worked night and day to kill. In fact, it was Warren who came up with the idea for the agency in the first place, in a paper she wrote in 2007. Her entire career has been devoted to the issues the agency is being created to address. So obvious is the choice of Warren as the inaugural head of the Consumer Bureau that nearly a dozen senators and over 60 members of the House have already publicly come out in her favor. And over 200,000 people — i.e. consumers — have signed a petition urging her nomination. Here are a few examples of the support she’s getting: Sen. Al Franken : “In my consideration, I think Elizabeth would be the best.” Rep. Barney Frank (chair of the House committee that drafted the financial reform bill): “She’s far and away the best candidate.” Sen. Bernie Sanders : “No one in our nation could do a better job.” Rep. Rosa DeLauro : “In my living room with many members of congress, she predicted what was going to happen several years ago. As she put it in 2007, consumers cannot buy a toaster that has a one in five chance of bursting into flames but they can enter into a mortgage that has the same one in five chance of putting them out onto the street…Professor Warren we cannot, Ma’am, do it without you.” Sen. Jeff Merkley : “I support Elizabeth Warren…She has both the clarity of the need for an agency that has as its top mission protecting citizens against tricks, traps and scams, and she has the ability to articulate that vision. She has the leadership skills and the knowledge of the financial world. She has the full set of requirements to be an effective leader.” Sen. Tom Udall : “Should [the president] decide to nominate her to lead the Bureau, it will be a clear sign that the Bureau will be a champion for the American consumer, will stand up to unscrupulous actors and will not shrink from…fulfilling its mission under pressure.” Then there was this argument in her favor: She is an enormously effective advocate for reform. Probably the most effective advocate for consumer protection in the country. She has huge credibility and she played a decisive role in helping make the public case for reform and she was early on this, way ahead of everybody else. That, as it happens, was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking Sunday on ABC’s This Week . So why has Geithner stopped short of endorsing Warren (and, indeed, privately argued against her)? And why, as HuffPost’s Jason Linkins put it , is the White House still “hesitating, looking for all the world like it is going to veer away from tapping Warren for the sort of job she was born to do?” Fear. You know what they say: give a man some fear, and you make him fearful for a day — teach a man to scare himself, and you make him fearful for life. The administration has taken the lesson to heart. And the courage-killing virus isn’t confined just to one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Sen. Chris Dodd told NPR’s Diane Rehm, “The question is, ‘is she confirmable?’ And there’s a serious question about it.” And today he challenged Robert Gibbs’ assertion that Warren is “very confirmable”: “How does he know that?” Dodd said to TPM. Nothing fortifies your opponents like signaling your willingness to surrender. A different approach would be to do the right thing, welcome the fight, and make your case to the American people. “Are the Republicans, when we bring her name up, going to argue that she shouldn’t be confirmed because she’s too tough on the big banks and too tough on the financial industry?” asked Sen. Tom Harkin. “Boy, that’ll get them a lot of votes in November!” And if Senate Democrats don’t have the stomach for the fight, there is a provision in the financial reform bill the president signed into law last week that allows the Treasury Secretary to name someone to head the Consumer Bureau until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee. And there is no deadline on how long the Secretary’s appointee may serve. “The statute gives the Treasury Secretary the obligation to get it done, but doesn’t tell him how to get it done,” says Gail Hillebrand of the Consumers Union. “Consumers have been waiting a long time. The sooner we can get it off the ground the better.” So the administration has no excuses left for not nominating Warren — including the threat of a Republican filibuster. And given that her opponents, shameless though they are, can’t just come out and say, “We’re against her just because we’re doing the banks’ biding,” what argument can they make? One currently being test-marketed is that because Warren is such a zealous advocate for consumers she would somehow be bad for “innovation.” You know, the kind of innovation that brought us credit default swaps, teaser rates, 600 percent payday loan rates, and that led to widespread foreclosures and bankruptcies. This line of reasoning is akin to saying that we don’t want our police force to be very vigilant, lest it diminish criminal innovation. Warren herself addressed this ludicrous claim in a paper in 2008: Thanks to effective regulation, innovation in the market for physical products has led to greater safety and more consumer-friendly features. By comparison, innovation in financial products has produced incomprehensible terms and sharp practices that have left families at the mercy of those who write the contracts. Which, of course, is exactly why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the first place. If someone with Warren’s skill set and perspective isn’t named to head it, why even bother creating it? Just so another banking industry shill has a place to cool his heels before adding a few zeros to his salary when he quits and joins the companies he was ostensibly regulating? Given that this is the usual M.O. of how regulatory agencies in Washington work, it’s all the more important to name Warren so she can start the Consumer Bureau off on the right foot — as a true voice for the people. So which way will Obama go? If he makes his decision on the merits, Elizabeth Warren will be the first head of the Consumer Bureau. If he makes his decision out of fear, she won’t be. For guidance, he should listen carefully to these words: All too often — our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent… if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. That was Barack Obama in May of last year, talking about the Bush administration’s approach to national security in the wake of 9/11. As he finds himself in a different kind of “season of fear,” will he use his insights as a guide to his decision? Appointing Elizabeth Warren will demonstrate that the detour his administration took to Feartown with Shirley Sherrod was a lesson learned. P.S. Check out this post by HuffPost’s Social News editor Adam Clark Estes, to learn all about our new pairing with Meetup that, as Adam puts it, aims “to turn the conversations about the news on our site into face-to-face encounters.”

