sports

How Can You Stand Out On Twitter?

March 5, 2012

Worried that people aren’t reading your tweets? In a study led by Carnegie Mellon University, Twitter users rated only 36 percent of the tweets they received as worth reading , while they considered 25 percent not worthwhile, and they were ambivalent about the other 39 percent. What type of tweets do readers like most? Tweets that pose questions, tweets that share information, and even self-promotional tweets (such as links to the tweeter’s own content) were most popular. Least popular were tweets about someone’s current mood or activity, negativity or complaints, and overuse of Twitter symbols such as hashtags and @. “Special hatred was reserved for Foursquare location check-ins,” the report states. Why it matters to your business: Twitter can be a great tool for small-business owners, but outside of watching how many retweets you get or followers you attract, it’s often hard to determine how effective your tweets are at engaging the audience. This study provides at least some insight into what does and doesn’t work to attract and keep your audience — and more importantly, how not to alienate them.

Read the full article →

Ted Kaufman: Too Big to Fail and the Volcker Rule

March 5, 2012

When I was in the Senate back in 2009-2010 there were disagreements about virtually every element of Wall Street reform. But everyone, Republican or Democrat, agreed that the American taxpayer should never again have to bail out a bank because it was “too big to fail”– so large and so intricately a part of our financial system that if it wasn’t bailed out it could cause another economic meltdown. Many of us, led by Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell, believed that the only foolproof way to do away with TBTF banks was to reinstate the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. For the next 66 years, Glass Steagall separated commercial banks, whose deposits were federally insured, from investment banks, which were free to engage in riskier investment strategies. But Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999. Wall Street banks took greater and greater risks, including credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities. The result of this seems, in retrospect, to have been inevitable. Our attempt to reinstate Glass Steagall went nowhere. Instead, what I have always thought of as a fig leaf — the so-called Volcker Rule — was attached to the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which became law in July 2010. The can was kicked down the road; the Act left it up to regulators to write rules that would prevent banks from making the risky investments that led to the bailouts. What we are seeing happen right now proves that universal agreement on a goal — no possibility of a future bank bailout — doesn’t necessarily mean that goal will be achieved. Our major banks are still too big to fail. In fact they are bigger than they were back in 2008 before the wave of forced mergers where the big banks gobbled up Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual and more. You would be hard pressed to find an independent economist or business writer who doesn’t agree with that TBTF assessment. “Independent” is the key word here. There are any number of economic voices associated with the Wall Street banks’ relentless public relations campaign to protect them from “the cost of federal regulation.” They want us to forget what the lack of financial regulation cost the U.S. economy back in 2008 — in terms of jobs, lost homes and a ballooning deficit. The lobbying campaign over the past few months to influence the regulators in charge of implementing the Volcker rule has been something to behold. A study conducted by Duke Law School Professor Kimberly Krawiec shows that between July 26, 2010 and October 11, 2011, 93.2 percent of those who visited with Securities Exchange Commissioners or staff about the Volcker amendment were financial institutions, law firms, accounting firms, trade associations, lobbyists or policy advisors who represented financial institutions. The remaining 6.8 percent represented public interest or union groups. October 2011 was the month the regulators released a 300+ page draft proposal about implementing the Volcker rule. It included 1,300 questions, asking for public input. Has there been input since then? You bet. Press reports make it clear that the imbalance in lobbying cited by Professor Krawiec has gotten worse. In the past three months, Goldman Sachs alone has met with the regulators six times. When the February 13 deadline for comments was reached, an avalanche of mail from the Wall Street banks and their supporters poured into the SEC. Given the one-sided input the regulators have received, it is difficult to imagine implementing a Volcker rule with real teeth. My initial reaction, that it was a fig leaf, is about to be proven true. In just one year’s time, a rule that was supposed to confront the very real problem of banks making high-risk bets with government-insured deposits will have evolved into a watered-down version that will do little to solve our continuing TBTF problem. Here’s just one reminder about what that problem would entail. More than three years after it declared, we still have not resolved the relatively simple Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, mainly because of the lack of resolution authority across international lines. Can you imagine how long it would take to resolve a Citibank bankruptcy — involving over $2 trillion in assets and hundreds of international relationships? The impact on the world’s financial markets would be catastrophic. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You don’t have to be an Einstein to recognize this TBTF insanity for what it is.

Read the full article →

New Hope For Detecting Serious Orthopedic Infections?

March 5, 2012

* U.S. doctors perform 800,000, knee, hip procedures a year * Other uses could include flu, blood stream infection By Debra Sherman CHICAGO, March 4 (Reuters) – Infection poses one of the most serious risks to patients getting a hip or knee replaced, and a major U.S. drugmaker is developing a test to quickly identify the pathogens responsible so doctors can treat problems sooner. Abbott Diagnostics Group, a unit of Abbott Laboratories , is working with privately held Genetics Laboratory Inc, whose expertise is in orthopedics, to develop the test. It will be based on Abbott’s PLEX-ID system for identifying microbes, and is expected to help doctors detect infections that become rooted in the body’s joints long before they become apparent through physical symptoms. “This is a completely new way of diagnosing infectious disease,” Dave Ecker, divisional vice president at Abbott Molecular, said in an interview. “It is currently dominated by technology using cultures, which is a 150-year-old technology. We are long overdue for an advance.” Once Abbott and Genetics Laboratory build the test, an application specific to identifying orthopedic infection would require approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which could take 5 years, Ecker said. “Orthopedics is one of the leading opportunities for this technology because of what it’s able to do for patients who have orthopedic infections, which are difficult to diagnose by conventional methods,” Ecker said in an interview . “But it has broader applications. This is a one-stop shop for infectious disease,” he said, referring to illnesses from blood stream and respiratory infections, to influenza. About 800,000 knee and hip replacement procedures are performed annually in the United States, and complications related to infections occur in about two percent of those procedures, according to a 2009 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. More than 70,000 joint revisions are performed annually in the United States, with more than 15 percent of hip and 25 percent of knee revisions caused by infections. Revisions are often more expensive and complicated than the original surgery. LONG-TERM RISK PLEX-ID was originally used by U.S. government biodefense researchers who wanted to rapidly identify pathogens used in a potential bioterrorism attack. The PLEX-ID system can identify a broad variety of pathogens within 5 to 6 hours by weighing the DNA of the microorganism. In orthopedic cases, the standard method of identifying pathogens is by taking a culture, which can take several days to grow and produce a result. Blood tests and joint fluid analysis can also give clues about the presence of an infection, but results can take time and may be inconclusive. Dr. Javad Parvizi, an orthopedic surgeon at the Rothman Institute in Philadelphia, noted that infections are a risk during surgery itself, but may also occur a decade after a knee or hip replacement. He is not involved in the Abbott venture. About 4 percent of hip and knee replacement patients suffer infection within the first 10 years after the procedure. Prosthetic joint infection is the number one cause of knee replacement failures and the second most common cause of hip replacement failures, he said. Infections in joint replacements have been on the rise, partly because of the growing number of people with prosthetic implants and the fact that detection has improved. But patients are also at higher risk because there are more antibiotic-resistent bacteria lurking around hospitals, said Parvizi. Abbott’s PLEX-ID can identify bacteria, viruses, fungi and certain parasites. It also provides information on drug resistance, virulence, and strain type. It is already used in the European Union to identify influenza after it has been grown in a culture. During a procedure to replace a joint, the surgeon may take a tissue sample and test it for infection as a precautionary measure. After the procedure, if the patient has symptoms, such as swelling near the surgical site, the surgeon may extract fluid from the joint and test it for infection. Bacteria — particularly antibiotic-resistant types such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA — can be tricky to detect because the bacteria form slimy colonies on the surface of the joint implant, said Dr. Gerhard Maale, an orthopedic oncologic surgeon based in Dallas, Texas. He will serve as the medical director for the collaboration. These biofilms are difficult to identify with a traditional bacterial culture because the organisms clump together and do not grow well enough for positive identification, he said.

Read the full article →

Limbaugh Sponsor Keeps Ads off Limbaugh’s Show Despite Apology

March 4, 2012

As the controversy grew over Rush Limbaugh’s latest incendiary comments — he called law student and birth control advocate Sandra Fluke a “slut” on Wednesday–his show’s advertisers began to flee in droves . On Saturday, Limbaugh apologized . But for at least one CEO, that wasn’t good enough. David Friend, who runs the online backup company Carbonite, issued a statement on his company’s website saying that Carbonite would no longer advertise with Limbaugh despite the host’s rare admission of regret. From the website : “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.” It remains to be seen whether other companies will follow Carbonite’s lead.

Read the full article →

Ten Surprising Ways Oil Prices Are Making Your Life More Expensive

March 3, 2012

When oil prices rise, we all start paying attention to prices at the pump . But gas prices are just the beginning. Here are 10 other things that get more expensive:

Read the full article →

When A Purse Costs More Than Your Paycheck

March 3, 2012

Admitting that she paid $500 for a new floral print Vera Wang bag, Adriana Castro couldn’t help but blush. “I got it on sale two months ago,” the hospital coordinator said quietly, away from the ears of her teenage niece. “It was originally $2,250. And it’s something different, not like your typical black or brown leather.” On a recent Saturday at The Grove mall in Los Angeles — where nearly everyone sports a sparkling logo or three — Castro wasn’t shopping, but hanging out with her family. “I don’t shop as much as I used to,” she said. “Especially for splurgy items, clothes, shoes. With the economy, you try to be more conscious.” Still, it’s hard to resist a good sale once in a while when, at least for the moment, you have a job. Castro wasn’t the only one to treat herself this holiday season. Industry insiders have noticed a comeback of what they call “aspirational shoppers” — those women and men who spend big chunks of their incomes on bags, watches, gadgets and other status symbols. Armed with credit cards, they’re charging “affordable” luxury brands like Michael Kors — the self-proclaimed ” Hermes for Staten Island” — toward whirlwind success. But are these luxuries really affordable? In an economic recovery that is still itself largely aspirational , some are worried that the return of middle-class overspenders is no more than a relapse in disguise. Armine Melkonyan, 35, of Los Angeles, bought the classic quilted Chanel “Timeless” bag in December after obsessing over it for nearly two years, paying with a credit card. The price? $2,100, according to a sales representative at the Beverly Hills Chanel store. Melkonyan doesn’t have a job right now — she’s a student at the Los Angeles City College — but says the money isn’t a problem. “You just have to keep up with the bills every month,” she said. Banks, it seems, are just as relaxed as Melkonyan, handing out cards with uncharacteristic generosity. Bank of America, for one, saw a 50 percent surge in new credit card accounts during the last three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010. In November, meanwhile, credit card spending rose 7 percent, according to merchant processing company First Data. Stores noticed the change. Luxury department store Saks Fifth Avenue, one of the biggest winners in the 2011 holiday retail tussle, reported same-store sales up 7.7 percent in the last three months of 2011, which it credited in part to middle class shoppers. “You are clearly seeing aspirational customers starting to shop,” CEO Stephen Sadove said on the company’s earnings call with analysts last week. Of everything sold at Saks, handbags did particularly well. Macy’s, a mid-range department store, saw similar trends. “I think [the customer] really wants designer and logo right now,” said Russell Orlando, Macy’s accessories fashion director in an interview. “The whole classic piece in leather at a higher price point is driving the business … It’s been going on a year now.” The aspirational “look” is becoming a fashion trend, as well. Michael Kors, one of retail’s most profitable brands, has championed the aesthetic with logo-covered bags ranging from $2,495 to $128 . The “sweet spot” for shoppers is $348 to $398, Michael Kors executives told analysts on the company’s most recent earnings call with analysts, saying “jet-set” no less than five times. “Jet-set” is Michael Kors’ favorite buzzword for its look: Picture soft leather and classic prints, safe enough to wear in Minneapolis or Milan. Michael Kors raised $944 million in an IPO in December, valuing the company at $3.8 billion. Ironically, a $348 “Jet Set” tote might just be what kills the trip to Europe for some people. Genevieve Spitz, 23, of Boston, says she sometimes has to pick between plane tickets and shopping. “I’m one of those people who’ll say ‘Wow, I love that piece. I’m going to buy it, no matter the cost. And then I do. Unless, of course, I could buy a plane ticket to Spain instead.” “I’m not buying designer stuff,” Spitz says. “It’s more like, can I technically afford those $300 shoes? No. Will I be unable to afford food for the next few weeks if I buy them? No.” As in dieting, it’s especially hard to say “no” to cravings after a long dry spell. More than three years after the recession began, many Americans are looking for small tokens to make life feel richer, like high quality fabrics or an eye-catching watch. George Loewenstein, professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, is working on a study with colleague Russell Golman examining how society’s image of “the good life” impacts consumer decisions. “Sometimes people are worried that they’re poor or appear poor, so they spend money as a way to reassure themselves,” Loewenstein said. “But of course, it’s about the worst possible strategy you could have.” For any class of shopper, the current push by banks to issue new credit cards will no doubt create temptation to overspend. “Credit cards anesthetize the pain of spending money,” Loewenstein said. Melkonyan, for one, isn’t losing sleep over her new Chanel bag — unless you consider the late night parties where she’ll wear it. “I don’t care about the brand; it’s not because [the bag] is expensive,” she said. “I want something beautiful.”

Read the full article →

Tech CEO Gives Employees $3 Million

March 2, 2012

It’s not always infuriating when employees take home extra cash . Unlike Wall Street bonuses, which have drawn widespread scorn from the public, news that tech CEO Markus ‘Notch’ Persson decided to give his employees an extra $3 million elicited a joyful reaction . The Escapist reports that Persson, who heads Mojang, creators of the computer game “Minecraft,” decided to distribute his stock dividends to his fellow “Mojangstas”. “Before tax, my dividends from Mojang for 2011 was about three million dollars. I chose to distribute that to the other employees,” Persson announced on Twitter . The CEO’s generosity was greeted with joy and even tears from employees . “Im already crying…tears in shock and happiness,” Mojangsta Daniel Kaplan tweeted . One poster on a Minecraft forum said they hope Persson’s gesture will inspire others to mimic his kindness. “… Perhaps, we can all look to this as an example of selfless generosity, and emulate it in kind,” the poster wrote. Photo by Flickr user Official GDC

Read the full article →

Democratic Leaders Predict GOP Train Wreck On Transportation Bill

March 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats predict Republicans are headed for another train wreck in the House over the stalled transportation bill. The Senate hasn’t exactly been having an easy time with its own bill, bogged down in culture war politics this week with a vote over an amendment on contraception that Republicans insisted upon. But Senate Democratic leaders Friday vowed they would push ahead next week with measures that passed committees with strong bipartisan votes, and predicted that if Republicans obstruct the measure — estimated to support some 2.8 million jobs — they will pay a political price. They said it would be much like the debacle that followed late last year when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried to move an extension of the payroll tax holiday, only to have Tea Party Republicans in the House rebel and spark a showdown that they lost in embarrassing fashion . “I think McConnell left to his own devices would let the bill move forward and be debated after one or two more of his amendments get done,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “But the hard right says no. And Boehner’s House is in a knot, so he’s got to slow things down.” House Speaker John Boehner (D-Ohio) is “in a box here because he has too many of his Tea Party people who will only vote for a dramatic cut in transportation spending, so he needs Democrats,” Schumer said. “But when Democrats demand a reasonable bill very similar to our bipartisan bill, he can’t go along, because it would depend on too many Democrats supporting the bill. It’s a replay of the payroll tax.” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel did not immediately respond to the comments. One senior Republican aide called the Democrats’ remarks “silly,” and said that the transportation bill would move in the Senate as soon as both sides agree on amendments. The current transportation law expires at the end of March. Reid has announced plans to proceed to the bill next week with 37 amendments , but Republicans are dissatisfied and have the votes to prevent the measure from passing. Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — pointing to the jobs that would be created building and repairing transportation systems — predicted Republicans would pay a political price for obstruction. “Like the payroll tax, we will win this fight,” Schumer said. “They will have to back off and they’re better off learning that sooner rather than later.” Reid argued that Boehner could pass the bill in “10 minutes,” if only he’d spurn his 100 or so Tea Party members. “He’s come to the conclusion — how after what he’s been through, I can’t imagine how he sticks with this — that he won’t pass anything unless it’s the majority of his Republican caucus, which he can’t pass anything because they can’t agree on what side of the Capitol they’re on,” Reid said. Boehner had intended to push a $260 billion, five-year bill, but that collapsed. This week he started talking about an 18-month (or shorter) fall-back option. Democrats argue that such moves, often raised when Congress is deadlocked and in need of negotiating space, make little sense when talking about major capitol projects that are addressed with transportation spending and require long-term planning. The Democratic Senate version spans two years and is estimated to cost $109 billion. Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

Read the full article →

Politically-Connected Chair To Step Down

March 2, 2012

Richard D. Parsons, the politically connected chairman of Citigroup Inc., will step down from the board after 16 years, closing a chapter that included the company’s near-death experience during the financial crisis. Mr. Parsons, 63 years old, told fellow directors on Friday that he doesn’t plan to stand for re-election at the annual shareholders meeting set for April 17 in Dallas, according to people close to the situation. The board is expected to elect Michael E. O’Neill, the former CEO of Bank of Hawaii Corp., to succeed Mr. Parsons as chairman. A Citigroup spokesman declined to comment.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Mondays With Marlo: Tory Johnson

March 2, 2012

Career expert Tory Johnson, the CEO of Women For Hire, shares her advice on everything from small business tips to what to do if you’re fired. See more clips Add Marlo On Facebook: Follow Marlo on Twitter: @MarloThomas Weekly Newsletter Sign up to receive my email newsletter each week – It will keep you up-to-date on upcoming articles, Mondays with Marlo guests, videos, and more! Sign up here

Read the full article →

Heather Higgins: The Great Charitable Myth

March 2, 2012

In the midst of public debates on fairness, tax rates and debt reduction, there is a fallacy, deliberately promoted by some, that undermines honest discourse. It is this: private charitable contributions should be classified and treated as “public money.” If allowed to perpetuate, this bait and switch could lead to real and negative consequences for every charitable organization and donation made in this country. The argument goes that because charitable organizations are tax exempt and donations to charitable organizations are tax deductible, the government misses out on some potential revenue. Lost revenue constitutes a subsidy, and subsidies, as we know, are done with government money. This argument relies on the semantic slipperiness of the word “subsidy,” eliding its different meanings, and more deeply assumes that all our income first belongs to the government, which only chooses to let us keep some of it. Two noted legal scholars, John Tyler from the Kauffman Foundation and Evelyn Brody from the Chicago-Kent College of Law , set out to make a definitive, legal case for what are, and are not, private charitable assets in this country. Their findings are required reading for anyone who wants a clear exposition of law and history on this point. Clearly, America enjoys a history of strong legal support for, at a minimum, maintaining the current system we have that protects donor intent and philanthropic freedom. The authors originally published their findings back in 2009 in the book How Public is Private Philanthropy? Separating Reality from Myth. (In full disclosure, I am a member of the board of The Philanthropy Roundtable, which commissioned the book.) They recently re-released their findings , adding important legal decisions (including a Supreme Court case, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ) that strengthen the case for private charitable dollars remaining private charitable dollars. The authors raise serious questions to consider for anybody who gives, receives, or is thinking about giving to charity. Why does this matter? One current point of contention comes from political officials who wish to commandeer private resources to support their view of the public good — and then take credit for it. States appropriately have oversight of philanthropic enterprises in order to ensure the organizations are pursuing charitable purposes. This serves donors, recipients and the community well. But we are increasingly seeing state officials go beyond this appropriately limited role as a means to go after revenue or to pursue political gain under the guise that charitable organizations are “public” because they have state charters. The authors resoundingly prove that although charities have state charters, this does not make them any more “public” bodies than publicly traded companies. It just means the organizations must obey the law and be responsible for what they say they are going to do. Period. But the real meat and potatoes over this “public money” debate is centered around tax exemptions and charitable deductions. Some claim that because charitable organizations are tax exempt and receive tax-deductible contributions, those benefits qualify activists and the government to have a say in their decision making and operations. This perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of how much of a tax benefit one receives from making a charitable contribution. At the highest levels, 2/3 of every dollar donated to charity could have been spent on something that wasn’t charitable. Indeed, charity flourished in this country long before there even was an income tax and the concern about deductions, because most charitable giving isn’t driven primarily by tax considerations. Donations to charitable institutions receive tax benefits as recognition that these are private monies that could have been spent on self, that instead are pursuing public purposes. Herein the next challenge: who defines public purpose? We enjoy a broad definition of public purposes, but certain self-styled nonprofit watchdogs would very much like to limit what qualifies in order to give preference to the causes and types of organizations they hold most dear. So soup kitchens over art and music programs? Social justice over inner city education? Homeless shelters over medical research? ACORN over the environment? Who would ultimately do the picking? What would be their criteria? With the thousands of charitable organizations in existence, do we really want these decisions politicized and manipulated? Tyler and Brody demonstrate a solid legal basis for anyone asking themselves these questions. America’s appropriately limited relationship between philanthropy and the government is precisely what has made it so vigorous, varied, and responsive; we should continue to favor private investment into communities, not overrun them with “public” preferences and favoritism.

Read the full article →

Donna Larner Lavery: Extending the Olive Branch — Consumer Conflict Resolution

March 2, 2012

As a consumer advocate, I find myself often wearing different hats when it comes to resolving issues. First and foremost, I view myself as a peace builder. Yes, I understand how frustrating it can be at times when we feel we are forced into a continuous loop of automated voices telling us to wait, push this or that button, and/or get deliberately placed on what seems like eternal hold. Yet that is why I am here — to streamline your conflict resolution process, using the power of the media to make a positive difference.   How have we become such a socially disconnected, yet technologically connected, society? Perhaps when Mom and Pop stores and services began to disappear once big box stores were built, a sense of true communication and neighborliness disappeared along with them. We could no longer look eye to eye with that individual who represented the company. Although we are more connected through technology than ever before, we have lost the art of discussion and personal acknowledgement. Our phones and our keyboards have become our anonymous mouthpieces, and behind that veil we can unleash whatever we feel like unleashing, whether it be kindness or anger. Our time factor also was crunched during these decades of transformation — so much so that people rarely want to make the time to converse.   Automation, with all of its frustration when one is attempting to get through to a live being, has also automated our responses — we go from zero to 60 in spewing forth one boiling-hot mess of expletives and raging anger towards that unsuspecting representative who finally answers. Feel the energy in that? Not so great, is it? In keeping with your goal of problem resolution, a genuine desire for communication calls for initiating kindness, not anger and vitriol. In this blog, I hope to assist you in fixing your consumer issues. Please email me at help@thelistonradio.com. Explain in your email (in no more than about five sentences) what your issue is, the company in question, and what resolution you’re after. If I email you back about your issue, please respectfully get back to me in a timely fashion for follow-up correspondence. I will work on fixing your legitimate consumer issue — insurance, healthcare, phone or cable service, construction, automotive repair or purchase, elder care, child care, real estate, banking, airlines, travel, hotel… in short, purchases of product and/or services of just about any legal sort. Examples: Recently, Marc contacted me from New Jersey. His issue is with CableVision. First, he would like for them to confirm the details of a special deal they offered him. He is also upset because when they increased his services, there was an issue in his not actually receiving the additional services.  He called into customer support and, after everything the agent instructed him to do manually on his cable box didn’t fix the problem, he was told he would need to be home in order for a technician to come out. He told the agent that the necessary repairs could most likely be done from the road, but yet he had to be there and take half a day off from work. Jim Maiella, a CableVision company spokesman, looked into Marc’s situation for me and confirmed the dates of Marc’s special promotion and gave him an extra month for his inconvenience. Of course, Marc earns more per day than the value of the additional month of service he was given to compensate him, but at least it is an acknowledgement for his time and frustration.   What I would like to see one day is that once the customer has gone through all of the channels by which to get remedy on their own (in this case by phone, Internet or via one of CableVision’s walk-in service centers) that the company would automatically, as part of their customer service routine, offer a little something to make the customer feel valued.  In such a world, consumers would come to me for assistance only when all other options fail.   Let’s face it: This is a redirection on how companies deal with their customers and how you, the empowered consumer, deal with your own individual consumption. All I ask is that you maintain your composure and remain respectful in your interactions with the company. We all must make the effort to change what we have created here so that we can become a more civilized and caring community. It begins with each one of us. Next issue — Alana needed assistance with Mega Life & Health Insurance Company based in Texas.  She had discovered after a year that they had been taking $279.50 monthly out of her checking account, for total withdrawals of $3,300.  There are several lessons in this particular ordeal.  Please regularly check your accounts to be sure something like this isn’t occurring, and secondly, never give a signed blank check to anyone — ever — unless you do indeed intend to do business with them and authorize an automatic bill pay process.   The agent for Mega Life told Alana that he would not put the check through unless she confirmed the Declaration of Health Care Coverage.  Once she received the declaration, she decided against using this insurance company, as they would not give her the coverage she needed by refusing to cover her pre-existing conditions. A year later, she received in the mail (her first written correspondence from the company, by the way) a notification of a premium increase. She then checked her bank account and discovered the ongoing monthly withdrawals.   I contacted Donna Ledbetter, director of Corporate Communications for Mega Life, which has now become HealthMarkets, and after researching the situation she offered to reimburse Alana. I commend Donna Ledbetter for stepping up and doing right by her customer. As a side note, Mega Life & Health Insurance had been involved in countless alleged fraudulent activities resulting in lawsuits filed by several states. Under the reorganization of HealthMarkets, I hope their business practices have also reorganized to that of a higher standard. It begins with an individual within an organization, and we have to hold each individual accountable to the point where the organization — from top to bottom — has to do business respectfully and responsibly, with integrity at every level. The bottom line can no longer be only about increased earnings, because greed at the top promotes greedy acts towards others at the bottom.   Until next time… send me your emails and issues. Donna Larner Lavery, MA Spiritual Psychology, a.k.a. “Primadonna,” is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, consumer advocate, entrepreneur, peace builder, business and personal coach. ( www.donnalarnerlavery.com )

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: The $28 Billion Man: Senator Shelby’s Anti-Homeowner Deficit Spree

March 2, 2012

Republicans love to say that nothing’s more important than cutting the Federal deficit. So why is Sen. Richard Shelby wasting $28 billion of taxpayer money? Senator Shelby is using parliamentary tricks to put more than half of the nation’s mortgages under the rule of an unelected official who answers to no one — except apparently Richard Shelby — and together they’re wasting money like it’s going out of style. Is Richard Shelby a closet Deficit Lover? In Washington that’s called The Love That Dare Not Speaks Its Name. The real answer’s much simpler. Shelby and his friends are adding tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, hurting millions of middle-class homeowners, and stalling our economy recovery for one reason: to take the White House away from the Democrats. Shelby’s following the game plan laid out by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said the number one priority of GOP Senators is to make Barack Obama a ” one-term President ” — not to serve the nation. If you want to create jobs or treat the sick, Sen. Shelby and his fellow Republicans will insist that we can’t afford it. But there aren’t enough zeroes on this page to count the money they’ll waste for partisan gain. Edward DeMarco: The Man Shelby Made King George W. Bush brought a far-right ideologue named Edward DeMarco into the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which controls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and therefore has power over more than half the mortgages in the country. Now DeMarco’s Acting Director of the FHFA, and where those mortgages are concerned he’s king. Three years after becoming President, Barack Obama can’t get his own appointee into the job — because of Richard Shelby. That means DeMarco gets to stay on indefinitely. Edward DeMarco misled Congress and the public by claiming that lowering principal on underwater mortgages would cost $100 billion. DeMarco’s own staff produced a report showing that a principal reduction program would actually save taxpayers $28 billion. But DeMarco didn’t tell Congress about that report. An FHFA employee testified before Congress that there was a good pilot program designed to do exactly that. DeMarco didn’t tell Congress about that either. The employee testified that the DeMarco team killed the program, as a letter by two Democratic representatives explains, for “ideological reasons.” The Shelby/DeMarco War On Homeowners Interest rates for new loans climbed slightly to an average of 4.33 percent for mortgages of $417,000 or less, according to the FHFA’s own figures . But the FHFA isn’t even making it easier for homeowners to refinance, even though some underwater homeowners are paying 6 or even 7 percent on their loans. In fact, the unelected Ed DeMarco/Richard Shelby mortgage junta is making it harder to refinance by charging more to do it. Even the economic traditionalists — Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner — are outraged. As a recent white paper from the Federal Reserve noted, Fannie and Freddie aren’t helping homeowners get loans — even when they clearly fall within the underwriting guidelines. It would be sound financial management to help these homeowners refinance. But it would get in the way of the Shelby/DeMarco ideology . Inside Bets The Richard Shelby/Ed DeMarco FHFA is betting that these homeowners will never refinance — and it’s paying some guy $2 million per year of taxpayer money, plus a huge bonus, to create complicated derivative-like deals to place its bets. And just to show how far the Shelby/DeMarco crowd will go to push their radical-right agenda, they’re even opposing a very reasonable lending program that allows homeowners to cut energy costs and improve the value of their home. President Bill Clinton explains here . Remember: They do what they do for “ideological reasons.” The Real Cost of Shelby/DeMarco The Shelby/DeMarco FHFA isn’t just costing us $28 billion. It’s also dragging down the entire real estate market, costing the entire economy tens of billions more. And it’s not as if they’re good fiscal managers otherwise. After the massive bailouts that taxpayers were forced to pay for Fannie and Freddie, the Shelby/DeMarco FHFA is still bleeding red ink. DeMarco’s Fannie Mae just came to Congress, hat in hand, asking the government to cover $4.6 billion in additional losses that it has incurred under the supervision of the Shelby/DeMarco FHFA. How do these people keep their jobs? By having Richard Shelby around to abuse the Senate’s rules. The Senate’s #1 Rule Abuser Senators can put a “hold” on nominations, and Sen. Shelby has used this parliamentary trick in extraordinary ways. He put every single presidential nomination in the nation — all of them — on hold in 2010, just so that he could get some pork for his home state of Alabama. That’s right: Richard Shelby was prepared to paralyze the government to get his earmarks passed. As might be expected, President Obama made a very moderate choice when he appointed Joseph Smith to replace DeMarco. Smith was the former banking commissioner for South Carolina. He had an excellent reputation as a regulator, but he also had years of experience representing bankers as an attorney. So he was hardly a leftist firebrand. That didn’t stop Shelby from claiming, with characteristic discourtesy and disrespect, that Mr. Smith would be a ” lapdog ” for the administration. Shelby then resorted to the characteristic procedural chicanery for which he has become so infamous, and killed Mr. Smith’s nomination by placing another ” hold ” on it. And that’s how America’s mortgages fell under the iron fist of the unelected Shelby/DeMarco regime. Rocket In Your Pocket He’s never really cared about deficits. Shelby, the self-described conservative, even pulled out all the stops in an effort to get billions of dollars for his home state in order to build the world’s biggest rocket. Freudians might suspect that there is overcompensation involved, but the real motive’s much simpler: he wants more taxpayer-funded pork for his corporate patrons in Huntsville. Shelby’s cover story was that the rocket would improve the nation’s “competitiveness and prestige” — as if mass foreclosures, endless recessions, and joblessness aren’t hurting competitiveness and prestige. But then, ending foreclosures won’t make billions of dollars for Boeing Corporation. When big corporations want taxpayers dollars, it’s deficits be damned. They can count on Richard Shelby to put a rocket in their pocket. The Man Who Sold the World So how much is Richard Shelby really costing the nation? $75 billion? $100 billion? More? We can’t know — in part because Shelby soulmate Ed DeMarco isn’t exactly forthcoming with his data. But we do know that Sen. Richard Shelby’s partisan agenda may be the most expensive act of electoral manipulation in American history. Meanwhile the foreclosures roll on. Each one is a story of family heartbreak. And each one drags the economy down even more. It’s not just that the Shelby/DeMarco gang is made up of terrible fiscal managers, although that’s certainly true. But the other thing to know about them is this: They’re not very nice people. Arise, Ye Prisoners of Conservatism You know who should join Occupy D.C. and the other great groups that are defending homeowners and pushing for the removal of Edward DeMarco? Fiscal conservatives. These guys are blowing a hole in the deficit the size of Indiana – literally. The total Indiana state budget is $28 billion – and that’s for two years. You know who else should show up? Anybody who says they’re “tough on crime.” The money Shelby and DeMarco are wasting would restore the cuts that the last Republican budget made to law enforcement – and would cover them for the next 28 years. We could go on like this forever, but you get the idea. Edward DeMarco is costing the taxpayer $28 billion in direct losses, and is hurting the entire economy a whole lot more than that. He’s also causing untold — and unnecessary — human suffering. And who’s keeping him in power? Sen. Richard Shelby, the $28 Billion Man.He’s determined to win the next election for his party, and he doesn’t care how much of your money it takes to do it. See also: Edward DeMarco: The Ideologue Who’s Holding Homeowners – And the Economy – Hostage More DeMarco Outrage: You Won’t BELIEVE Who He’s Considering for Fannie CEO Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future and the host of The Breakdown, which is broadast on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington DC>