Read the full article →

Sheldon Filger: European Bank Stress Tests are Tragic-Comedic Farce

July 26, 2010

When the Obama Administration assumed office in early January 2009, the President’s chosen Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, was already on record as estimating that the United States banking sector was in such dire straits resulting from the global financial and economic crisis triggered by the collapse of leading investment banks on Wall Street, it would require $2 trillion in government bailouts to repair the damage. However, once in power, President Obama and Secretary Geithner were reluctant to ask American taxpayers for another handout for Wall Street after the highly unpopular $700 billion TARP bailout. Their response was to rig a series of so-called banking stress tests, which were completed in the spring of 2009. Only months after the near implosion of the global financial system, Geithner’s stress tests supposedly showed that the U.S. banks were in such excellent shape, only a handful required a measly $75 billion in recapitalization, a sum that could be easily raised through private investors. Never mind that Geithner’s stress tests incorporated “worst case” unemployment rates that were already eclipsed by the summer of 2009 and other less-than-rigid assumptions. The market seemed to be charmed by Geithner’s charade, attested to by rising equity values of financial firms. Now the Europeans hope they can pull off the same performance. With much fanfare, the Committee of European Banking Supervisors has announced the results of their own engineered bank stress tests, involving 91 banking institutions in 20 European countries. The architects of this banking Eurofest knew they could not show that all 91 had “passed” the stress tests, as this would simply not be credible even to the most gullible. For that reason, seven banks were selected as sacrificial lambs, and revealed as having failed the stress test, including five relatively minor Spanish banks, as well as the much larger state-owned German property and municipal funding specialist, Hypo Real Estate. This latter financial institution was so heavily weighted with toxic real estate assets, providing it with a passing grade would clearly have given the game away. However, despite the not unclever manipulation engaged in by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, a growing number of observers and investors have begun to see through this farcical exercise. Consider this; how valid can a stress test of European banks saturated with government bonds and other long-term public debt instruments really be if the supposed “worst case scenario” envisions no possibility of sovereign debt default in Europe? Only months after Greece was on the verge of public debt default without a massive Eurozone financial bailout, in turn funded by European countries that are themselves becoming increasingly mired in a profound sovereign debt crisis? Neither did the tests consider the possibility of a real estate or commodities crash, despite warnings that, among other dire possibilities, a global commercial real estate crash is increasingly likely. The authors of this banking stress test would have one believe that not a single UK bank is in danger from worsening economic developments, despite a warning issued by analysts at the Royal Bank of Scotland to senior British policymakers in January 2009, entitled “Living on a Prayer,” which stated that almost the entire banking sector of the United Kingdom was “technically insolvent.” In February 2009, the European Union’s own executive branch, the European Commission, issued a confidential report, subsequently leaked to the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph , which warned that European banks collectively held as much as 18.6 trillion euros in toxic assets. In the past 18 months we have witnessed a massive expansion of public debt across Europe to fund economic stimulus programs, which has produced at best anemic or stagnant growth figures, at the price of catastrophic levels of sovereign debt, prompting these same countries to now reverse fiscal policy and revert to budget trimming austerity measures. The likely outcome is clear; a double-dip recession in Europe, in conjunction with a lack of financial capacity by European taxpayers to again bail out their banking system to the same profligate degree that was undertaken after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. As with Timothy Geithner, the architects of the European banking stress tests hope that investors and the general public will believe their farce, based on totally unrealistic and overly-optimistic scenarios. In the case of Europe, the fervent desire is that the banks which are rightfully worried about counter-party risk will jettison their well-founded anxieties, and resume interbank-lending and credit flows at pre-crisis levels. However, as the American experience reveals, a banking stress test based on public relations requirements rather than realistic financial and economic modeling may boost the stock price of major banks, justifying massive bonus payments to banking executives. However, as a solution for the continuing credit crunch and economic turmoil, it is no more than a tragic-comedic farce designed by committee.