Read the full article →

Alex Nowrasteh: Liberals Need to Choose: Welfare State or Immigration

March 2, 2012

Overcoming the costs of the welfare state is the biggest challenge faced by proponents of immigration reform. The perception that immigrants use and abuse the welfare state is prevalent just about anywhere you look. Many voters and politicians believe that immigrants drain the welfare state. So the thinking goes, any increase in immigration will increase the number of people on welfare which will increase taxes for Americans. Very few people would want to pay more taxes in that scenario, so most people are skeptical of immigration. Even Milton Friedman once famously said , “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Unfortunately, many people have seized on that observation to conclude that we need to restrict immigration to keep the welfare state from collapsing. They ought to look at what else he went on to say about immigration : “It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal . . . Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for Social Security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket.” However, Friedman need not have worried. The American welfare state is designed to aid the elderly, female, and sick. Immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are young, male, and healthy. Therefore, undocumented immigrants account for a much smaller share of welfare spending than their population size would suggest. All immigrants are less likely to move to states with large welfare programs in recent years. A 2006 RAND Corporation study , published in Health Affairs, found that in Los Angeles County immigrants, especially the undocumented, were about half as likely as natives to have chronic health conditions. Furthermore, while immigrants were almost half of L.A. County’s population, they accounted for only one third of the region’s total health care spending. A 2007 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants had many fewer doctor and hospital visits on average than native-born Americans. Another 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that low-income immigrants primarily relied upon clinics and health centers for care and used emergency rooms less often than American citizens. The 1996 welfare reform law cut back welfare access for legal immigrants and virtually ended it for all undocumented immigrants with some exceptions for emergency care. Yet even among eligible immigrants, consumption of welfare services is lower than among citizens. More recently, 57 percent of citizens eligible for Medicaid had enrolled in the program, compared to only 30 percent of eligible immigrants. And, contrary to the fear-mongering claims of “welfare rights” activists, these cutbacks have not harmed immigrants. On the contrary, child poverty rates decreased for immigrants relative to natives after the 1996 welfare reform. That may have had a lot to do with the growing economy, but it demonstrates that limiting immigrant welfare use does not necessarily increase poverty. It turns out that a growing or shrinking economy has more to do with poverty than the welfare state. That also presents a simple solution to the immigration impasse: Build a wall around the welfare state. Short of the preferable goal of eliminating the American welfare state, further restricting its use by immigrants, making them wait longer before they can access it, or making sure that immigrants pay a certain amount in taxes before using it, would go a long way toward convincing Americans that immigration benefits them, as well as the newcomers. Liberals who actually care about immigration should sacrifice the welfare state , or at least immigrant access to it, as the price for allowing more immigration. That will go a long way toward convincing American voters to allow more legal immigration. Politically, our welfare state is incompatible with increased legal immigration. The welfare state is supposed to decrease poverty, but all too often fails to do so. The average immigrant can expect a five-fold increase in his or her wages just by moving here. If liberals are concerned about poverty, and not just the relative “poverty” that exists in America, they should realize that free emigration is the best anti-poverty tool for the world’s poor .

Read the full article →

Nancy Birdsall: Next World Bank President: Two Non-U.S. Candidates for the Short List

March 1, 2012

This post was co-authored by Arvind Subramanian. The next World Bank president will need the legitimacy and wide support that only an open and merit-based selection process can ensure. This is now commonly agreed. The best way to ensure legitimacy is to have more than one serious candidate. The Obama administration is sure to nominate a strong candidate. Obama cannot be seen to be relinquishing the right of the United States to name an American, especially in this election year. But the U.S. has signaled its willingness to participate in an open and competitive and process. And the bank’s board has called for nominations from all member states, which the board says it will then narrow to a short list of three. Three strong candidates would offer the benefits of true competition. Each would make his or her case to all member countries, based on their personal record and vision for the bank’s future direction. Each would be adequately vetted officially and unofficially around the world — reducing the risk of scandals that within recent memory engulfed the heads of both the IMF and the World Bank. But the current U.S. monopoly on the World Bank presidency, combined with the EU monopoly on IMF leadership, is difficult to break. The U.S. and Europe together have a large share of voting rights. Once they agree on a candidate, any alternative candidate needs to be an obvious and outstanding choice, and from a country willing and able to seek support from other large and influential developing countries. Fortunately there are several such candidates. Consider two top notch candidates, both from large, fast-growing democracies in the developing world. If nominated, they would surely make the board’s short list. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is currently the economics czarina in Nigeria. A Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, she rose through the meritocratic World Bank bureaucracy in the years when doing so as a woman and an African meant you had to be a star. She then garnered international recognition as Nigeria’s Minister of Finance in 2003-06, when she championed tough economic reforms, insisted on fiscal transparency to combat corruption, negotiated for Nigeria a $37 billion debt relief package and oversaw Nigeria’s first ever sovereign credit rating. Returning to the World Bank in 2006, she served as a virtual second-in-command to World Bank president Bob Zoellick. Most important, Okonjo-Iweala is a charismatic and effective diplomat as well as a good economist, admired and liked in China, in Africa and in the advanced economies. And wouldn’t it be nice to have two highly capable women leading the world’s two major international financial institutions? Nandan Nilekani is the Indian co-founder of INFOSYS, one of the iconic technology companies in the developing world. Under his leadership, INFOSYS not only created wealth and opportunities and transformed India but did so by putting in place world-class standards of corporate governance. Two years ago Nilekani accepted a ministerial post in the government of India, where he is now managing one of the biggest development projects in the world — using biometric identification technology to transform the provision of private and public services to all Indians, including the poorest and most marginalized. He has done so despite political and bureaucratic obstacles that led many to predict it was impossible. He has a deep grasp of economic, social and political issues that matter throughout the developing world, reflected in his combination of private and public experience and in an award-winning and best-selling book on India. Finally, he and his wife have been committed philanthropists in India (in the manner of Bill and Melinda Gates), giving widely and generously. Either of these candidates, and any other non-American, would need the support of China to be credible. But they need not have that support to be nominated, and winning it might not be too farfetched. China might well support a developing country candidate at the World Bank — perhaps even an Indian (maybe in exchange for some other favor). China’s support for a Nigerian candidate would be easier still, given China’s engagement with Africa; indeed the United States and Europe might see some benefits in a Nigerian World Bank president helping ease current tensions over the different approaches of China and the West to investments and aid in Africa. It is high time that the Bretton Woods institutions adapted to changing global realities and shifts in economic and political power. In choosing the successor to Zoellick, the world needs a competitive process to finally challenge the outdated backroom deal from which the United States and Europe seem unable on their own to liberate themselves. It’s up to developing countries such as Nigeria, India, and others to seize the current opportunity and nominate outstanding candidates.

Read the full article →

Big Donors To Mitt Romney’s Super PAC Could Reap Many Dividends

March 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — One thing’s for certain about most of the biggest donors bankrolling the main pro-Mitt Romney super PAC: They are canny investors. Private equity or hedge fund moguls make up more than half of the top donors to Restore Our Future — the PAC created by former Romney aides to supplement his official campaign with unlimited contributions. Six of them have given $1 million or more each. The size of their checks, however, is dwarfed by what’s at stake for them in November. There may be no other group whose future earnings are more in play, especially should President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats pursue their tax agenda more aggressively and effectively in a second Obama term. If things don’t go their way, they could be hard hit by increased taxes on the rich, a higher tax rate on investment income, and regulations that could expose their secrets and limit their leverage. Most likely of all, however, they could see a sustained attack on one of the most blatant and exclusive loopholes in the tax code — something called “carried interest” — that happens to save them billions of dollars a year. The loophole allows certain kinds of financiers, including private equity investors and some hedge fund managers, to treat what would in ordinary circumstances be considered a performance bonus as long-term investment income — taxable at the maximum 15 percent capital gains rate instead of the 35 percent maximum for labor income. Per capita, it may be the biggest giveaway for the fewest people in the entire tax code. And Romney is a poster child for it. Carried interest is the main reason that he so famously was able to end up paying 13.9 percent in taxes on his $21.7 million income in 2010. Much of that income came from performance bonuses still trickling in from private-equity investments he managed during his career at Bain Capital. By contrast, each of Obama’s proposed budgets has called for eliminating the sweetheart deal for carried interest . “This tax loophole is inappropriate and allows these financial managers to pay a lower tax rate on their income than other workers,” said the White House’s most recent budget statement . “The President proposes to eliminate the loophole for managers in investment services partnerships and to tax carried interest at ordinary income rates. This would reduce the deficit by $13 billion over 10 years.” Other estimates have the proposal increasing tax revenues even more — perhaps by as much as $10 billion a year . There used to be rules, of course, barring people who have billions at stake from spending millions to influence elections. But the Supreme Court, and a subsequent lower court ruling, effectively struck them down two years ago, legalizing unlimited contributions — even on behalf of specific candidates — as long as the political operatives in charge promise not to coordinate their spending with the campaigns. And as a result, what has always been a disproportionate ability of the rich to buy influence has now gone into overdrive — even creating the possibility that a handful of super-investors could actually corner the market. Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that supports strict campaign finance limits, says the preponderance of high-flying financiers funding the pro-Romney super PAC demonstrates how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision “created precisely the inherently corrupt system earlier Court decisions warned about with direct contributions.” “You have lots of donors seeing this as a huge opportunity to purchase influence with the candidate if the candidate wins,” Wertheimer said. “The super-rich have huge economic stakes in government decisions,” he continued. “There’s a very legitimate argument to be made that one of their principal economic interests is maintaining the unjustifiable tax advantage they get in hedge fund activities.” Brittany Gross, a spokeswoman for Restore Our Future, said the super PAC does not comment on its donors. There may also be more amorphous reasons why Wall Street titans would line up behind a pro-Romney super PAC: namely because he’s one of their own. “They have a friend in Romney,” said Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of Colorado. “I see it as about what you think normal is,” Fleischer added. For instance, “Romney thinks it’s perfectly normal to pay 15 percent on your labor income.” “It’s not that I fear these guys are going to pick up the phone and tell Romney what to do,” Fleischer said. That’s because “Romney’s going to do what they want him to do” without any prompting. And they may also be counting on the idea that Romney will treat them more respectfully. “They’re already rich,” said Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of political communication at American University. “I think their egos are hurting far more than anything else.” “This was a cohort that saw themselves as the whiz kids during the ’90s and aughts,” Steinhorn said. They were rewarded with huge bonuses, applauded for their creativity, credited for big deals and a booming economy. But then, when the economy crashed, the public recognized that their excesses were a major contributing factor — and Obama, even while treating them gently, sometimes had harsh words for them. “These people like to be flattered,” Steinhorn said. In Romney, “they’re making an investment in somebody who will be very sympathetic, who sees capital — and only capital — as the engine of growth in our country.” What they’re hoping to get for their trouble, Steinhorn said, is “a president who will praise them and laud them and put them on a pedestal and tell people that they’re the ones who are making America grow and making it rich.” Romney’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Fraser P. Seitel, a spokesman for the super PAC’s top donor, billionaire Julian Robertson, told The Huffington Post that Robertson’s motives have nothing to do with personal gain. Robertson, who founded one of the country’s earliest hedge funds, Tiger Management, maxed out on how much he could legally give Romney’s campaign directly — and then gave the super PAC $1.25 million more. “He happens to believe that Mitt Romney would make the best president at this moment, because of his experience in business and his experience as a manager, and his knowledge of the economy,” Seitel said. Robertson has been retired and focused on philanthropy and his own investments for more than 10 years, Seitel added. He is a major donor to environmental causes. “He really does believe sincerely that Romney would be the best president — for all the right reasons,” Seitel said. And the donation has nothing to do with buying access either, Seitel said. “People return his calls anyway.” ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter or on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Kevin K. Murphy: Government Bailout 101: Foundations Aren’t the Answer

March 1, 2012

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett recently unveiled his proposed budget for Pennsylvania. Like other governors around the nation, he developed a budget based on lower-than-hoped-for revenues, putting pressure on state social-service programs and education budgets. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that at least 29 states will enter their next fiscal year with budget deficits, forcing legislators to make tough choices about cutting services or increasing taxes in an economy that still looks shaky. In a seemingly unrelated event, the nation learned last month that the foundation established by the late Pittsburgh industrialist, William Dietrich, will pay out only about 3 percent of its value each year to charity . That news is sure to set off another round of debate about whether, given the current economic pressures, America’s foundations should increase their grant-making budgets. Most of America’s foundations were created to last forever. While there are notable exceptions (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for instance), the concept established by their founders was one of perpetuity, where only the earnings from the gifts that created them would be spent. Federal law requires most foundations to spend five percent of their value each year (Mr. Dietrich seems to have found a narrow exception). Generally, foundations are expected to earn about nine percent on their portfolios, which would allow the portfolios to grow slightly each year to account for inflation. Therefore, whenever governmental budgets are tight, some policy makers look at foundations and see a solution to their problems. It’s simple political rhetoric to point at foundations and say, “If they just spend more, our problem will be solved.” We hear that idea a lot in the foundation world, but it rests on two faulty assumptions. The first assumption is that the problems created by declining government resources can be solved by tapping our nation’s philanthropic investment accounts. By one estimate of federal spending , our government goes through about $6.9 million a minute. If you decided to spend down all of the assets of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (by far the largest foundation in the United States), it would fund the federal government for about 80 hours. At the local level, our county government spends the annual grant-making budget of Berks County Community Foundation in less than two days, to provide human services to about 400,000 people. We can’t shrink government and expect private philanthropic dollars to meaningfully fill those holes.

Read the full article →

Ford Focus Has Highest February Sales In Over A Decade

March 1, 2012

DETROIT — Ford Motor Co. says its U.S. sales rose 14 percent in February thanks to big demand for its Focus compact car. Focus sales more than doubled over last February to 23,350. It was the best February for the Focus in 12 years. Ford’s U.S. sales chief Ken Czubay said higher gas prices increased demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles in the second half of the month. The Escape, Ford’s small SUV, also saw sales rise 4 percent. But most of Ford’s cars saw sales declines, including the Fiesta subcompact and Fusion and Taurus sedans. The newer Focus might have grabbed sales from those cars. Truck sales were strong thanks to cash-back offers and other incentives. Ford said F-Series pickup sales were up 26 percent.

Read the full article →

Looks Like A Go For Michael Jordan Lawsuit, After All

March 1, 2012

Michael Jordan has found a Chinese court that will play ball with his trademark lawsuit, after all. The NBA hall of famer says his suit against Chinese sporting goods company Qiaodan has been accepted in China, contrary to earlier reports . Jordan last week accused the company of misleading consumers into thinking he had authorized its products. The former Chicago Bulls forward again explained the reasoning behind the lawsuit in a press release and on his website, TheRealJordan.com . “I am taking this action to preserve the ownership of my name and my brand,” he wrote. “No one should lose control of their own name, and the acceptance of my case shows that China recognizes that this is true for everyone. After all, what’s more personal than your name?” “Qiaodan” is the transliteration of “Jordan,” and the company also has used Jordan’s No. 23 on its apparel. A 2009 survey indicated that 90 percent of customers believed the brand was affiliated with Jordan, The China Times reports. A spokeswoman for the Brunswick Group, the media liaison for Jordan’s legal team, confirmed Thursday the lawsuit has been accepted. She also said Jordan’s lawyers would not comment on which court accepted it. Reports yesterday and early this morning circulated that a Beijing court had rejected the suit , but this wouldn’t be the first comeback for the NBA Hall of Famer. Jordan retired three times over the course of his storied NBA career. Jun He Law Offices and Fangda Partners are working together to represent Jordan in China.