Read the full article →

Barney Frank: Elizabeth Warren Should Head CFPB, By Recess Appointment If Necessary

July 23, 2010

If President Obama fears Elizabeth Warren won’t be confirmed by the Senate to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he should just appoint her while the Senate is on one of its many vacations, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank said Friday. Referring to her as “far and away the best candidate,” Frank said Warren, a noted consumer advocate and bailout watchdog who conceived the agency in a 2007 article, not only cares about protecting consumers but also has the political chops to get things done for them in Washington. “If [Warren] can’t be confirmed she should be a recess [appointment],” Frank, who helped shepherd the recently-enacted financial reform bill into law, told the Huffington Post on Friday. “Given the way [the Senate has] misused the filibuster… given it’s anti-Democratic, I think the President did exactly the right thing with Donald Berwick,” the 15-term Massachusetts Congressman added, referring to an earlier Obama recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services. Warren, a popular pick to lead the new consumer agency she envisioned, has seen her chances threatened by other candidates for the job. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner prefers Michael Barr, his assistant secretary for financial institutions and a veteran of the Clinton-era Treasury, according to people familiar with Geithner’s views. White House officials say the shortlist also includes Eugene Kimmelman, a former top official at consumer advocacy groups Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and Public Citizen who now works in the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Warren’s critics cite as black marks her perceived lack of management experience, her distaste for Washington politics and, curiously, her vigorous advocacy on behalf of consumers. But Frank pushed back against those arguments, particularly on the question of Warren’s political savvy. “I think, frankly — and I’ve said this to [administration officials] — she’s the ‘advocate’, supposedly, and Michael Barr is the ‘inside guy’. But, frankly, Michael Barr’s initial proposal for the consumer agency had some problems in it politically that Elizabeth understood and helped us work around,” Frank said. “So I think she’s better even on the political side of it. She’s the better choice.” Warren is a noted defender of the middle class, widely respected for her research on debt-strapped Americans, bankruptcy and the working poor. White House senior adviser David Axelrod lauded her efforts last week during a conference call with reporters — though he stopped short of endorsing her for the CFPB, noting “there are other candidates.” “Elizabeth Warren is a great, great champion for consumers and middle-class families across the country,” Axelrod said. “She has helped inform this effort greatly and what has been done here in many ways reflects something she’s been advocating for years and years and years.” Earlier this week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd expressed reservations about Warren’s odds of being confirmed by the Senate. White House officials quickly shot back, assuring reporters that Warren is “confirmable.” Frank said he doesn’t really care. “There is some concern that she would be hard to confirm,” he allowed. “My answer is, in the first place, I’m not sure I’d want anybody who’s easy to confirm given the way the Senate is.” Frank resisted efforts to water down the financial reform bill’s consumer protection provisions. In fact, when asked what he thought of placing the consumer agency inside the Federal Reserve — a place it will soon occupy thanks to a series of compromises — Frank reportedly asked if it was a “joke.” “Secondly, I don’t think you give in to the threat of a filibuster,” Frank continued. “I think you make them do it. There would be such strong support for her that she would get confirmed. “I think she has a strong populist appeal,” he added. The New Republic reported Friday that Charles Fried , a former solicitor general under Ronald Reagan who supported the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, supported Warren for the consumer position. “I support capitalism, and I don’t like thieves. And the people who got us into this mess are thieves, or there are a lot of thieves among them,” Fried, one of Warren’s colleagues at Harvard Law School, told TNR. “She’s far and away the best candidate,” Frank said. “And… though there’s some concern, I guess, over whether she could be confirmed, that’s no reason not to go ahead and make the fight.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Dems Demand That Salazar Stop Dragging His Heels And Investigate BP Whistleblower Allegations