Read the full article →

Five Surprising Things You Need To Pay Taxes On

March 1, 2012

Remember: Taxes for 2011 are due on Tuesday, April 17. The IRS has said it plans to issue taxpayer refunds in 10 to 21 days. Electronic filing and using direct deposit can speed up a return. If you have not yet filed your taxes, consider whether have missed these taxable items.

Read the full article →

Bill Clinton Welcomes Pipeline, But His Wife Will Make The Call

February 29, 2012

WASHINGTON – Former U.S. president Bill Clinton weighed in Wednesday in favour of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, the controversial project whose ultimate fate is in the hands of his wife. Clinton, the keynote speaker at the Department of Energy’s conference for clean-technology startup companies in Maryland, wondered aloud why TransCanada didn’t originally propose to build the pipeline around an environmentally fragile area of Nebraska. “One of the most amazing things to me about this Keystone pipeline deal is that they ever filed that route in the first place, since they could have gone around the Nebraska Sand Hills and avoided most of the dangers, no matter how imagined, to the Ogallala with a different route,” he said. “The extra cost of (rerouting the pipeline) is infinitesimal compared to the revenue that will be generated over a long period of time,” he added. “So, I think we should embrace it and develop a stakeholder-driven system of high standards for doing the work.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying later in the day to the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee hearings into energy security, was asked about her husband’s remarks. “He’s a very smart man,” she said to laughter. “But he, unfortunately, is not bound by the laws and regulations any longer of the United States to make decisions that follow a certain procedure. And that’s what we have to do.” Bill Clinton’s comments are certain to cause a stir given his wife has already been accused of a pro-pipeline bias. The State Department is deciding the fate of the $7.6 billion pipeline since it crosses an international border. In November, the Obama administration deferred making a decision on the pipeline until after this year’s presidential election, citing concerns about the risks Keystone XL’s proposed route could pose to the Ogallala aquifer. Pipeline proponents cried foul, saying it was a cynical political move aimed at pacifying the environmentalists among President Barack Obama’s base in advance of the election. In January, facing a mid-February deadline imposed by congressional Republicans, the Obama administration rejected TransCanada’s permit outright, saying it didn’t have enough time to thoroughly review a new route before giving it the green light. But Obama also assured Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the decision was not based on the pipeline’s merits, but was merely necessitated by the Republicans’ pressure tactics. Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that TransCanada has submitted a new application for a route that would carry Alberta oilsands bitumen from the Canadian border to Steel City, Nebraska. “At the same time,” she said, “they’re moving forward with parts of the pipeline like from Oklahoma to Texas, that don’t cross the border and don’t need State Department evaluation or decision.” The Calgary-based company has also said it is reapplying soon for a presidential permit that incorporates the alternate route around the Nebraska aquifer. Republicans have not eased up on their attempts to force approval of the pipeline. Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed legislation that would strong-arm the Obama administration into green-lighting Keystone XL as soon as possible. They believe the pipeline will create thousands of jobs and help end U.S. dependency on oil from often hostile OPEC regimes. At the White House daily media briefing on Wednesday, spokesman Jay Carney decried the tactics of congressional Republicans. “Calls to approve Keystone XL right away, again, are insulting to the American people because there is no permit to approve,” he said. The pipeline has become a rallying cry for Republican presidential candidates as well. After narrowly winning the Michigan primary on Tuesday, Mitt Romney vowed to keep fighting for Keystone XL. “I’ll get us that oil from Canada that we deserve,” he said to cheers in Columbus, OH. The Obama administration, meantime, signalled a shift in attitude toward Keystone XL earlier this week when the president praised TransCanada’s decision to carry on constructing the pipeline from Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. Hillary Clinton denied the administration was shifting gears in her testimony on Wednesday. “So why the flip-flop on the Keystone XL pipeline?” Florida congressman Connie Mack asked Clinton. “I don’t think there was any flip-flop, Congressman,” she replied. “I think that this was always a matter that had to be evaluated in accordance with legal and regulatory standards. Certainly energy security considerations was a key factor, but not the only factor. There was a lot of concern on the part of one state through which the pipeline travelled.”

Read the full article →

Volcker: Banks ‘Shouldn’t Be Fighting The Concept’ Of My Rule

February 29, 2012

By Stanley Carvalho and Martina Fuchs ABU DHABI, Feb 29 (Reuters) – Former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who lent his name to historic restrictions on banks’ financial market trading, says regulators should not back down in imposing the curbs and that additional reforms to markets are necessary. “There is a group of banks that don’t like it. They would like to have some freer action to do what they want to do as in the past — you get some opposition to it,” Volcker told reporters at a financial markets conference in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday. “They shouldn’t be fighting the concept of the rule. The rule against speculative trading is practically doable.” The “Volcker Rule” is a section of the U.S. Dodd-Frank financial oversight law which bans banks from trading for profit with their own funds. It is due to take effect in July; Volcker championed the idea but did not write the legislation, which was authored by senators. The law exempts trade in U.S. Treasuries and some other U.S. state and local debt from the ban, but it does not exempt other countries’ sovereign debt, leading to fears that it could destabilise markets. Finance officials from the Group of 20 nations pressed Washington last weekend to relax that aspect of the ban. Volcker said these and other concerns about the law should be examined and modified where necessary. “There is a real concern about unintended consequences that some foreign banks and governments have seen in the technical application of the rule to the operation of non-American banks. (This) is raising some angst,” he said. “I’m not an expert on the details of the rule, but that is an area that obviously has to be looked at.” He added, “It is a 35-page regulation, it is a complicated regulation and undoubtedly there will be some changes made in the technicalities — it should happen.” But Volcker made clear that any changes should not permit dangerous speculation in the markets. “We have to protect against excesses of liquidity. Too much liquidity can be dangerous. Something like alcohol,” he said. “The rationale is clear. Government support and the expectation of government support should not be extended to activities that are speculative in nature.” In his keynote address to the conference, Volcker also called for further reforms, including the creation of a single body to protect the U.S. banking system against the failure of large financial institutions. “We need a single authority dealing with the potential failure of a big financial (institution) without government financial support. This comes under the general terms of a resolution authority…A more efficient approach towards potential bankruptcy for large financial institutions.” He said there was a need for greater control by regulators over credit rating agencies, which were blamed for failing to warn of risks at the start of the global financial crisis, and over the global market for financial derivatives. “All this requires international coordination and cooperation,” he said. “The whole derivatives thing is very important — it gets a lot of attention. But that is strongly resisted by banks, the standardisation of derivatives.”

Read the full article →

Police Officers Injured After Occupy Oakland Protest Turns Violent

February 28, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — At least two law enforcement officers were injured during a clash with members of the Occupy movement who were at the state Capitol to protest a rally by a pro-white group. The clash erupted about 3 p.m. Monday as California Highway Patrol and Sacramento city police officers were escorting about 35 members of the South Africa Project to a parking garage following their protest outside the Capitol building. An Associated Press photographer says roughly 50 members of Occupy Oakland began throwing cans and bottles at the South Africa group and at the officers. The Occupy members then rushed the officers as people with the pro-whites group rushed into the parking garage. A city police officer was injured when a member of the Occupy group jumped on him, and a CHP officer was hurt after being struck by an object. Both were taken from the scene by ambulance. At least two Occupy members were arrested. The violence abated after a large contingent of law enforcement arrived at the scene, about one block from the Capitol. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. A teenage girl was detained Monday outside the Capitol after police separated Occupy protesters from a group opposing black-on-white violence in South Africa. The girl with Occupy Oakland was taken to Juvenile Hall after she became combative and assaulted an officer who asked her to pick up litter, California Highway Patrol Officer Sean Kennedy said. He did not have her age or city of residence. “It’s a free country and we’re here to protect everyone’s rights,” Kennedy said. There were no other arrests, despite shouting and sign-waving by competing protesters who were separated by about two-dozen officers on foot and horseback. Activists with the Occupy group cursed at peace officers and about 40 mostly white men who were at the Capitol to draw attention to what they say is white genocide. Organizers for the South Africa Project said similar demonstrations were planned in other states and elsewhere in California. “There is white genocide going on in South Africa. It’s a government-backed genocide,” said Kyle Krieger, a spokesman for the South Africa Project. His comments were echoed by other men, some with shaved heads and prominent tattoos. Occupy protesters, some wearing hoods or masks, said they came from the San Francisco Bay area to counter what they called a racist group affiliated with former Louisiana Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Some in the Occupy crowd also had shaved heads or mohawk haircuts and equally prominent tattoos, but a different message. The Occupy crowd included Allen Mullins, who was dressed as Captain America. He said he walked 5,000 miles to call attention to the plight of homeless veterans and intends to visit every state capital. Sacramento was the 41st statehouse he has seen, he said. Rachael Crisler wore a long peasant skirt as she stood alone singing folk songs with her guitar. “I heard that they’re having a Nazi rally, so I wanted to share peace and love,” said Crisler. “If we respond with love, we create love.”

Read the full article →

They’re Forming A Union Where?

February 28, 2012

Wall Street workers and union hands may seem like total opposites, but employees at an iconic investment bank are countering those preconceived notions. That’s right, some Goldman Sachs workers in Japan are unionizing , according to the Japan Times ( h/t Dealbook ). The workers made the decision after the bank allegedly attempted to convince certain employees to voluntarily resign in order to get around Japanese labor laws that make laying off workers difficult. Despite the laws, Goldman has managed to shed some jobs in Japan. The firm was among a group of banks that have slashed nearly 2,000 jobs in Japan since June 2010, largely as a result of the global financial crisis and the March earthquake and tsunami, according to Bloomberg. This is surely not the first time workers in Japan have been upset at Goldman. Following the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the company reportedly asked its employees to stay in the country or risk being fired, even as concerns over radiation mounted, according to a March CNBC report. And Goldman’s union might have a difficult time making inroads going forward. Historically, Japanese unions have been firm-specific, meaning they lack the power of organizing workers in an entire industry, according to a 1993 paper from economists at Harvard. In addition, Japanese unions often accept the goals of their firms more readily than their U.S. counterparts. Still, bank workers in the U.S. are unlikely to unionize any time soon. It’s already been tried, anyway. In 2008, after taxpayers bailed out the banks to the tune of $700 billion, the Service Employees International Union sent an email aiming to organize bank workers , according to CNN. In addition, SEIU tried to get tellers at Bank of America and other big banks to unionize in 2009, according to CBS. Though those previous attempts may not have been wildly successful, American bank workers might have more reason to consider unionizing than they have in the past. Bank profits rose to a five-year high in 2011 , even as Wall Street workers were laid off and saw their bonuses and pay slashed.

Read the full article →

How An Amish Business Competes In The 21st Century

February 28, 2012

It’s easy to romanticize Amish entrepreneurs, imagining them running a business by candlelight. Actually, many Amish businesses do have power — they just generally find some form of alternate energy to power their store’s lights or credit card processing machine, like wind turbines or solar energy panels. Some even have have websites. Even the Amish have to change with the times. Johnny Miller knows that. Today, the 45-year-old Amish entrepreneur is running a very different business than the one he first took the helm of in 1986. Miller, the co-founder of OakBridge Timber Framing, a home-building company, may look like he belongs in 1890, but his company operates much like any company does in 2012. For instance, like almost every other business owner out there, he has a website, and he is hardly depending on a lantern light to show him the way to business success. His company utilizes a diesel generator and tools that run off air hydraulics, and OakBridge has clients across the country, willing to bring Miller and his team out to build their homes. They’ve traveled to 23 states so far. OakBridge employs 10 people — mostly family members, including some of Miller and his wife, Cinda’s nine kids — and the business makes approximately $1 million in revenue every year. That’s not bad under any circumstance, but it’s especially impressive when you consider Miller and his employees work without, say, smartphones and air conditioning. Who works at your company? There’s my father, Andrew. He is the first generation. He’s 74 and enjoys his work immensely and comes to work every day. He was really instrumental when the company got started. He’s always been a do-it-right-or-don’t-do-it-at-all type of person, and he instilled that in his boys. My two sons, James and Andrew; my two brothers, Neal and Aaron, and my nephew, Nathan, work at the company. My cousin, Joni, is the office manager; my niece, Rachel, works in our office, and my daughter, Naomi, is our bookkeeper. There are 10 of us. Is it more difficult to be Amish in 2012, or was it just challenging as when you started back in 1986? It is harder, especially in the last five years as we’ve realized how important it is to have a website . We didn’t have a website until just a few years ago. If you’re local and selling to people in a 20-mile radius, it’s less important, but when you’re selling to people out of state and who might not know the Amish life and culture, it’s crucial. It’s actually a must today. If you don’t have a website, you really don’t exist. So who maintains your website? I’m assuming you don’t. We have a printing company, and we pay them a fee to do all the changing and updating and everything like that. It’s almost like paying them for doing our marketing. What else has changed in the last quarter of a century since you opened your business? The customers want things faster and like to stay in contact with you. The way people operate in today’s world, they’re not fine with a house being built a year and a half after they order it. They want it in six months or a lot sooner. We’ve had to change a lot of things about how we do business in the last four or five years. We’ve noticed, in fact, if we’re not willing to change, we may as well shut our doors. So we’ve been flexible in a lot of the small things, and that’s been crucial. So is the public more impatient? Is it that 24/7 mentality? I would say this: Ten years ago, people would just walk up to your office, and you’d build their home. In today’s world, it takes more work to make a sale. So does being Amish help a business? Good question. I would assume it helps for some people, and some people might have other preferred companies that aren’t Amish. But people tell us that they want the Amish craftsmanship, and some of that is perhaps a reason people might like our company. There are a lot of good companies out there as well that aren’t Amish, but Amish are known for hard work and craftsmanship, and I think it does help. I understand that OakBridge’s goal is not to grow and expand and make millions of dollars. I realize you’re Amish, but you’re also an entrepreneur. So is that accurate to say? In a way. We want to do a very nice number of homes, and we don’t want to sacrifice our craftsmanship for quantity. We enjoy the size of our company. If you have 500 employees, you don’t even know everybody. The 10 of us are all family — although we have an architect who is non-Amish. About five years ago, during our 20th anniversary, we made a solid decision that perhaps we do want to grow. But the area in which we want to grow the fastest is basically to get better. We’re still learning the characteristics of wood, and we have team meetings where we brainstorm and discuss how can we get better and what can we do to make it better. Do you get a lot of odd questions because you’re Amish? A lot of people ask us some unusual questions. They’ll ask us why we don’t drive cars, and it’s simply a culture issue and not a faith issue. Or they’ll ask us why an Amish boy can’t go to college, stuff like that, and the truth is, they could. Certainly going to college is a very good thing, but if your child goes to college for four years, perhaps he’s not going to stay with the culture, which is neither right nor wrong, but each parent enjoys it when their children are the same culture as theirs. But we also get asked a lot of ridiculous stuff, like is it true that the Amish don’t pay taxes. Are you kidding? We pay taxes like everyone else. I don’t know why a question like that would crop up. The truth is, Amish pay their taxes. Entrepreneur Spotlight Name: Johnny Miller Company: OakBridge Timber Framing Age: 45 Location: Business office in Howard, Ohio; Mill in Loudonville, Ohio Founded: 1986 Employees: 10 Website: www.oakbridgetimberframing.com/

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Do Apple, Bank of America, GM and Chevron Sound Like Small Businesses to You?

February 28, 2012

The most recent data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) shows that last year the Obama administration diverted billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to some of the biggest companies in the world. A report from the American Small Business League (ASBL) conducted using FPDS shows that 72 of the top 100 federal small business contractors during fiscal year (FY) 2011 were large companies . This number is up from FY 2010 data, which showed 60 large companies among the top 100. The federal government has a statutory goal of awarding 23 percent of all federal contract dollars to legitimate small businesses. However the federal government has never hit the 23-percent small business contracting goal. Due to fraud, abuse and loopholes, federal agencies report contracts awarded to large companies as small business contracts. Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have uncovered billions of dollars in federal small business contracts being diverted to large corporations. In a report from October 2011, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General (SBA IG) said the SBA’s top management challenge was that; “Procurement flaws allow large firms to obtain small business awards and agencies to count contracts performed by large firms towards their small business goals.” According to the FPDS, large companies that were among the top 100 small business contractors for FY 2011 include: BlueCross BlueShield, Sierra Nevada Corporation, General Dynamics Corporation, Harris Corporation, VSE Corporation, GTSI Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Spectrum Group International, Inc., CVR Energy, Inc., Rockwell Collins, Inc. and several others. Each of these companies received at least $86 million in federal small business contracts in FY 2011, and some received upwards of $240 million. Large companies that were not among the top 100 small business contractors (meaning they received less than $86 million) but received federal small business contracts during FY 2011 include: Apple Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, British Aerospace (BAE), L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., Home Depot, General Motors, Toyota, Sony, Siemens, Ford, Citigroup, IBM, Verizon, ManTech, Shell Oil Company, Chevron Corporation, JPMorgan Chase and co., Coca-Cola, Science Systems and Applications Incorporated (SAIC), PepsiCo, Inc., Bank of America, Wells-Fargo, Panasonic, CVS, Thomson Reuters, General Electric, Comcast, Time Warner, The New York Times Company, Gannett Co. Inc., Hearst Corporation, Walt Disney World Co. and many others. Misrepresenting your firm as a small business is a felony, but the Department of Justice has NEVER prosecuted a single offender. In February 2008, Barack Obama addressed the magnitude of this problem stating, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” Since taking office, President Obama has failed to adopt policies to end fraud, abuse and loopholes in federal small business programs. In fact, many of his policies will dismantle or weaken federal small business contracting programs . This most recent report from the ASBL is strong evidence that the proper steps to end fraud, abuse and loopholes in federal small business contracting programs have not been taken. House Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves and his colleagues recently introduced a number of new bills to increase the amount of contracts that small business could receive. However, none of the new pieces of legislation are designed to prevent some of the largest companies in the world from receiving billions in small business contracts every month, and are rendered moot. The Obama administration needs to act by supporting a complete reform of federal small business contracting programs, and changing its decision to close the SBA .

Read the full article →

FDA Adds Diabetes And Memory Loss Warnings To Popular Statin Drugs

February 28, 2012

Feb 28 (Reuters) – U.S. health regulators will add warnings to the labels of widely used cholesterol lowering drugs to indicate that they may raise levels of blood sugar and could cause memory loss. The Food and Drug administration announced the changes to the safety information of the labels of statins, such as Pfizer Inc’s Lipitor, AstraZeneca’s Crestor and Merck & Co’s Zocor. Statins have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks and heart disease and the FDA said the new information should not scare people into stopping taking the drugs.

Read the full article →

In South Carolina Some Tax Refunds Will Be Shared With A Big Bank

February 28, 2012

This year South Carolina income tax refunds will arrive on prepaid debit cards unless taxpayers specifically opt for a check or direct deposit. The change could potentially save South Carolina as much as $1 million in printing and mailing costs this year, state projections indicate. And for the nearly 200,000 South Carolina households that do not have bank accounts , a prepaid debit card offers an end run around check-cashing fees and protects against the risk of holding so much cash. But the biggest winner could be Bank of America, which will issue the prepaid cards and stands to collect an untold amount in fees from card users and merchants who own the stores where the cards may be used. The arrangement allows the Charlotte, N.C. bank to charge some card users fees as high as $10 per transaction. And unlike ordinary debit cards linked to a bank account, there are no caps on the fees banks can charge merchants when customers use prepaid debit cards. The South Carolina Department of Revenue’s decision is part of a larger movement inside government. In 41 states, unemployment benefits are issued via prepaid debit card. Nearly every state issues food stamp and cash welfare benefits on prepaid debit or similar cards . Even the federal government will stop issuing traditional social security checks early next year. Government agencies stand to save millions while banks stand to gain much more. The nation’s largest banks have been eager to help government agencies make the transition to prepaid debit cards, industry analysts say. The reason: banks hungry to replace revenue lost to new financial regulation stand to collect millions in small fees from multiple card users and merchants . Bank of America declined to answer detailed questions about the way that prepaid debit cards are most often used or the bank’s projected earnings from the tax refund cards. But the bank insists the potential fees won’t hit many customers. “There are no [card user] fees for many typical uses of the card,” Jefferson George, a Charlotte-based Bank of America spokesman said in an email. George provided a link to a story describing critics of South Carolina’s newest prepaid card option as overwrought. Prepaid cardholders can visit a bank teller anywhere a Visa logo is displayed and, during their first visit, remove their entire tax refund at no cost, according to the fees listed on the South Carolina Department of Revenue’s web page. They can also use the card to make purchases in stores. If a card user decides to gradually access their refund at a teller — one way to avoid walking around with large amounts of cash or get around ATM limits — they will face a $10 fee each time. At an ATM, the fee is $2.50 for bypassing one of the more than 300 Bank of America ATMs in South Carolina. That’s a problem for some rural South Carolina residents and families without cars. The average tax refund in South Carolina was $837.44 last year. Many ATMs have maximum daily withdrawal limits typically under $1,000. Plus, card users will have to figure out how to withdraw the last few dollars from their card; most ATMs only allow withdrawals in increments of $10 or $20. Card users that request cash back at a store register will likely encounter similar limits. And at some gas stations and other stores, when a prepaid debit card is used, the store charges the card user the amount due and holds additional money as a security deposit for a few days after the purchase is made. These aren’t simply hypothetical experiences. In 2010, when the state’s unemployment agency launched the prepaid debit card option , state officials and the bank assured the public that with typical use, unemployed people would not pay fees to access their benefits. But under the initial terms of the deal, some South Carolina residents wound up paying ATM fees each time they needed to access cash or for calling customer service. They faced limits or security deposits while using their prepaid debit card that were not described in materials provided by the bank or state, The Huffington Post reported in November. (The customer service fee has since been eliminated.) State officials said they have not tracked how much customers or merchants have paid Bank of America in fees on unemployment benefits. The bank has declined to provide these figures. But documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Huffington Post reveal that Bank of America aimed to generate such fees from at least $40 million in transactions in one year. The bank offered to pay South Carolina a one-time $35,000 “resource allocation” payment if the state awarded the contract to Bank of America and signed up enough people for the unemployment prepaid debit card to meet that goal. South Carolina officials hope that about 350,000 people will receive tax refunds on prepaid cards this year.

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: MF Global: Crime, Comedy, and the Cover-Up

February 28, 2012

MF Global’s October 2011 bankruptcy was the eighth largest bankruptcy by assets in the United States. James Giddens, the bankruptcy trustee, issued a press release on February 6 stating that his investigation found that money from customer accounts that were supposed to be segregated was improperly used to fund MF Global’s daily activities. Improper transfers of customer money occurred regularly in amounts under $50 million before MF Global’s bankruptcy. MF Global wasn’t caught, because it put the money back before customers knew it was missing. On January 30, 2012 the Wall Street Journa l did a hilariously bad job of reporting when its front page article stated that a “person close to the investigation” said that as a result of chaotic trading in the week before MF Global’s October 31 bankruptcy, customers’ money “vaporized.” Money doesn’t vaporize. It’s true that tracing money transfers can be tedious, but that’s why we call it work. As for the Wall Street Journal’s article, the editor should have made it vaporize. I was having breakfast with several traders at Chicago’s East Bank Club. One trader read the passage aloud. The entire table burst out laughing. Then he got up and ceremoniously threw the paper in the trash. The entire table applauded. Fox Business News had people in stitches when it reported that Federal investigators are saying that this wasn’t criminal, it’s just a matter of sloppy bookkeeping. The habitual filching of customers’ funds–even if the funds are later replaced–goes way beyond sloppy bookkeeping. It goes way beyond bad judgment. Just because MF Global got away with it for a long time before it blew up in its face doesn’t mean one can call it sloppy bookkeeping and have any reasonable person believe it. If Federal investigators and law enforcement people want to make public statements like this, one should investigate corruption in their ranks. They seem to be providing undeserved excuses as a trial balloon to see if it will fly. Nice try, but it’s not working. According to the bankruptcy trustee, money was repeatedly filched from customers’ accounts. That goes way beyond sloppy bookkeeping. Senior officials of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and of MF Global’s regulator, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have already testified to Congress their belief that MF Global violated regulations–it broke the law–because using customers funds, money that was supposed to be in segregated accounts, to pay off MF Global’s creditors or to use that money to fund MF Global’s day-to-day operations is not permitted. MF Global CEO Jon Corzine, a former head of Goldman Sachs, signed off on statements that said his internal controls were adequate. After Enron, the Sarbanes Oxley Act was meant to assure Americans that officers that signed such statements would be held accountable for their accuracy. Federal law enforcement is trying to get away with saying no crime has been committed, because there was no direct criminal intent. Proving intent is very difficult. It’s hard to get into someone’s head and figure out what they were doing when they are purloining funds. I mean, what could they possibly be thinking? Here’s something that isn’t at all difficult to prove. Jon Corzine should have a big problem under Sarbanes Oxley. There’s no getting around the fact that MF Global’s compliance standards were unreasonably inadequate. Jon Corzine is a campaign fundraiser, a “bundler,” for campaign contributions for President Obama. Money contributed by Jon Corzine and his wife was returned by President Obama’s campaign committee, but the other money raised by Jon Corzine was not returned. It seems that both sides of the aisle in Congress view huge fundraisers like Corzine as untouchable. Congress will pose for the cameras and hold hearings, but absolutely nothing of meaning has been done to clean up the mess in the financial system. When MF Global’s condition worsened, the amounts grew much larger, and MF Global couldn’t replace customers’ funds in time to cover-up the shortfall. Investigators believe the segregated commodity customer account reached a deficit–meaning customer funds were obviously missing–on Wednesday, October 26, and that condition continued through to MF Global’s bankruptcy. MF Global’s officers cannot claim to have been ignorant of missing customer money when it habitually took customer money in small amounts and then took money in huge amounts, and the fact that customer money was missing showed up on an MF Global report. Investigators are now looking at multiple wire transfers including a just-made-public suspicious transfer of $325 million that was transferred on October 31. This is just one of many transactions that are under investigation. Since the September 2008 financial crisis, we’ve seen a pattern of misdeeds, dodgy financial reporting, Congressional “investigations” that are all for show, slow and incompetent investigations, and ultimately a slap on the wrist for wrong-doers. The MF Global “investigation” is just the last in a long list of the miscarriage of justice that has destroyed confidence in global finance. First Business Morning News’s Bill Moller interviewed me about this ongoing pattern of crime and lack-of-punishment in this brief segment: Endnote: My new e-book, The New Robber Barons , is now available in the U.S ., UK , Germany , France , Italy , and Spain .

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: On Matters of Optimism and Pessimism

February 28, 2012

We’re at a strange moment, trembling between optimism and pessimism. Much of this is economic; after a gloomy four years or so, there are signs that a more solid economic recovery may be in the works. But then there are gas prices. And Greece. And Iran. And the banks and the mortgages. And inequality. And, if you like, the Mayan calendar. It’s difficult to shake the willies brought on by the great mortgage collapse and all that followed. It’s difficult to see the entire forest when you’re up a tree deep within it. It’s particularly difficult to make a judgment because we are rooted in today — and we’ve learned, to our abiding distress, not to trust our feelings on these matters, certainly not to trust any sense of euphoria or even hope. And then, of course, the land resounds to the sound of podium-pounding politicians and cranks who see apocalypse and moral decline in every falling tree and in every burning bush. How difficult is this problem? Consider the stagnation thesis, an argument made by George Mason economist Tyler Cowen that the primary cause of much of what ails us economically — from overleveraged households to deficit-ridden governments to inequality — is a deceleration of technological advance that he traces back to at least the ’70s: or, as he titled the book he wrote on the subject, ” The Great Stagnation .” This week, The American Interest posted an interview conducted by Francis Fukuyama with venture capitalist, tech entrepreneur (PayPal) and libertarian Peter Thiel. Cowen dedicated ” The Great Stagnation ” to Thiel, and Fukuyama describes him as “one of the inspirations” for that book, whatever that means. Thiel doesn’t argue with that characterization and goes on to enthusiastically summarize the argument. “I think the question of technological dynamism isn’t often examined, but when you look into it you see many problems, from transportation failures to the space program and the Concorde decommissioning to how the energy failure allows oil price shocks to undo the price improvements of the previous century. Think of the famous 1980 Paul Ehrlich-Julian Simon wager about resource scarcity. Simon may have won the bet a decade later, but since 1993, on a rolling decade basis, Ehrlich has been winning famously. This is something that has not registered with the political class at all.” This leads Fukuyama to suggest that this may represent an early sign of a zero-sum world (read Malthusian) and that the result of so much technological change tends to favor the smart and well educated. Thiel denies he ever said there had been “no technological progress” — Fukuyama never actually said he did — but then goes on to argue that the progress we’ve seen is not enough, that it’s slowing, stagnating. Thiel tackles the keystone of the thesis: How do we know we’re stagnating? “If you look at technological progress during most of the 19th and 20th century, it brought significant disruption. … In effect, over time labor was freed up to do more productive things.” But he insists that’s no longer the case. The evidence? Advancing inequality. True, he notes, technology is just part of the problem; the financialization of the economy and — this is big, he says — globalization also play major roles. Thiel eventually circles back to technology, again making a circumstantial argument. Look at industries like clean energy. They should create millions of jobs but they haven’t. The reason: technological stagnation. Thiel goes on to say a number of interesting things, notably that he thought “things worked better in the ’50s and ’60s.” This is odd for a libertarian, because this was a period dominated by government funding for R&D, particularly from the military. Both Thiel and Cowen unabashedly share an enthusiasm for big efforts like the Concorde or the space program. And they view the failure or reduction of those projects as a further sign of stagnation. We no longer want to be inspired by great feats of science and engineering. That points up the problem here. When we talk about technological progress, we talk about signs and bits of evidence; that’s why this is a thesis not a fact. Innovation or progress eludes quantification; it can only be discerned through secondary economic measures: unemployment, inequality, lagging productivity (Cowen in the book obviously has gathered far more evidence than Thiel offers and unfolds his case with more nuance). And even that may look very different with a longer time horizon. Or it’s a feel that things aren’t as dynamic as they were in the ’50s or the ’20s — periods most of us had no real experience of. Was the disruption brought on by cars replacing horses any greater than the various disruptions kicked off by advancing computer power or, say, the Internet? How do we compare the economy of the ’50s with the dramatically different economy of today? And why should stagnation be identified solely with inequality? Isn’t Fukuyama’s point valid: that disruption brought on by technological innovation may leave large parts of the society, particularly the inadequately educated, behind? Look at how computers have changed the factory floor, the steel mill, media and entertainment, communication. In economic history, at least since the industrial revolution, disruption has often left behind broad swaths of society, from British agricultural workers to unionized workers in American manufacturing. And that “seems” to be accelerating, both because of globalization and the rapid diffusion of disruptive technologies. Thiel is a bright guy, but he has a tendency to bathe the past in a warm glow, in which disrupted workers are quickly absorbed by more productive uses or in which an entire nation cheers a fast plane or a race to the moon. There’s nearly always a lag — and it’s one that often crushes an entire generation of folks who find themselves on the wrong side, beginning with the under-educated, the discriminated against, or the social misfits. The new productive jobs usually go to their children or grandchildren. That said, Thiel and Cowen might well be right; we’ll know some day. But that brings us back to the hazy line between optimism and pessimism. Again, let us consult the signs and portents, which is all we have. Today’s papers feature two signs of unabashed hope on the technological front. In the Financial Times , Martin Wolf, hardly a man to lose himself in euphoria, examines the promise of hydraulic fracking and “a golden age of gas.” Fracking was developed in the U.S. and in the ’80s or ’90s. Wolf carefully notes all the environmental hazards associated with it, and enumerates, in classic Wolfian style, five considerations that will determine its development. But fracking does change the energy equation, threatening, in Thiel’s formulation, to give the game back to Simon. Then there are reviews here and here of ” Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think ” by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler, a book whose optimism outpaces Steven Pinker’s recent ” The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined .” The title says it all. In Diamandis and Kotler’s half-empty glass, they see, well, abundance. They also liberally toss around statistics and anecdote, and offer a catchy thesis: “Humanity is now entering a period of radical transformation where technology has the potential to significantly raise the basic standard of living for every man, woman and child on the planet.” OK, perhaps their cheer is a little overheated. Perhaps their evidence is a little sketchy; I haven’t read the book. And since it’s a prediction, it’s no more testable or believable than Cowen and Thiel’s stagnation thesis. But it is a sign of the times, another boost to our ability to look forward without grimacing. We shall see if it holds. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal magazine.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: We’re A Country. Deal With It.