July 23, 2010

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still has yet to conduct a formal interview with Ken Abbott, a whistleblower from BP’s Atlantis rig where operators are allegedly missing engineering documentation essential to averting another oil rig disaster. This week, House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and 17 other members of Congress asked Salazar to sit down and talk to Abbott. “A long, thorough investigation is certainly called for,” wrote Slaughter and her colleagues, “but in the meantime… immediate steps are absolutely necessary in order to assure that the Atlantis does not turn into an even larger disaster than the Deepwater Horizon.” Abbott first brought his safety concerns before the Minerals Management Service last year, and this past June he testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals. Lawmakers expressed dismay this week that Interior has not even attempted to confirm Abbott’s allegations, instead letting the Atlantis continue operating only 190 miles south of New Orleans. “If there is even a small chance that the Atlantis is a ‘ticking time bomb’ as some have called it, the pace at which the Department has worked to resolve the questions raised about the Atlantis’ safety is worrisome,” the congressional letter reads. Though the Minerals Management Service — now renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement — had vowed to investigate Abbott’s claims and report their findings in May, Salazar said last month that the probe had only just begun. “Given the quantity of records and need for MMS to focus on responding to the Deepwater Horizon accident, the investigation is only approximately 10 percent complete,” he said .

Read the full article →

Geithner Refuses To Say Whether He’d Be Happy With Warren Leading Consumer Agency

July 22, 2010

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner conspicuously stopped short of endorsing Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Thursday morning. And while he praised her for her effective advocacy on behalf of consumers, he also refused to say whether he would be happy if she got the job. “I think she would be a very effective leader of that institution,” he said. At a breakfast meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor , Geithner said he has not yet made his recommendation to President Obama about who should be nominated for the post. Asked who else might be in the running, Geithner noted that his “colleagues in the White House have put out two other names.” Those are Michael Barr, the assistant treasury secretary for financial institutions, and Gene Kimmelman, chief counsel for competition policy in the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Both have backgrounds in consumer advocacy, but nevertheless are seen as more sympathetic to Wall Street than Warren. Geithner called them “two very well-qualified, excellent candidates as well” and added: “I’ve heard of others.” Warren is the grass-roots favorite for the job, with strong backing from congressional Democratic leaders, consumer groups and unions. A Harvard Law professor specializing in bankruptcy, it was her idea to create a consumer financial protection agency in the first place, and she led the fight to get it included in the financial reform legislation Obama signed into law on Wednesday. In her role as chair of the congressional bailout oversight panel, she has emerged as a scourge of Wall Street bankers and their supporters — and sometimes Tim Geithner as well . “Everything we do in this area should be subject to brutal, independent evaluation,” Geithner said Thursday. “And she has played a role in that.” He added: “I don’t agree with all the conclusions she reaches.” Indeed, it is something of an open secret in Washington that there is no love lost between the two. And the Huffington Post reported last week that according to one unnamed source, Geithner has privately expressed his opposition to her nomination. Geithner on Thursday said the leader of the agency should bring credibility and “fresh perspective” to the job. And he called Warren “one of the most effective advocates for reform in the country.” He acknowledged her role as a champion of those who “view the system as fundamentally broken.” Nevertheless, it seems likely that the only way Warren will get the job is if Geithner is overruled. Geithner took questions on a variety of other topics. Unlike Obama’s top political advisors , he waved off as inconsequential the Business Roundtable’s recent 54-page letter to the White House asking for changes in regulations that protect the environment, workers, consumers and investors. “That was a long diffuse list of political concerns” that reflected “nothing remarkable” he said. “There’s nothing remarkable about businesses saying there’s too much regulation.” He spoke optimistically about what he called a moderate economic recovery, and said the fact that the U.S. can still sell its debt at low interest rates is a reflection of the international community’s confidence in the nation’s economic strength. “I think that’s an encouraging sign and it’s worth reflecting on that,” he said. And Geithner was asked how he felt about the family of recently deceased Yankees owner George Steinbrenner avoiding about $500 million in taxes because estate taxes lapsed in 2010. “I think it is a terribly troubling thing that the United States of America would let that lapse and leave its future uncertain for such a long period of time,” he said. But when asked if he would ask the family to voluntarily contribute the money to deficit reduction, Geither’s only response was: “It’s an excellent question.” ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Janine R. Wedel: Shadow Elite: Selling Out Uncle Sam & Outsourcing American Power