February 28, 2012

Again and again (and again and again) we hear — and learn the hard way — that our “keep government out of it” approach to economic and manufacturing policy is hurting us. The countries that see themselves as countries and therefore have national strategies — where the ecosystem of an industry and/or sector is coordinated and nurtured by government strategies — are doing much better than the countries where leaders think “government interference” is a problem. We send our companies out to compete against organized national systems, and the result is we lose our jobs, factories, infrastructures and economy. And maybe one day our country, too. We’re A Country. Deal With It. Here’s the important thing to understand, even if you think the idea of “countries” is out of date, and don’t think of the United States as a country is important anymore: Others see themselves as countries and they organize their countries to win as countries . And you don’t live in those countries. They see us — this geographic region we live in — as a country, even if we do not, and they plan their efforts accordingly. They attack us as a country and you happen to live in the geographic region called a country that they are attacking. So as they seize the jobs and factories and industries from our country all of us who happen to live within the geographic borders that we refuse to call a country lose out economically, whether we believe we are part of this country or not . This means we have to respond as a country regardless of whether our ideology says we shouldn’t. We are under economic attack as a country , so national government still matters as the only force capable of organizing a national response . This Time, Brookings Is Saying It This time, a Brookings study looks at manufacturing, and concludes that it is special to an economy, creating more jobs than other endeavors. Making things is what brings the income and generates the innovation that supports the service sector. “Manufacturing is the major source of commercial innovation and is essential for innovation in the service sector.” Reuters – Lack of national policy hobbles U.S. manufacturing: study : Lack of a public policy on manufacturing is the main obstacle to a vibrant factory sector in the United States, according to a study which also dismissed the notion that high wages are frustrating growth. Between June 1979 and December 2009, the country lost 41 percent of its manufacturing jobs, the study said. The loss of factory jobs worsened further, with manufacturing’s total share of employment falling to 8.9 percent in December 2009 from 13.2 percent in 2000. “Countries in continental Europe as well as Canada are performing much better. They shed much fewer jobs, particularly over the last decade and many have higher wages,” said Wial, who co-authored the study, told Reuters. “They have policies and strategies for trying to retain manufacturing jobs and higher wages, and we really don’t.” From Brookings – Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? : American manufacturing will not realize its potential automatically. While U.S. manufacturing performs well compared to the rest of the U.S. economy, it performs poorly compared to manufacturing in other high-wage countries. American manufacturing needs strengthening in four key areas: Research and development Lifelong training of workers at all levels Improved access to finance An increased role for workers and communities in creating and sharing in the gains from innovative manufacturing These problems can be solved with the help of public policies that do the following: Promote high-road production Include a mix of policies that operate at the level of the entire economy, individual industries, and individual manufacturers Encourage workers, employers, unions, and government to share responsibility for improving the nation’s manufacturing base and to share in the gains from such improvements The Brookings research warns: The nation need not and should not passively accept the decline or stagnation of manufacturing jobs, wages, or production. American manufacturing matters because it makes crucial contributions to four important national goals. Manufacturing provides high-wage jobs, especially for workers who would otherwise earn the lowest wages. Manufacturing is the major source of commercial innovation and is essential for innovation in the service sector. Manufacturing can make a major contribution to reducing the nation’s trade deficit. Manufacturing makes a disproportionately large contribution to environmental sustainability. Click for the full Brookings paper: Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Customer Surveys: 5 Things You Need To Know

February 27, 2012

Surveying your customers regularly and in a variety of ways is a critical part of running a successful business, regardless of your industry, product or service. Surveys measure satisfaction — or dissatisfaction — with your offerings, determine critical needs and offer an opportunity to effectively communicate and build truly personal relationships with your customers. And when you take both praise and criticism to heart in order to fulfill the true needs of these customers, you build invaluable loyalty that can create buzz around your business and bring in enthusiastic, highly qualified referrals. Still, many business owners don’t use regular surveys as an opportunity to reach out to their customers and really get to know them. For some reason, they fail to realize that satisfied customers are the key to staying in business for the long haul. As Paul Conforti, co-founder and CEO of Boston-based Final Desserterie , puts it, “In the game of business, sales and profit are how we keep score. But the game itself is all about customer satisfaction. Small-business owners need to be able to measure customer satisfaction to truly understand how well they’re playing the game — and customer surveys are the primary way of doing that.” The good news is, it’s easier than ever to have this candid conversation with your customers. What’s the best way to get started? Here are five things you need to know. 1. Focus on the narrative, not the number. The most valuable part of any customer survey is the narrative. Make sure to include open-ended questions in any survey you launch that allow the customer to give you specific, actionable feedback. “It can be tempting to obsess over the rating your customers give you on surveys, but scores alone are somewhat meaningless,” says Jon Picoult, founder and principal of Watermark Consulting , which specializes in customer experience. “Say a customer gives you the lowest rating — 1 out of 5 — now what? Absent an understanding of the rationale behind the score, there’s not much you can do with that information.” The same goes for great scores — if a customer gives you the highest rating, you need to know why, so you can replicate that same experience and outcome with other customers and clients. Tom Feeney, president and CEO of Safelite AutoGlass (https://www.safelite.com/index.jsp), adds that if you see consistently low numbers and negative comments surrounding a specific area of your operations, you need to dig deeper and find out why with informed follow-up questions. “The number alone doesn’t give you the insight you need,” he says. “It is important to understand why your customers are rating you the way they are, so follow-up questions can be helpful. However, avoid piling on too many questions that will make the survey overwhelming and reduce response rates.” For example, Feeney uses the “Net Promoter Score” method based on Fred Reichheld’s book” The Ultimate Question .” The central question of this method is, “How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?” He sends his survey within 24 hours of service in single e-mail with no follow-up reminders and gets a 20 percent response rate. 2. Don’t stack the deck. Objective feedback from your customers and clients is more useful than good feedback. Therefore, you should make sure the structure of your survey as well as the distribution method promotes the flow of truly candid customer opinions. The point of surveying is to get honest reactions. “With the advent of social media and online review sites, every guest experience has the potential to directly affect the perception of your small business,” says Joe Shaw, marketing director of Jake’s Burgers in Dallas, who uses the real-time mobile survey provider Survey on the Spot . “A well-designed survey system will help you to create a customer service-centric culture. As a small business competing against larger companies, developing a continuous improvement model is essential.” Picoult stresses that there is a true art to survey design. “If not engineered correctly, surveys can introduce bias into your feedback collection, undermining the quality of the information gathered and leading you to draw inappropriate conclusions,” he says. Some examples of these pitfalls are biased rating scales that can give business owners “false positives,” such as a five-point scale with three or more positive rating points, or the distribution of surveys only to customers that seem to be satisfied with service or products. Professional survey firms and even do-it-yourself online survey sites usually provide an array of free best practice survey design tips to help demystify the process that all business owners should use. 3. Choose survey methods that garner real information in real time. Getting real information from real customers in real time is the best way for small-business owners to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their businesses, especially as their businesses grow. Conforti relies on real-time online surveys to get feedback about customers’ experiences at his bakery. “Unless we are sole proprietors who get to see the customer face-to-face on a daily basis, customer surveys are an important tool for us to gather that information,” he says. “Giving the customer easy access to communication channels like e-mail, website feedback, Facebook, Twitter, etc., are obviously important as well. But that type of feedback is usually driven by specific needs/issues of the customer. Surveys allow us to steer the conversation in directions that the customer may not have otherwise gone.” Many small-business owners are concerned that their business or their budget is too small to hire survey companies that will provide them with highly organized, accurately designed real-time surveys. Also, the breakneck speed of business is forcing a lot of rushed decisions that can lead to big slip-ups, like Verizon’s recent recalled $2 charge and the Gap’s failed logo redesign. Research is key, and when weeks and months are not an option, small-business owners don’t have to rely on piecing together watered-down Twitter, Facebook and e-mail surveys, crowdsourcing or using free survey sites like SurveyMonkey when they really need serious, qualitative research. “We heard from our very first customer that he couldn’t get guest satisfaction survey companies to return his call because he was too small,” says Kimmel, co-founder and CEO of On The Spot Systems/Survey on the Spot. So he designed Survey on the Spot as a “self-serve, cost-effective solution to gather real-time feedback from customers. It also allows you to receive instant management alerts if an issue arises.” This service and many other types of self-serve and full-service survey solutions can be integral to helping entrepreneurs quickly build their email lists and businesses that meet their customers’ needs well. 4. Close the loop by reaching out and following up. The most enlightening customer feedback often comes from just picking up the phone and having direct contact with customers. Your survey feedback is worthless if you don’t take action on it. You need to put plans in place to resolve issues revealed by surveys and always reconnect with customers that express dissatisfaction. Bill Clerico, CEO of payment collection service WePay , has used many different types of surveys over the years, but has found he gets the most information through voice-to-voice conversations with his customers. “Last month the CEO, COO, marketing director, marketing coordinator, PR manager, three sales managers, three customer support reps and even some engineers got on the phone with a variety of customers — both pleased and displeased — and simply asked for feedback on the product, support and how they perceived WePay as a company,” he says. “The information was more valuable than any digital survey we’ve ever completed.” And the mere act of surveying a customer can increase satisfaction, according to Picoult. But follow-up is where the real power lies. “Many companies never reach out to customers for feedback,” he says. “When one does, customers generally view that favorably. But what really knocks their socks off is when they hear back from a company representative after completing a survey. Particularly if that survey indicated that the customer was dissatisfied in some way, getting a personalized call or note back can be stunning, in a good way. It sends a clear signal to customers that they don’t often see — namely, that this company genuinely cares about their opinion and is acting on their feedback.” 5. Marinate in the survey feedback. As someone trying to build a solid business, you need to immerse yourself in customer feedback. Don’t stick survey results in a binder and forget about them without analysis. Share the results — including verbatim customer comments — and what these results have taught you with your entire staff. Take time to thoughtfully review survey responses and consider their implications. Picoult believes that for small-business owners, there’s no more important business measure than the voice of their customers. “If you listen to them carefully, spotting what frustrates them, what delights them and what unmet needs they have, you’ll be eminently better equipped to build a thriving company,” he says. “Don’t view the solicitation of customer feedback as an onerous, administrative exercise. It’s the lifeblood of your business!” Feeney adds, “You cannot live in denial. If the results are not what you want, don’t sweep them under the rug and blame it on the method. Embrace the feedback and do something about it.”

Read the full article →

Deborah Howlett: A Closer Look at Gov. Christie’s Unrealistic Budget Plan for New Jersey

February 27, 2012

About that 10 percent income tax cut that Gov. Christie promised us last week … don’t start planning that dream vacation quite yet. Despite polls that show New Jersey voters expecting a median savings of nearly $750 from the cut, the true savings are much, much less. For someone earning $60,000 a year, which is pretty close to half of all workers, the cut will amount to income tax savings of less than $35 in 2013. It would double to $70 in 2014, before finally hitting the full $105 — or about $2 a week — in 2015. What’s more, there will actually be no income tax cut this year. Instead, taxpayers will have to wait until they file their 2015 taxes in 2016 to get all of what the governor is promising – and even that won’t amount to much for most of us. The income tax proposal put forth by the governor doesn’t become “operational” until January 1, 2013, according to a footnote in the Department of Treasury’s Budget in Brief , a 150-page document that adds detail to the budget proposal outlined in Tuesday’s speech. So while the governor unabashedly refers to his plan as a “10-percent income tax cut,” it’s really more like a “3.3 percent, and you-gotta-wait-til-next-year-to-get-it tax cut.” And here’s the kicker: over three years, this cumulative pittance in individual tax savings will end up costing the state $1.7 billion in revenues. Quite simply, in this economy and given the devastation caused to services in the past two budgets, the state can’t afford to give up those revenues. The governor’s solution to that issue is to create the illusion of more money. His economic advisers are forecasting 7.3 percent growth in the state’s tax collections next year — a $2.2 billion windfall that the state hasn’t seen since pre-recession days, when the economic bubble was being stretched to bursting. “Revenue growth will primarily result from the continued improvement in the state’s economy,” according to the Budget in Brief. The governor’s budget numbers are incredibly optimistic, even though New Jersey lags the rest of the nation in economic recovery with a 9 percent unemployment rate, and even though the state is expecting revenues for this year to fall short of projections by 3.2 percent, or $325 million. In the end, this budget is a dog. The revenue numbers are suspect. The promise of a 10 percent tax cut is false. And the political narrative of a “New Jersey comeback” is just so much fiction. It is now incumbent on the legislature to draft a budget that includes realistic revenue numbers that will adequately fund some of the good priorities the governor did lay out in his speech – increased school aid, restoration of the state Earned Income Tax Credit and expansion of drug courts. That budget must include increasing the top tax rate and demanding that the wealthiest one percent share in the burden that the other 99 percent have endured the past two budgets.

Read the full article →

Jed Kolko: Misery Loves Campaigning: The Housing Misery Index and the 2012 Election

February 27, 2012

The housing crisis hurt some states especially hard. In those states, like Florida and Nevada, the Republican presidential candidates couldn’t ignore housing. But in states that weathered the housing crisis better, the candidates won’t spend precious money and attention on housing policy. To see which states are suffering most, we created a Housing Misery Index. Like the original Misery Index , which adds together unemployment and inflation, our Housing Misery Index takes two important indicators of a state’s housing market and simply adds them together. For every state, we add (1) the percentage change in home prices from the peak until today, from FHFA , and (2) the percent of mortgages either severely delinquent or in foreclosure, from CoreLogic . Why these two indicators? First, big price drops lead to more underwater borrowers and less household wealth, which hurt the housing market and hold back economic recovery. Second, defaults and foreclosures damage consumer confidence in the housing recovery, and foreclosures cause pain not only for people who lose their homes but also for their neighbors. States That Are Most Miserable When It Comes To Housing State Housing Misery Index Nevada 73 Florida 62 Arizona 55 California 54 Michigan 37 Idaho 35 Rhode Island 34 Georgia 34 Washington state 33 Maryland 32 Note: Index is sum of peak-to-2011Q4 price decline (FHFA) and 2011Q4 delinquency (90+ days) plus foreclosure rate (CoreLogic). Top 10 states ranked by the housing misery index are shown. Nevada, Florida, Arizona and California top the housing misery list: they all had huge price declines and lots of foreclosures. The gap in the index between California at #4 and Michigan at #5 is big, so the top four states are much more miserable than the rest. States with bigger price declines tend to have more delinquencies and foreclosures. However, some states have delinquency and foreclosure rates that are out of line with price declines: Florida, New Jersey, New York, Illinois and other states where foreclosures must  go through the courts have more homes stuck in foreclosure than states with similar price drops, boosting their misery index scores. What does the housing misery index mean for the election? If candidates want to talk about what voters want most, they should focus on housing issues where it’s clearly a pain point for voters. This means that after next week, we probably won’t hear much about housing from the presidential candidates again until the summer. This chart presents the housing misery index for all states, in order of the Republican primary and caucus calendar: The 2012 Republican Primaries and the Housing Misery Index Note: Index is sum of peak-to-2011Q4 price decline (FHFA) and 2011Q4 delinquency (90+ days) plus foreclosure rate (CoreLogic). Missouri’s caucus is March 17 even though its primary was February 7. Texas’s primary is scheduled for April 3 but could be delayed. Idaho’s caucus is March 6 even though its non-binding primary is May 15.   In the two most miserable states — Florida and Nevada — the Republicans have come and gone: there they argued about housing without presenting bold new ideas. The third most miserable state — Arizona – votes next Tuesday (along with Michigan), and the last of the top four — California — doesn’t vote until June 5. That’s a long quiet period between Arizona and California if the candidates choose to pipe up about housing only in the states where the market is really hurting. If one of the Republicans wakes up with a great new housing idea in March, when and where will we hear about it? Any housing speeches for Super Tuesday (March 6) should be given on the trail in Idaho or Georgia, which have the highest housing misery index of the many states voting that day. Among states voting in April, Rhode Island and Maryland has the highest misery index; in May, it’s Oregon. Those are where candidates should deliver their springtime housing speeches. But if candidates save their housing ideas for the most miserable states, next week’s Arizona primary could be the last time we hear about housing until June in California.

Read the full article →

Inside Online Shipping Warehouse Hell

February 27, 2012

“Don’t take anything that happens to you there personally,” the woman at the local chamber of commerce says when I tell her that tomorrow I start working at Amalgamated Product Giant Shipping Worldwide Inc. She winks at me. I stare at her for a second.

Read the full article →

Marketers, Take Note: Parenting Bloggers Have Serious Sway

February 27, 2012

The question of whether virtual communities are real has been more than silenced of late by members, who have never met, rallying to each others’ aid. Among the most recent examples are blogger Monica Bielanko and her family , who were swooped up by readers of her blog after their house burned to the ground. The clarion call, which raised tens of thousands of dollars, was sounded by blogger Katie Allison Granju , who’d had her own taste of the embrace of strangers about two years earlier, after the death of her teenage son. In fact, the baby Monica and her husband carried clear from the fire was named Henry, after Katie’s boy — even though the parents have only met in person once.

Read the full article →

Football Star Faces Multiple Foreclosures

February 27, 2012

Just because football star Terrell Owens has earned $80 million over the course of his career doesn’t mean he’s immune to foreclosure. Owens, the star wide-receiver notorious for his off-field antics , is facing foreclosure on two of his Dallas condominiums, according to RealtyTrac , a real estate site that tracks foreclosure filings. The two upscale condos, which are less than three miles apart, will be auctioned on March 6, according to RealtyTrac. One of the condos is at the luxury Azure Condominiums , and the other is at 3701 Commerce Street, according to RealtyTrac . Owens isn’t the first athlete to fall on tough financial times . More than three-fourths of retired NFL players lose their fortune within two years, and sixty percent of NBA players become financially insolvent within five years of quitting. Owens has lost nearly all of his money due to bad investments and steep child support payments, according to a recent profile in GQ . In addition, expensive mortgage payments on his multiple properties have become unsustainable. Owens’ property in Atlanta is on the market, and he sold a place in south Jersey for less than half the amount that he had paid for it, according to GQ . Exacerbating his financial troubles, Owens, who has had an NFL career that includes stints in San Francisco, Dallas , Cincinnati, Philadelphia and Buffalo was unemployed in 2011 because he needed to recover from a surgery on his left knee . But Owens has a job in football again. He scored three touchdowns on Sunday night in his first game for the Indoor Football League’s Allen Wranglers, according to Yahoo! Sports. Though Owens may be one of the most notable Americans facing foreclosure, he’s not alone. About 1.4 million homeowners are in the foreclosure process, according to CoreLogic. And approximately one in five homeowners owe more on their homes than they are worth, according to CoreLogic. But substantial help for these homeowners doesn’t appear to be arriving any time soon. Though some troubled borrowers will receive money and principal reductions thanks to the recent national mortgage settlement, the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which hold or guarantee nearly half of all outstanding mortgages — refuse to consider partial loan forgiveness to allow troubled borrowers to stay in their homes.

Read the full article →

David Frum: The Solution to Rising Gas Prices? A Market Economy

February 27, 2012

Gasoline prices are rising in the United States — always bad news for an incumbent president. Accordingly, President Barack Obama travelled to Miami to repeat his energy message, which can be summed up as follows: Help is on the way. The U.S. government is investing in new energy technologies — and in time, those investments will pay off in the form of cheaper energy and new jobs: “Our job is to help outstanding work that’s being done in universities, in labs, and to help businesses get new energy ideas off the ground — because it was public dollars, public research dollars, that over the years helped develop the technologies that companies are right now using to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock.” The implicit promise here is that new forms of energy will preserve the familiar American way of life. Electrical motors or fuel cells may replace internal combustion engines, but Americans will continue to commute long distances to work in individual vehicles — or so this kind of talk suggests. But what if the most cost-effective energy solution is not to change the energy we use, but rather to change the way we use energy? After the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States succeeded in reducing its use of oil. As late as 1995, the United States was using no more oil than it had used in 1978. Not its use per person, or use per vehicle, but its use, period. This progress was not accomplished by reinventing the internal combustion engine. It was accomplished by (1) shifting homes from oil to gas heat; (2) ending the burning of heavy oil by electrical utilities; and (3) shifting freight traffic from trucks to trains. No government official planned these changes. They just happened, in response to market forces. Result: Even as Americans put more cars on the road — and drove further in them — they successfully decreased their oil reliance. More impressively, they dramatically decreased the “energy intensity” of their economy: the amount of oil it took to generate an additional dollar of Gross National Product. In the cheap-oil era from 1995 to 2005, that progress slowed. By 2005, the United States was using 10 per cent more oil than at the peaks touched in 1978 and 1995. Such progress could resume again without any need for dramatic technological change. We don’t need to imagine anything heroic, like Los Angeles shifting from cars to subways — just an accumulation of small incremental changes: a consumer shift to hybrid cars or to smaller homes located closer to work. Not all the changes are obviously energy-related. Americans move away from central cities in part to find better schools. Improve schools nearer to where Americans now live, and fewer Americans will feel pushed to move to more distant exurbs to pursue something better. Build condo towers atop shopping and entertainment areas, and more people will choose to enjoy a lifestyle where they can walk to their fun instead of driving. If, however, people are told that today’s prices are an outrage, that oil can be made cheaper again — well then they won’t make the changes and investments needed to move to a post-oil future. They’ll just cut back their spending on other things, and tough out today’s prices. This is why it is so misleading and dangerous for presidents to promise dramatic changes tomorrow — and to sprinkle subsidies on shoot-the-moon technologies. Energy policy that promises too much distracts people from making the choices now that could accomplish something. Tax energy, especially oil and coal. Use the proceeds to cut permanently the payroll taxes that most heavily burden working Americans, so that the typical person pays no more than he or she did before. Get the government out of the job of acting as venture capitalist to the energy industry. End the subsidies to wind and solar. And watch Americans rediscover in the 2010s what they learned in the 1980s: that in a market economy there need be no contradiction at all between energy conservation and a high and rising quality of life. This blog was originally published in the National Post.

Read the full article →

Jerry Jasinowski: Encouraging Entrepreneurship

February 27, 2012

This may sound a bit hard to believe, but I predict we will see genuine bipartisan legislation in Congress this year that will do wonders to revive economic growth and create jobs — even though bipartisanship is an endangered species in Washington, and even though this is an election year. Miracles do happen, and we are going to see one. Several bills backed by Republicans and Democrats would rejuvenate the spirit of entrepreneurship – creative people taking risks to bring new products and ideas to market. This is our country’s strong suit, and a critical element in our economy. Research by the Kauffman Foundation indicates that firms less than five years old have produced 40 million jobs over the past three decades, essentially accounting for all of the new jobs created in that period. But over the past five years, new startups are down 23 percent, and firms that are being launched are adding fewer new jobs than in earlier years. Public offerings have fallen. Part of this is due to the overall weakness in the economy, but at the same time entrepreneurs are finding that raising capital and finding talent are much more challenging than in years past. And as the creative spirit ebbs on our home shores, it is picking up among our foreign competitors. Now many people in and out of government are laying concrete plans to reclaim our leadership in entrepreneurship. One entrepreneur, Steve Case, founder of AOL, has championed this cause in many forums, including on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competiveness. The Startup Act, conceived by the Kauffman Foundation, was introduced by Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Jerry Moran (R-KS). The Agree Act, which stands for The American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship Act, was offered by Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). These bills focus primarily on using the tax code to stimulate investment and growth. Among the ideas are: a three-year extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation for qualified investments; a three-year extension of Section 179 expensing levels; an extension of the R&D tax credit; raising the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) from 14 to 20 percent and making it permanent; an enhanced research credit to encourage job creation; and special credits to veterans who aspire to launch new idea and enterprises Other provisions would amend Sarbanes-Oxley to make it easier for high growth companies to go public, and make it easier for foreign-born entrepreneurs, mathematicians and engineers to launch companies in the U.S. Entrepreneurship is a core value that both parties can agree on, and these proposals promise to evoke enthusiastic support on both sides of the aisle, and in the White House. It sounds strange, I know, but we could actually see some positive action in Washington to encourage entrepreneurship. Jerry Jasinowski, an economist and author, serve d as President of the National Association of Manufacturers for 14 years and later The Manufacturing Institute. Jerry is available for speaking engagements.

Read the full article →

Goodyear Concerned Some Of Its Tires Could, You Know, Tear Apart

February 26, 2012

Feb 25 (Reuters) – Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co said Saturday it would recall about 41,000 of its Wrangler Silent Armor tires produced in 2009 over concerns that a small number could tear, leading to crashes. Two people died in one 2011 crash involving a vehicle equipped with the tires, Goodyear spokesman Scott Baughman said. Baughman said about 27,000 of the tires were still believed to be in service. The tires are used on pickup trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles, often at construction sites or for off-road applications, he said. Goodyear said in a letter to federal safety regulators that it first saw an increase in warranty and property damage claims during a review in May 2010. The recall covers 40,915 tires produced in six sizes from March to May 2009. “A small number of tires within this population may experience a partial tread area separation under certain severe usage conditions,” Goodyear said in a Feb. 22 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Use of these tires in severe conditions could result in partial tread separation which could lead to vehicle damage or a motor vehicle crash.” Goodyear said it inspected in December the tire subject to the injury claim and determined that it had sustained damage from external causes, the company said in the letter to NHTSA. Still, based on an analysis of the warranty and damage claims, and discussion with safety regulators, Goodyear decided on Feb. 16 to recall the tires, it said. It plans to send notices to customers by March 22. (Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by David Bailey)

Read the full article →

‘Dead Wrong’

February 25, 2012

OMAHA, Neb. – Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Saturday that he was “dead wrong” with a prediction that the U.S. housing market would begin to recover by now, but he remains optimistic about the nation’s economy. In his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Buffett said he is sure housing will recover eventually and help bring down the nation’s unemployment rate. But he did not predict when that will happen. Investors eagerly await the letter from Buffett, 81, the so-called Oracle of Omaha, who built a roughly $44 billion fortune by following a steadfast, no-nonsense investing strategy. Buffett said housing “remains in a depression of its own,” but he predicted, in typical plainspoken style, that the housing market will come back because some human factors can’t be denied forever. “People may postpone hitching up during uncertain times, but eventually hormones take over,” he wrote. “And while ‘doubling-up’ may be the initial reaction of some during a recession, living with in-laws can quickly lose its allure.” The housing prediction proved painful for Berkshire Hathaway. It owns more than 80 subsidiaries, including the Geico insurance company and See’s Candy, and five of them depend on construction activity. Those businesses, which include Acme Brick, Clayton Homes and Shaw carpet, generated pre-tax profits of $513 million last year. That’s well off the $1.8 billion those companies added to Berkshire in 2006. Berkshire’s insurance companies took $1.7 billion in catastrophe losses last year, including from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Berkshire reported only $154 million in underwriting profit, down from $1.3 billion the previous year. But several of Berkshire’s larger non-insurance businesses — Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, MidAmerican Energy, Marmon Group, Lubrizol and Iscar — all generated record earnings in 2011. That helped Berkshire as a whole to generate $10.3 billion in net income, or $6,215 per Class A share, last year, down from nearly $13 billion, or $7,928 per share, in 2010. A Class A share of Berkshire stock, which has never been split by the company, traded for $120,000 on Friday. Its more affordable Class B shares traded for about $80. Buffett reassured Berkshire shareholders that the company has someone in mind to replace him eventually, but did not name the successor. He emphasized that he has no plans to leave. Glenn Tongue, a managing partner at T2Partners investment firm, said he was struck by the fact that Buffett chose to deal with the succession topic as one of the first items in his letter. “I think this was a forceful and stronger attempt to put this issue to bed,” Tongue said. Buffett offered a couple of details about Berkshire’s succession planning in this year’s letter. Investors have long worried about who will replace Buffett as Berkshire chairman and CEO. Buffett said the Berkshire board is enthusiastic about the executive it has picked and said there are two good back-up candidates. “When a transfer of responsibility is required, it will be seamless, and Berkshire’s prospects will remain bright,” Buffett said. Previously, Buffett had said only that the board had three internal candidates for the CEO job. Berkshire plans to split Buffett’s jobs into three parts to replace him with a CEO, a chairman and several investment managers. Berkshire has also cleared up some succession questions by hiring two hedge fund managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. Buffett says those two have the “brains, judgment and character” to manage Berkshire’s entire portfolio eventually. ___ Online: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: www.berkshirehathaway.com

Read the full article →

Canadian Mining More Corrupt Than Parts Of Developing World: Survey

February 24, 2012

Corruption in Canada’s mining industry is worse than in some African and Latin American countries, says a new survey from the Fraser Institute. Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories all ranked in the survey as more corrupt than Chile and Botswana . The remaining provinces and territories ranked better than any developing country, but were still seen as more corrupt than many U.S. and Australian jurisdictions. The study notes that Chile and Botswana have the fastest-growing resource sectors on their respective continents, suggesting a link between economic growth and lack of corruption. The Northwest Territories ranked as the most corrupt in Canada, with fully 16 per cent of respondents saying corruption would keep them from investing in the area. Sweden, Norway and Finland, as well as the U.S. states of Minnesota and Missouri, were ranked as the least corrupt in the survey that looked at 93 countries and sub-national areas and surveyed 802 mining companies worldwide. Most of the developing world, and some developed countries such as Poland and Spain, ranked worse than any Canadian province. It’s a surprising result that suggests some Canadian jurisdictions may have a way to go in ensuring confidence in their mining sectors, and it indicates that controversies surrounding Canadian mining companies may go beyond concerns about their operations abroad. “ It’s clearly a concern, though a concern amongst a minority of miners ,” survey co-ordinator Fred McMahon told the Globe and Mail. “I doubt there’s big money passing hands, but it might be a favour here or a favour there. … It’s something that plagues mining companies around the world.” The report does not cite examples of corruption in Canadian mining. But concerns have traditionally centred around Canadian companies’ activities abroad. Mining firms have often been criticized for their links to resource-fuelled wars in Africa . Bribery is seen as being among the most common problems. Last year, Calgary-based Niko Resources agreed to pay a $9.5-million fine after admitting it bribed a Bangladeshi government minister . Under Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act , it is illegal for Canadian companies to bribe officials anywhere in the world. In another case, the RCMP raided the offices of Calgary-based Blackfire Exploration last year as part of an investigation into allegations the company bribed Mexican officials to suppress dissent against an open pit mine in Chiapas. In 2009, three men linked to Blackfire were arrested for the murder of an anti-mining activist . “ This tragic outcome can be traced directly to the Harper government’s refusal to end the impunity currently enjoyed by Canadian mining companies ,” Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow said at the time. But in a 2009 report on corruption in mining , Ernst & Young reported that heavy regulation may also be to blame. Mining is among the most heavily regulated industries in the world, and “as a result, officials who have the power to block, delay or frustrate a project may attempt to solicit bribes for the benign exercise of that power.” The report also suggests that corruption may not be worth it, financially. “The impact of such activities can seriously degrade a company’s share price and potentially trigger costly shareholder or other litigation,” the report stated. “Furthermore, the time spent by management in attending to investigations, press inquiries or regulatory processes can distract management from the business of developing or operating a mineral property, or exploring for new properties.” Canada’s mining sector was worth $54 billion to Canada’s economy in 2010, amounting to 4.4 per cent of GDP .