July 22, 2010

This is the first of a Shadow Elite series, investigating the game-changing effects of government contracting on the most vital government functions. It’s one of those ideas that might seem sensible at first-glance: retired military officers hired to serve as “senior mentors” to the armed forces. Only on closer inspection are the potential conflicts of interest revealed: the retired officers were paid by contractors, advising on military services even as they were consulting for companies seeking to sell military products, as reported by USA Today . When news of the program came to light, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered changes, but the paper reported Tuesday that “senior mentors will not have to disclose their business ties or finances to the public, under a [July 8 Defense] directive…That falls below what [Defense Secretary Gates] initially called for….” This Pentagon program is not simply an isolated conflict of interest story, or “coincidence of interest”–where players craft roles across organizations to serve their own agendas, instead of those of the organizations for which they supposedly work. It illustrates the perils of a governing landscape that has transformed in recent years: where once federal employees executed most government work, today more than 75 percent of that work, measured in terms of jobs, is contracted out and many of these jobs involve government functions. Many contractors are integrally involved in formulating and influencing policy on issues ranging from defense (as seen in the mentoring program), to the economy and energy to homeland security and intelligence. Even when many, if not most, of these contractors perform admirably, whether contractors always have the public interest at heart, or whether, beholden to shareholders, they might have their own, is a crucial question. The Washington Post reported this week on the influence of contractors and the unmanageable growth of the intelligence community since 9/11. I also studied this development (in the area of intelligence and beyond) as part of my research for my book Shadow Elite and in a follow-on study (supported by the Ford Foundation), Selling Out Uncle Sam: How the Myth of Small Government Undermines National Security , soon to be released. In addition to interviews with government and contractor officials, I poured through piles of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, inspectors general audits,and congressional testimony evaluating the role of contractors in federal agencies. And a key finding that emerges is that information that once was or should be in official hands is being privatized, ceded to government contractors, at a time when government oversight is increasingly overwhelmed and undercut. When information that is supposedly of and for government is in private hands, it is not just that government often isn’t kept in the loop. The information, and the power that goes with it, can be used to serve private agendas with the risk of corporate and private players influencing policy to suit those agendas. This is far more insidious than simply hiring a contractor to provide food service or even contracting security assistance in a war-zone like Iraq. Contractors are now routinely carrying out what’s known as “inherently governmental functions,” the work so fundamental to the public interest that only federal workers should conduct. The privatization of information is especially dangerous when these core functions are outsourced. Take the case of the Pentagon senior mentors. Under that program, the selection of mentors, the identity of their defense clients, and the mentors’ pay levels were locked in a black box beyond government and public scrutiny. The latest news suggests that mentors won’t have to disclose financial interests, but even if that changes, and the officers eventually adhere to new ethics regulations, or are hired directly by the Pentagon as part-timers, this will only chip away at the margins of the information deficit. The fact is that, while contributing their invaluable experience, these officers also glean invaluable inside information. It is hard to imagine that they erase what they learn as mentors when they conduct their work as defense industry executives or consultants, and vice-versa. In the area of the economy, contractors manage – and more – taxpayer stimulus and bailout money, giving them access to should-be government information. With regard to the $700 billion so-called TARP money, the Treasury Department hired several contractors to set up a process to disburse the bailout funds. The government also enlisted money manager BlackRock to help advise and manage the Bear Stearns and AIG rescues. BlackRock also won a bid to help the Federal Reserve evaluate hard-to-price assets of Freddie Mac and Morgan Stanley. The Wall Street Journal said: BlackRock’s multiple hats put it in the enviable position of having influence on setting the prices of both the assets it is buying and selling. Another big area of concern is in the outsourcing of information technologies. An estimated upwards of three-quarters of governmental IT was outsourced even before the major Iraq war-related push to contract out. While outsourcing certain IT functions, such as computer network services, may be unproblematic or even desirable, IT often can’t be separated from other mission-critical operations. Contractors often control crucial databases. For instance, in a 2004 Homeland Security mega-contract, Accenture LLP was granted up to $10 billion to supervise and enlarge a mammoth government project to track foreign citizens entering and exiting the U.S. How did private and corporate interests seize the upper hand from government? A key reason for the information deficit is the sharp decline in the number of government oversight officials, relative to contractors. In theory, contracts and contractors are overseen by government employees. But the number of civil servants who could potentially oversee contractors fell during the Clinton administration and continued to drop during the Bush years. The contracting business boomed under Bush, while what is commonly called the “acquisition work force”–government workers charged with the conceptualization, design, awarding, use, or quality control of contracts and contractors–has remained virtually constant. The paucity of oversight is the reason large procurement operations are identified by the GAO as “high risk” due to “their greater susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.” It also leaves government officials dangerously in the dark about what’s going on, since contractors frequently control the information. Government officials are often reliant on what the contractors report and recommend, especially when a sole contractor carries out a given program or project (as is often the case). As a top GAO official, Katherine Schinasi reported that, in many cases, government deciders scarcely supervise the companies on their payrolls. (And routinely, contractors are also hiring and overseeing other contractors.) Nearly a year before the 2003 Iraq combat began, the army reported to Congress that its best guess was that it directly or indirectly employed between 124,000 and 605,000 service contract workers–a discrepancy of half a million workers. And, as the GAO’s director of acquisition and sourcing management reported, At this point, DOD [the Defense Department] does not know how well its services acquisition processes are working, which part of its mission can best be met through buying services, and whether it is obtaining the services it needs while protecting DOD’s and the taxpayers’ interests. When contractors have superior information, they have the edge over their government overseers. Disincentives for contractors to share unbiased information are many, ranging from extra work required to the possibility that the information could become available to potential competitors or that it could lead to discovery of contractor activities that might be disapproved. And when officials receive incomplete or skewed information, the public interest easily can be compromised. Even when government officials approve projects and decisions, they sometimes may be merely rubber stamping the work of contractors. With regard to many arenas of government, government investigators have raised questions about who drives policy–government or contractors?–and whether government has the information, expertise, institutional memory, and personnel to manage contractors. Or is it the other way around? A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal asked in a headline whether the U.S. government was “outsourcing its brain.” With contractors able to hoard public information, influence policy, and put blinders on government supervision, the unavoidable answer to that question appears to be “yes’. Government that literally doesn’t know what it is doing can scarcely be operating effectively. Moreover, it is vulnerable on all fronts. Linda Keenan edits the Shadow Elite column.

Read the full article →