Read the full article →

Grace Nasri: Law Schools Feel the Heat From Unemployed Grads

February 24, 2012

Law schools across the country are starting to feel the heat from a growing number of former students who after graduating have been left with hefty loans and no solid job prospects. Many recent graduates who say they were lured into law school by promising job prospects, are calling on their alma maters to be more transparent about their graduates’ actual job prospects. To date, at least 50 students have joined together in 12 different lawsuits to sue their alma maters for allegedly misleading them about job prospects. Student complaints stem from the allegation that law schools aren’t being upfront about the employment numbers of their graduates. Some graduates claim that their alma matters report as employed, students who have only landed temporary jobs, menial jobs or jobs in which their pricy law degree is not even needed. Other students complain that their schools aren’t transparent about the fact that when average salaries of students are reported, the numbers often only reflect a small percentage of students who actually fill out school employment surveys. Still others claim that some of the jobs their fellow grads receive are temporary jobs funded by their alma maters to boost employment numbers. Many law schools hire their own graduates in February, just as the nine-month mark approaches in accordance with the U.S. News’s stat called “graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation.” But the jobs are often 3-6 month, part time stints that pay $15-20/hr. An example of this can be seen in an email the dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law sent to recent graduates, which reads in part: “To help our newest alumni during this difficult period, the School of Law has created the Transitional Employment Program (TEP). The purpose of the TEP is to provide a few temporary, part-time jobs for recent graduates who have passed the bar and have not yet been able to secure employment…. These positions are with our faculty as research assistants and with administrative offices at the School of Law working on distinct, law-related projects…. The positions are part-time (20 hrs/week), will last for three months, and we anticipate a start date of early to mid February. The pay is approximately $15 dollars per hour.” One former University of San Francisco law student, who graduated in 2009, said, “I wouldn’t recommend law school to anyone. I know so many people who, after three years of searching for decent legal employment, have settled for temporary document review work that is boring, unrewarding, and unreliable. If you want to be unemployed for half the year, stuck to your computer waiting for a staffing agency to email you a temporary job then, sure, go to law school. But good luck paying off your loans.” According to the American Bar Association (ABA) and a recent Law School Survey of Student Engagement, nearly one-third of respondents said they would owe about $120,000 upon graduation . While graduates are typically strapped with upwards of $100,000 in student loans after graduating, many are left with no way of paying off their loans and instead face increasing debt as interest on their loans accrue. According to some studies, the average law student needs to earn about $65,000 a year to be able to repay his/her loans. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) most recent numbers, in 2008, the number of employed attorneys hit 759,200. The BLS predicted that between 2008 and 2018, employed attorneys will increase to 857,700 — rising 13 percent . But these predictions were put out prior to the recession and therefore the numbers are likely now inflated. The Los Angeles Times reported that when post-recession numbers and the number of retirees and deaths are taken into consideration, the actual number increases are closer to 30,000; to put the numbers in context, about 45,000 students graduate from law school in the US every year. Many students fault the ABA for failing to place proper and necessary checks on the institutions granting law degrees. In response, the ABA recently changed its rules. The Association promised that as of next year, law schools will have to publish employment numbers in more detail — reporting whether their graduates are employed full time and whether or not the positions filled required a law degree. Some fault the U.S. News & World Report, which bases its famed annual rankings on unaudited, internal surveys conducted by the law schools themselves; the law schools in turn use questions from the ABA and the National Association for Law Placement. But the fact that the survey results are not double-checked by an impartial third party is cause for concern for many students who commit to law school largely based on these numbers. In addition, the surveys are inherently biased in that the students who actually have jobs are much more likely to fill out the questionnaires, while students out looking for jobs or making minimum wage working at a part time job are less likely to respond. Because of this, both rates of employment and average graduate salary numbers are likely to be artificially high. But the U.S. News has said that despite having the power to demand more transparent and accurate data from the schools, it would have to completely redefine what “employed” meant, and said it preferred the ABA to take the lead on that. “There is a considerable amount of pressure on law schools to boost their rankings in the U.S. World News & Report by inflating their post-graduation employment statistics,” Brian Procel, an attorney at Miller Barondess, LLP, said, adding, “Law schools need to be held to the same standard as any other business with respect to honest marketing and advertising. Law schools do not get a free pass to deceive prospective students because they are in the education industry.” Things don’t seem like they will be looking up anytime soon. According to a recent Northwestern Law study, about 15,000 attorney and legal-staff positions at large firms have been closed since 2008, while other firms are outsourcing or contracting-out entry-level work — meaning even less jobs for the upcoming graduating classes. David Strickland, a graduate of George Washington Law , said even if law schools are forced to be more transparent about their employment numbers in the near future, it’s too late for those who have already graduated. “The majority of law schools don’t inflate their employment stats intentionally; instead, they willingly employ practices which lead to the inevitability of misleading numbers,” Strickland explained. “Shortly after my graduation from George Washington Law School, I began receiving monthly phone calls from the Career Development Office (CDO). Each call would lead with a single question: ‘Have you found a job yet?’ Each time, I hadn’t. For nine months I searched for employment. Finally, after nine months, I found a temporary paralegal position at a two-person law firm. At the end of that month, GW called again and asked how my search was going. I gladly told them I found a part time job as a paralegal. I haven’t received a call since. Schools aren’t looking for in-depth information. At this point, it’s five years of graduating classes who can barely find a job, have little hopes of reaching their potential, and are suffering under the burden of student loans so large that it’s only a matter of time before the next headline is ‘Sallie Mae suffers devastating losses due to the student loan delinquencies.’” Strickland continued, “Just recently, abovethelaw.com reported the applications to law school ticked down for the first time in more than twenty years. Maybe they’re getting it. The problem is that it’s too late for many of us. In addition to the lack of job prospects for new attorneys, the legal industry is in the midst of its largest systemic downturn ever. Hundreds of thousands of jobs aren’t coming back.” The issue has gained such momentum and national attention that Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA and Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, have asked the Department of Education to launch an investigation into the employment rates reported by American law schools.

Read the full article →

Susan Seitel: Three Recent Surveys Offer a Snapshot of Today’s Workforce

February 24, 2012

Three surveys of workers and managers released in late January offer some interesting information about today’s workforce. In case you’ve had trouble making the case lately for work-life initiatives, the first one offers new evidence of its value, and also of the importance of opportunities to learn and grow. This one was conducted by an independent research firm for OfficeTeam and includes responses from 404 workers and 1,013 senior managers. The question: “Aside from salary, which one of the following aspects of your job is most tied to your satisfaction?” An average 28 percent cited work-life balance, followed closely by opportunities to learn and grow, at 27 percent, and ability to accomplish goals at 20 percent. Work-life balance was most important for a much larger percentage (46 percent) of those between the ages of 35 and 44. For younger workers, opportunities to learn and grow were most important (37 percent). Another survey, this one by SHRM , shows the impact that money worries are having on work performance. That poll of 458 randomly-selected HR managers found half saying employees were more likely to dip into their employer-sponsored retirement savings plans recently than in previous years. And one in five said employees’ personal financial challenges had a strong impact on their work performance A closer look at the impact on work performance shows that: • 47 percent of HR professionals noticed employees’ struggle with their ability to focus on work • 46 percent noticed issues with overall employee stress • 26 percent observed a negative impact on overall employee productivity • 24 percent said money woes are leading to employee absenteeism and tardiness • 20 percent were concerned about overall employee morale • 12 percent noticed a negative impact on overall employee health Nearly half (49 percent) of HR professionals said employees were stressed by an “overall lack of monetary funds to cover their personal expenses.” Some money woes were more specific. “Medical expenses” and “saving for retirement” were critical, said 35 percent of employees and 26 percent of HR professionals, respectively. Twenty-two percent of HR professionals attribute worker money woes to “credit card debt” and the same number also cited “home mortgage payments.” More than three-fourths (79 percent) offer access to an employee assistance program that includes financial counseling and resources, and 52 percent of organizations represented in the survey currently provide financial education to their employees. Sixty-eight percent provide financial education specific to employer-provided benefits such are retirement, medical insurance and flexible spending accounts. Among the 52 percent of organizations that teach employees about financial planning, 39 percent cover budgeting, paying for education, debt reduction, credit card use, homeownership and taxes. A third survey showed the value of wellness programs in helping to produce stronger, more productive workers. This one, conducted late last year by Harris Interactive for the Principal Financial Group, found 41 percent of workers agreeing that having a wellness program encouraged them to work harder and perform better at work. The research found 52 percent of workers (up from 37 percent last year) saying they have more energy to be productive at work by participating in a wellness program. Another 35 percent (up from 28 percent a year ago) said they’ve missed fewer days of work by participating in a wellness program and 45 percent said overall physical health was the top benefit of participating in a wellness program. Other top mentions included receiving a meaningful incentive from their employer for participation (30 percent) and reduced personal health-care costs, greater chance of living a longer, healthier life, and reduced stress (29 percent each). More than half of workers (55 percent) rated wellness activities offered by an employer as very successful or somewhat successful in improving health and reducing health risks. The top four wellness benefits workers would most like to see their employer offer are fitness center discounts (25 percent), on-site preventive screenings (22 percent), access to wellness experts such as nutritionists (21 percent) and onsite fitness facilities (19 percent). Employers who really want healthier employees might want to take a second look at that list. On the list of what’s actually being offered, fitness center discounts, employees’ first choice, came in third, with just 17 percent offering that perk. And surprisingly, access to wellness experts was only being made available by 11 percent of those surveyed.

Read the full article →

CFPB Crowdsources Nominations For Key Advisory Posts

February 23, 2012

WASHINGTON — In a significant break with traditional federal policy, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is appealing directly to the public for nominees for key advisory positions — crowdsourcing the appointment process to help ensure that the agency is attuned to consumer abuses and committed to curbing them. The CFPB is reaching out for nominees to its Consumer Advisory Board, a group of experts who guide the agency’s attention toward problems in consumer finance as the issues develop in communities. The crowdsourcing move is required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Wall Street reform legislation that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010. The strategy accompanies a broader push from CFPB founder Elizabeth Warren to utilize both the public and new technology to ensure that the new agency remains accountable to citizens. Warren is now a Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, with former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray serving as CFPB Director. At other federal bank regulators, such boards have long been limited by bureaucratic, political and industry pressures. The Federal Reserve’s consumer board has frequently been stacked with corporate executives ideologically opposed to the very idea of consumer protection regulation, and even bankers — the result of a nomination process that is largely a game for industry insiders, though community activists and academics have also been nominated. In 2006, the Fed’s consumer advisory council included officials from JPMorgan Chase, Wachovia, Countrywide, and Option One — companies that were all heavily involved in the sale of subprime mortgages. Seven other banking executives, a MasterCard lawyer, a Wal-Mart vice president and the marketing chief for consumer credit score company Equifax were also on the board, alongside community development advocates and consumer attorneys. When members of the board did in fact suggest during the heyday of subprime mortgages that the central bank take action against abuses, the Fed simply ignored the advice . But the Fed and other regulators had dueling responsibilities. They were tasked both with maintaining banks “safety and soundness” and with protecting consumers from fraud and deception. Safety and soundness regulation focused on preventing banks from failing, and in practice, regulators typically signed off on just about any practice that resulted in short-term profits for banks, under the hypothesis that more money today meant a lower likelihood of failure tomorrow. That hypothesis was proven wrong when scores of banks either failed or sought major bailouts as a result of their subprime excesses. In the process, hordes of American homeowners were ripped off. But the CFPB doesn’t face that dual mandate — its only responsibility is protecting consumers from bank malfeasance. “The Consumer Advisory Board will be a key resource in our mission to protect the American consumer,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a written statement Thursday. “This Board will provide valuable input from a group of true experts with diverse backgrounds but a shared goal. I am eager to see it established.” The actual members of the Consumer Advisory Board will ultimately be chosen from among the nominees by the CFPB. The CFPB has made a habit of appealing to the public for information on consumer finance trends. It has a user-friendly consumer complaint service, and a “Tell Your Story” section where wronged consumers can warn each other about misleading banking practices. WATCH CFPB Director Richard Cordray ask for nominations in the video above.

Read the full article →

Skokie, IL: Nurse To Baker Makes A Gamble That Pays Off

February 23, 2012

“People can spend five dollars and get a sweet. People always have birthdays and celebrations – we don’t stop living.”

Read the full article →

Hopkins, MN: A Journey From Mogadishu

February 23, 2012

“The hurdle was hard, but what made it easier was we did it together.”

Read the full article →

Obama Signs Payroll Tax Cut Extension

February 23, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signed the payroll tax cut extension into law Wednesday, notching an election-year victory and rare bipartisan agreement in the continuing partisan battle over jobs, taxes and debt. The $143 billion measure that Congress passed overwhelmingly on Friday continues the 2 percentage-point reduction in the tax that funds Social Security, a cut begun last year to aid the nation’s struggling economic recovery. It also extends jobless benefits for between 63 weeks and 73 weeks, and averts a big cut in the reimbursements doctors get for treating Medicare patients. The president signed the measure without ceremony Wednesday, having already celebrated its passage at an event Tuesday at the White House. Obama senior adviser David Plouffe emailed his gratitude to people who sent the White House their stories about how losing the tax cut would affect their lives. “Extending the payroll tax cut was a critical step for middle class families, but we still have a lot more work to do. So get ready,” Plouffe wrote in an email that included a photograph of Obama signing the bill at his Oval Office desk. The payroll tax cut became a centerpiece of the jobs plan Obama unveiled in September – and of a re-election strategy that seeks to cast his GOP foes as protectors of the rich and out of touch with the worries of working families. The administration estimates that for a worker earning 50,000 a year, the tax holiday means $80 a month in extra take-home pay. For better-paid employees, the bonus could total $2,200 a year. But the cost to the deficit is substantial: another $93 billion for the latest extension. However, bowing to its inevitability, House GOP leaders last week agreed not to demand spending cuts to offset the lost tax revenues. The legislation also extended benefits for the long-term unemployed that average about $300 a week, though Obama and Democratic allies compromised over an initial demand for 99 more weeks. Those benefits will be paid for by auctioning broadcast frequencies and requiring newly hired federal workers to contribute more to their pensions. Obama maintained that both extensions are crucial to supporting a still-fragile recovery from the nation’s deepest recession since the 1930s. GOP leaders initially balked at the extensions, then clashed with Obama and congressional Democrats over how to pay for them. As the holidays approached in December, their opposition drew a fierce public backlash, especially when House Republicans rejected a compromise that Senate leaders had brokered. In the end, Republicans accepted a two-month extension – after paying a heavy political price. “We did not want to repeat the debacle,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. “We’re dumb, but we’re not stupid.” The extension puts off until December – after the presidential and congressional elections – a mix of taxing and spending decisions, including whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts, increasing the debt ceiling and meeting a trillion-dollar spending cut requirement. ___ Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Romney Saw Marriott Use Tax Shelters As Auditing Chairman

February 22, 2012

Mitt Romney has long had close ties to hotel operator Marriott International Inc. (MAR) The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, whose full name is Willard Mitt Romney, was named after the chain’s founder, J. Willard Marriott, a friend of his father. He joined the company’s board in 1993, and has served on it for 11 of the past 19 years, including six as chairman of the audit committee.

Read the full article →

‘Unhealthy’ To Stare At Tweets All Day, Twitter Co-Founder Says

February 22, 2012

MONTREAL – Twitter co-founder Christopher Isaac “Biz” Stone has a message for those followers who stare at their tweet feed for hours on end. It’s not healthy. Stone says he’d prefer that people visit the popular social networking site frequently than sacrifice their life to it. He told a Montreal business audience even he is amazed by the influence of Twitter, which the founders initially thought would just be used for fun. Stone says it has instead ended up linking millions of people and been used to spur social change such as the so-called Arab spring, triggered by pro-democracy movements in the Middle East. The entrepreneur’s speech focused on tips for business people including that they should show empathy for their employees and shouldn’t be afraid to fail. He also says creativity is an unendingly renewable resource.

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →