white

Michele Bachmann: Tax Code ‘A Weapon Of Mass Destruction’

February 20, 2011

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) criticized the country’s current tax code as “a weapon of mass destruction” in a speech she delivered Saturday night to local Republican activists in South Carolina, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal reports . According to the local outlet, the Tea Party favorite called for the system to be abolished. “We need a radically different system,” she stressed to a crowd of nearly 200 guests. In speaking out on the state of the U.S. economy, Bachmann didn’t hold back in taking aim at President Barack Obama’s handling of the issue. “Our Peace Prize-winning president is very busy bowing these days to kings,” she reportedly said . “He is bending down to dictators, and he is brown-nosing the elites that are in Europe, and he’s babying the jihadists who are following Sharia-compliant terrorism.” Sharing her take on how the White House has handled the recent uprisings in Egypt and Iran , Bachmann suggested, “[Obama's] making Jimmy Carter look like a Rambo tough-guy.” The conservative congresswoman’s trip to South Carolina has led some to speculate she may be mulling a bid for the White House in 2012. Despite once denying a presidential campaign could be in her political future, the Republican lawmaker has more recently signaled a run may not be off the table. “I’m hopeful and very optimistic about where we’re going to go in 2012,” Bachmann said at one stop on her trip, according to the Associated Press. Bachmann has not decided if she will run for president in 2012. Her consideration is taking her to other early contest states including Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. She drew applause when she defended the tea party activists, saying they are simply people who think taxes and the deficit are too high and support the U.S. Constitution. Bachmann reportedly lauded South Carolina as a “GOP paradise.”

Read the full article →

Matt Spangler: Find New Profits From Old Products: YouTube, Brand Channels, and Easy Money

February 18, 2011

“Can you help us quickly find new opportunities and open new markets to deliver short term revenue growth?” It’s the most common question I hear through my consulting practice, when corporate executives from blue chips discuss their challenges with me. In many cases, the answer might be hiding in plain sight. Not to chase after the shiny new thing but look for innovation and new profits in existing systems and businesses. It might not be as sexy as the hot new startup, but those potential revenue streams have the chance to return new profits with less upfront investment. After all, those shiny new things can be quite expensive. Even YouTube , considered one of the most innovative companies in the world, struggles with similar challenges. Through personal experience with the company over the last year, I saw an opportunity to rethink their brand channel process, a mainstay service that already exists but is painfully difficult to setup, and leverage it in new ways to deliver value for users and profits for the video giant. Hard to believe that just five years ago YouTube was that shiny new thing, hemorrhaging money to blaze the internet TV trail. Five years later it’s annual page views are upward of 700 billion and its monthly global audience, according to a recent article by Fast Company , is 500 million people. The crowd-sourced broadcast behemoth is the definitive place to view video online with 35 hours of video footage pushed live every minute. Like many successful online ventures, translating pageviews into revenue has been YouTube’s challenge since its inception. Much of the Fast Company profile focused on YouTube’s “relentless experimentation” with new monetization models but with no public financial data, and speculation on its bandwidth costs, few know if their current models are profitable. One thing not in doubt is that YouTube continues to face rising competition from companies like Hulu , Vimeo , Netflix , Boxee and Apple and will need continual innovation around monetization (along with the constant need to keep consumers happy) to win the race and dominate home entertainment. March 2010 reports indicate that the site should generate close to 1 billion in sales , so what do they offer brands now, and are there ways they could generate new profits before they have to reinvent the wheel? There are many options for how to get involved. A chart in the Fast Company article provides a breakdown that includes traditional ad units, expensive homepage customization, in-video ad units that plays before the content (including Content ID ), promoted videos, an Adwords system and more. Some would argue there is no better place to tell your story then through video, and when it comes to nearly every brand’s involvement with YouTube, a customized “channel” is the starting point. Channel accounts allow you to customize the design of your YouTube page and create a place for brands to send customers to hear the story of a new product or service. This is especially important for emerging companies, since their advertising strategies will likely not begin with ads, but rather the creation of great content to build audience and brand awareness. But even the largest global brands embrace the brand channel model, which makes it all the more surprising that at present YouTube has few answers when it comes to monetizing it or even providing customers with an easy way to set one up. It’s broken. It needs fixing. It needs focus, both from a consumer support and profitability standpoint. And that can be done with a few simple steps. And by increasing focus on channels, you move to grow the YouTube “partner” program , which provides revenue share to encourage audience growth from super users who in turn drive the overall traffic without additional marketing (ex: Huffington Post’s free blogger network ). So how do you setup a brand channel on YouTube? Log on to YouTube and try setting one up. Sounds simple, right? I thought it would be, until I experienced it for myself. In the summer of 2010 while coordinating communication efforts for a small business client, we produced a series of twelve professional parenting videos geared towards YouTube’s active community of new parents. We planned an ongoing series and wanted a page for the videos that fit their brand aesthetic. We searched YouTube for basic information on brand channels and arrived at the Advertising page (http://www.youtube.com/advertise). A downloadable pdf for “creating a brand channel” explained the functionality along with the distinction between free and paid channels but had no information about the costs or installation instructions. There was no automated process to upgrade your page and after an extensive search of the help forum a few random comments indicated the costs to edit your channel was rumored to climb into six figures. I contacted some ad industry contacts with experience working on brand channels, and they confirmed the rumor and insinuated, that while they had heard of cheaper options, their experience opening the iFrames and adding custom code had cost over $100,000. In September 2010 my team filled out the form, to contact a YouTube representative , indicating our interest and budget. No automated email response. Two weeks passed; no response. We filled out the form again; still nothing. A month later the developer I hired to help me implement the channel design was kind enough to send a personal email to a contact at YouTube. Thanks to that lucky break, our request finally found it’s way to the proper person. After one more week. Finally an email arrived, asking what kind of channel we wanted. We waited 10 more days for the first bit of concrete information: they added us to the white list and said our brand channel upgrade would be free, but we would not receive the full capabilities of a paid channel. Perfect. Done. That was, um, easy? Two weeks later, over two months after our first email, we randomly checked our channel page, and it turned out that the account had been upgraded. There was no notification or instructions of any kind. The YouTube brand channel system is something my client was ready to pay for. We allocated a budget to produce the videos and wanted our brand presence to reflect the same quality. We expected a setup fee to help facilitate a timely launch to our channel and would have paid a monthly subscription charge for ongoing service that included analytics on visitors and tools to promote the channel to users interested in our subjects. Currently the only revenue being derived from the program is the extremely high, rumored fees that large brands pay for extensive customization. Note: Since our experience, the help section was updated in early 2011 with a dedicated area for brand channels and a new “Show and Tell” section with examples of brand channels curated by the ADC (Art Directors Club) . This does a decent job of showing examples of custom channel designs but provides no information about the options, pricing or process to join the party. In fact, you’re sent to the same signup form that returned us no results. There is great opportunity here. Small business and personal branding was one of the hottest topics of 2010 with sites like Flavors.me and About.me growing large audiences by making it easier for individuals to create well-designed personal websites. Combined with the proliferation of video tools like the Canon 5D Mar II , more individuals and small businesses are using video to tell their story to the consumer and the volume of individuals interested in controlling their brand’s image creates a bigger market for personalized channels. According to an article published on theStreet.com , in the US alone, local online advertising is expected to grow to nearly one quarter of all advertising dollars spent by 2014 . As the economy continues to recover, much of the growth will come from small to medium businesses looking to establish their name in a crowded market. No place is better positioned to grab that crowd, many still internet novices, than YouTube. It was speculated that Google’s desire to purchase Groupon was because the daily coupon site has, “more than 1,500 employees that deal with places like restaurants, nail salons and spas. Google also hoped to leverage Groupon’s sales team to encourage advertisers to list on its local business directory.” Through automation and product improvements YouTube can help build the small and local business relationships without spending money on acquiring human capital. The ecosystem exists, and the audience is thirsty for reasonably priced alternatives to market their businesses. Automation of the brand channel system would allow customers to choose from a suite of options. They would be presented clearly on the site with all their features, capabilities, and levels of customization delineated. Templates and simple tools would help novice users upload images to brand a page and promote the videos they create. For example lets use a basic three-tiered pricing model; a common pricing strategy for subscription software products ( 37Signals , Mailchimp , Shopify etc). Apply to the brand channel model: Small fees, $25/month, allow you to apply your brand style to the design of the page and greater access to color control. Medium fees, $50/month, provide greater control, improved analytics and promotional options. For $100/month you receive further design customization, additional widgets built exclusively for YouTube and access to advertising tools imbedded in your dashboard. (assuming that a $1200 a year investment on your YouTube page means you are likely interested in buying advertising to drive interest to the page-ex. Facebook ads ) Dedicated reps and in-depth customization would still be available for the six figure rates and include other premium features and promotion on highly trafficked sections of the site. Basic, sure, but if you take the yearly charge of the three example programs levels ($300 / year), and combine it with 1% of the estimated 100 million active viewers (vastly less then their 250 million registered users), you have $300 million per year in additional revenue on customized brand channels with very little additional work or infrastructure. Additionally you would explode your community of engaged brands who would work to drive interest and traffic to their own channels, increasing the growth rate of the site and advertising spend within the ecosystem. YouTube pulls in revenue from something it already offers, and small businesses get an easy and affordable platform to build their brands. It’s a win-win. A s 2011 hits full swing, and you look hard at your own business, YouTube offers a valuable lesson. There might be revenue opportunities hidden inside your existing businesses if they just take the time to look. Sometimes that innovation may be as simple as extending an existing, successful platform, and customizing it for an underserved target with spending power. It seems so simple. It’s unbelievable YouTube hasn’t leveraged their brand channels. And it’s simply a matter of time before they do. Easy money.

Read the full article →

Why Obama’s Walking Fine Line On GOP Slash-And-Burn Budget Proposals

February 18, 2011

Clearly, the president — as would be expected — opposes the GOP cuts. But the White House is not at this point picking a fight over the House Republican effort to slash non-discretionary funding covering scores of government services. There are several reasons why Obama would pass up the chance to bash cop-firing GOPers…

Read the full article →

WATCH LIVE: Obama Holds White House Press Conference

February 15, 2011

President Obama will hold a press conference at 11:00 AM ET. The president is expected to discuss his budget , which the White House unveiled yesterday. Scroll down for live video and updates from the press conference. UPDATE: The press conference has ended. Click here for more.

Read the full article →

Veteran Investors Form State of TX Real Estate Fund

February 15, 2011

Veteran commercial real estate investors Mark Jordan and Kevin White formed the State of Texas Real Estate Fund LP. Their goal is to raise $150 million to acquire distressed office, industrial and raw land in Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Jordan and White will serve as managing directors of the Dallas-based fund. The senior executives said they chose to focus on the Lone Star State because the local economy is growing faster than for…

Read the full article →

Veteran Investors Form State of TX Real Estate Fund

February 15, 2011

Veteran commercial real estate investors Mark Jordan and Kevin White formed the State of Texas Real Estate Fund LP. Their goal is to raise $150 million to acquire distressed office, industrial and raw land in Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Jordan and White will serve as managing directors of the Dallas-based fund. The senior executives said they chose to focus on the Lone Star State because the local economy is growing faster than for…

Read the full article →

Obama’s Social Security Stance

February 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — Perhaps the one element of President Obama’s budget proposal that pleased progressives the most was the one that didn’t actually make it into the final language. Unveiled on Monday, the budget offered no major changes to Social Security, such as those put forth by the president’s deficit commission. In fact, the six principles for alterations in the document’s language included no benefit cuts of any kind. Asked about the absence of those specific entitlement reforms during a conference call Monday evening, White House senior adviser David Plouffe appeared to even further confirm Obama’s opposition to drastic alterations. “[A]s the President said in his State of the Union, he views Social Security primarily as an issue about shoring it up for the long term as opposed to a deficit issue,” Plouffe said. “And we talked a lot about this as far back as the campaign, but are very clear that if there are proposals out there that are acceptable, that don’t reduce benefits, don’t slash benefits, that don’t affect current retirees, the President is open to proposals that would shore the system up in the long term.” Plouffe’s inclusion of the word “reduce” alongside the pledge not to “slash” may have been an innocent rhetorical addition to a common administration talking point — one used several weeks ago during the State of the Union address. But for advocates working to make current benefits sacrosanct and fretting that the White House had left the door open to either cost of living adjustments or other benefit “tweaks,” it was noteworthy. “Until now, Sen. Harry Reid was the top Democratic leader on the record saying that cuts to Social Security benefits were off the table in any form — big or small, slash or tweak,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “If Mr. Plouffe’s words are true — that the White House opposes all reductions in benefits for current beneficiaries and future ones alike — it’s huge news. Such a position is overwhelmingly popular with Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters alike, and is the kind of boldness Democrats will need to show to win big in 2012.” Even before the rare PCCC applause for an Obama administration motive, other progressive groups expressed encouragement over how the president approached Social Security in his budget. The Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of predominantly Democratic-oriented groups, put out a statement Monday night applauding the president both for “refraining from proposing” cuts and proposing an increase in Social Security Administration expenditures, which could be used to help with the backlog in disability determinations. “Our coalition… is pleased that the President has made and kept a promise to not cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age in his 2012 budget, ,” said Eric Kingson, co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. “We applaud his efforts to seek solutions for our struggling economy while keeping our nation’s most successful and popular program intact.”

Read the full article →

Video: Psaki Says Obama Seeks Bipartisanship on Budget Issues

February 14, 2011

Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) — Jennifer Psaki, deputy communications director at the White House, talks about President Barack Obama’s $3.7 trillion U.S. budget proposal. Obama’s budget would reduce deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade, setting up a battle with Republicans who have already deemed the plan insufficient to reduce federal debt. She speaks with Julianna Goldman, Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Robert Gates: Pentagon Willing To Settle For Smaller Budget

February 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon can live with a smaller budget this year than the Obama administration originally requested, but the total – not counting war costs – cannot be less than $540 billion, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. That is about $9 billion less than the White House first requested. Gates said that Congress’ failure to pass a 2011 budget – five months into the fiscal year – is forcing the Pentagon to stick to last year’s lower spending level. Those limits, he said, could turn into a crisis if they are not fixed soon. Gates met with key lawmakers for lunch Monday, but he said it’s not clear yet what they will do on the 2011 budget. Laying out the 2012 defense budget, Gates said he is seeking enough money to maintain 98,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, despite the Obama administration’s insistence that it will begin to gradually withdraw forces this July. Gates said that while it’s a certainty that the troop level will come down, it made more sense to request stable funding because the administration doesn’t know yet how many troops they will need. Military leaders say the troop reduction will be based on the security situation in Afghanistan. The 2012 budget request includes about $118 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That amount is substantially less than the 2011 request of about $160 billion, largely due to the ongoing withdrawal of forces from Iraq. The 2012 budget also provides $12.8 billion to train and equip the Afghan security forces, which maintains the training at current levels. Officials have said they need more than the current goal of 305,600 army and police, but the budget provides no additional money to support any growth in the training program. There are currently about 270,000 Afghan security forces, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai is expected to announce his next target for growth in coming weeks. The U.S. and NATO have pressed other nations to provide training, but they are still short about 740 trainers. Gates spoke to reporters while presenting the administration’s defense spending plan for 2012, which begins October 1. He also warned that he will pursue all potential legal moves to eliminate funding for the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Cutting the extra engine, he said, will save $3 billion over the life of the program.

Read the full article →

Small Business Programs On Chopping Block In 2012 Budget

February 14, 2011

Like the rest of the federal government, the Small Business Administration is going to get the squeeze in 2012, according to President Obama’s budget proposal released Monday. The SBA — and, most critically, the lending programs it backs — got some pretty hefty government subsidies through the Great Recession as the White House tried desperately to get capital flowing to small businesses.

Read the full article →

America’s Poorest County

February 13, 2011

ZIEBACH COUNTY, S.D. — In the barren grasslands of Ziebach County, there’s almost nothing harder to find in winter than a job. This is America’s poorest county, where more than 60 percent of people live at or below the poverty line. At a time when the weak economy is squeezing communities across the nation, recently released census figures show that nowhere are the numbers as bad as here – a county with 2,500 residents, most of them Cheyenne River Sioux Indians living on a reservation. In the coldest months of the year, when seasonal construction work disappears and the South Dakota prairie freezes, unemployment among the Sioux can hit 90 percent. Poverty has loomed over this land for generations. Repeated attempts to create jobs have run into stubborn obstacles: the isolated location, the area’s crumbling infrastructure, a poorly trained population and a tribe that struggles to work with businesses or attract investors. Now the tribe – joined by a few entrepreneurs, a development group and a nonprofit – is renewing efforts to create jobs and encourage a downtrodden population to start its own businesses. “Many, many people make these grand generalizations about our communities and poverty and ‘Why don’t people just do something, and how come they can’t?’” said Eileen Briggs, executive director of Tribal Ventures, a development group started by the tribe. “It’s much more complicated than that.” The Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, created in 1889, consists almost entirely of agricultural land in Ziebach and neighboring Dewey County. It has no casino and no oil reserves or available natural resources. Most towns in Ziebach County are just clusters of homes between cattle ranches. Families live in dilapidated houses or run-down trailers. Multicolored patches of siding show where repairs were made as cheaply as possible. Families fortunate enough to have leases to tribal land can make money by raising cattle. Opportunities are scarce for almost everyone else. The few people who have jobs usually have to drive up to 80 miles to tribal headquarters. The nearest major population centers are Rapid City and Bismarck, each a trip of 150 miles or more. Basic services can be vulnerable. The tribe’s primary health clinic doesn’t have a CT scanner or a maternity ward. An ice storm last year knocked out power and water in places for weeks. And in winter, the gravel roads that connect much of the reservation can become impassable with snow and ice. Nearly six decades after the reservation was created, the federal government began building a dam on the Missouri River, but the project caused flooding that washed away more than 100,000 acres of Indian land. After the flooding, the small town of Eagle Butte became home to the tribal headquarters and the center of the reservation’s economy. “There are things that have happened to us over many, many generations that you just can’t fix in three or four years,” said Kevin Keckler, the tribe’s chairman. “We were put here by the government, and we had a little piece of land and basically told to succeed here.” But prosperity never came. The county has been at or near the top of the poverty rankings for at least a decade. In 2009, the census defined poverty as a single person making less than $11,000 a year or a family of four making less than $22,000 a year. Eagle Butte has few businesses and the handful that do exist struggle to stay afloat. The town has just one major grocery store, the Lakota Thrifty Mart, which is owned by the tribe. There’s also a Dairy Queen, a Taco John’s and a handful of small cafes. There’s no bowling alley, no movie theatre. But a few entrepreneurs are trying to break the cycle of failure, with mixed results. Stephanie Davidson and her husband, Gerald, started a plumbing-and-heating business in 2000 with a single pickup truck. Eventually, D&D Plumbing started to grow, and they hired several employees. But the reservation economy, which was never strong, has been hit hard by the economic slump. Many customers don’t have the money to pay for work upfront, and the Davidsons have struggled to get contracts in new construction, such as a nearly $85 million federal hospital being built to replace the aging clinic. They’ve laid off employees and filled empty space in their building by adding a bait shop and then a deli. Nothing has worked. “People think you’re a pillar of the community because you have a business, and that part of it is good,” Stephanie Davidson said. “We don’t feel that way right now because we’re having such a tough time.” Nicky White Eyes, who owns a flower shop on Main Street, says there are days when she doesn’t sell a single flower. Most of her business comes from families who get help from the tribe to buy flowers for a relative’s funeral. “We’re getting by with nothing extra,” said White Eyes, who said she hasn’t taken any salary in the months since she quit another job to run the shop full-time. “But no, I have too much heart in it to let it go quite yet.” The nonprofit Four Bands Community Fund has invested in both businesses and people in Eagle Butte. The group teaches residents basic financial skills – how to open a checking account, how to save money on a budget and how to develop credit. “You have the most complicated little world here,” said Tanya Fiddler, Four Bands’ executive director. Without a viable private sector, federal money permeates every part of life here. The federal government pays for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education and the Indian Health Service, three of the reservation’s largest employers. Businesses rely on the federal money that comes into the reservation. Federal stimulus dollars are paying for the new hospital, which will create about 150 permanent jobs when it opens this year. Other federal contracts bring sporadic jobs, too. One tribal success story is Lakota Technologies, which has attracted call-center and data-processing work and trained hundreds of young people since it started more than a decade ago. The company now employs a handful of tribal members on a State Department sub-contract, even though most of its cubicles remain empty. But other businesses owned by the tribe have run into trouble. Last year, a buffalo-meat processing company was sued by a rancher in federal court. The lawsuit accused the company, Pte Hca Ka Inc., of not delivering on contracts. A federal judge ruled against Pte Hca Ka for $1.1 million when it did not respond to the lawsuit. Keckler, the newly elected tribal chairman and a former business owner, has pledged to try to fix the problems. He said previous officials have rejected overtures from outside investors because they feared the loss of tribal control or the risk of losing their positions. “It’s difficult for us to get people to come here and have faith in us as a government,” he said. “We just had a new election, and there was discussion about, ‘Oh, people want to give away things.’ Those are kind of the issues that we have.” Still, there are small reasons to hope. Later this year, the tribe will start to receive payments from a $290 million settlement with Congress related to the farmland that was lost to the Missouri River flooding. The tribe will receive annual interest on the settlement money starting this fall. This year’s payment could be as much as $75 million, according to one tribal estimate. A Department of Treasury spokeswoman says the final amount hasn’t been determined yet. That money can be used for infrastructure improvements, economic development and education. Raymond Uses The Knife, a rancher and tribal councilman, wants the reservation to be “accessible for other companies to come in and invest their money right here.” “We have to attract business. Regardless of how much money we have, we can’t set up our own businesses,” he said. “We also have to realize that we’re all not experts.” Meanwhile, groups like Tribal Ventures and Four Bands continue to look for ways to bring in jobs and help those who are fighting the decades-old obstacles here. “You can have all the heart you want, but you have to have actual cash and resources,” said Briggs, of Tribal Ventures. “All those things play a part in our being able to basically use our greatest asset, which is our people.”

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: The Known and Unknown Contractor

February 10, 2011

It is not a secret that as Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George W. Bush Donald Rumsfeld was sympathetic to using private military contractors. In 2003, he said that as many as 320,000 jobs filled by military personnel could be turned over to civilians. Ironically, long before Abu Ghraib, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was preaching the virtues of using contractors in prisons. The secretary said at a town hall meeting in August 2003 that the Army pays $20,000 to $40,000 to hold a prisoner each year, whereas it costs Kansas only $14,000 per year. “I don’t think of running a prison as a core competency of the United States military,” he said In September 2004 he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had identified more than 50,000 positions now filled by uniformed personnel “doing what are essentially nonmilitary jobs.” At the same time, he said, the Army was so short-handed it had to call up tens of thousands of reservists to fight in Iraq. Rumsfeld said he intended to assign the troops to military jobs and hire civilian workers or contractors to take the non-military jobs. “We plan to carry this conversion out at a rate of about 10,000 positions per year,” Rumsfeld told the committee Now, thanks to his just published memoir, ” Known and Unknown ” we have a few more examples of his view on contractors. As part of the book’s promotional effort for the book Rumsfled created a website , where he has posted hundreds of documents from his files. If you search them using the “contractor” keyword you get things like the following 25. 2004-03-30 to (no recipient) re (no subject) Category: George W Bush Secretary of Defense (21) – 2004 – Snowflakes New pay schedules, so that US SOF don’t get enticed out to the CIA or to private contractors at much higher salaries than we are currently able to pay them. One might recall that PMC advocates have claimed that this was an overblown concern but evidently it was serious enough to get Rumsfeld’s attention Then, there was this, which is actually pretty sensible and uncontroversial. TO: Honorable Andrew Card FROM: Donald Rumsfeld SUBJECT: Military Detailees March 28, 200l lo:28 Andy, are you going to take a look sometime at the way the demand for members of the armed services in the total White House complex has ballooned’? 1 am told it has gone from 1,400 to 2,100. 1 don’t know from when, or whether that figure is accurate, but it is worth checking. We might want to think about ways that that number can be cut down and possibly ways more could be reimbursable, rather than non-reimbursable. Also, it may make sense to replace some functions now performed by uniformed military personnel with contract employees, as WC are doing at the Pentagon. For example, mess attendants for U.S. forces in Bosnia are provided by an outside contractor, not by soldiers. Let me know what you think. Thanks. I WlR:dh 03270 l-24 And, proving that Eisenhower’s famed military-industrial complex is now more properly accurately described as a military-industrial-congressional complex, is this: 2001-02-22 Re Ethics Laws Category: George W Bush Secretary of Defense (21) – 2001 – Snowflakes … of the new Congressional ethics laws that apply to the Executive Branch is that the contractor community has to be very careful about dealing with the Executive Branch, but they … February 22, 2001 9:08 PM SUBJECT: Ethics Laws One of the side effects of the new Congressional ethics laws that apply to the Executive Branch is that the contractor community has to be very careful about dealing with the Executive Branch, but they don’t have to be careful about dealing with the Congress. As a result, since I was last here, there has been a process taking place that has knitted the defense contractor community to the Congress with an unfortunate effect on the defense establishment. Finally, there was this. If Rumsfeld has bothered to look at how this training has actually turned out he is probably feeling embarrassed. Contractors such as DynCorp and others have been heavily involved in this and have received loads of criticism for their efforts. 2. 2002-04-23 to Gen Franks re Contractors Category: George W Bush Secretary of Defense (21) – 2002 – Snowflakes … 2002-04-23 to Gen Franks re Contractors … April 23, 2002 6:30 PM TO: Gen. Franks CC: Gen. Myers FROM: Donald Rumsfeld SUBJECT: Contractors Have you thought of using contractors to train the Afghan army? Thanks. DHR:dh 042302-24

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: The Known and Unknown Contractor

February 10, 2011

It is not a secret that as Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George W. Bush Donald Rumsfeld was sympathetic to using private military contractors. In 2003, he said that as many as 320,000 jobs filled by military personnel could be turned over to civilians. Ironically, long before Abu Ghraib, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was preaching the virtues of using contractors in prisons. The secretary said at a town hall meeting in August 2003 that the Army pays $20,000 to $40,000 to hold a prisoner each year, whereas it costs Kansas only $14,000 per year. “I don’t think of running a prison as a core competency of the United States military,” he said In September 2004 he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had identified more than 50,000 positions now filled by uniformed personnel “doing what are essentially nonmilitary jobs.” At the same time, he said, the Army was so short-handed it had to call up tens of thousands of reservists to fight in Iraq. Rumsfeld said he intended to assign the troops to military jobs and hire civilian workers or contractors to take the non-military jobs. “We plan to carry this conversion out at a rate of about 10,000 positions per year,” Rumsfeld told the committee Now, thanks to his just published memoir, ” Known and Unknown ” we have a few more examples of his view on contractors. As part of the book’s promotional effort for the book Rumsfled created a website , where he has posted hundreds of documents from his files. If you search them using the “contractor” keyword you get things like the following 25. 2004-03-30 to (no recipient) re (no subject) Category: George W Bush Secretary of Defense (21) – 2004 – Snowflakes New pay schedules, so that US SOF don’t get enticed out to the CIA or to private contractors at much higher salaries than we are currently able to pay them. One might recall that PMC advocates have claimed that this was an overblown concern but evidently it was serious enough to get Rumsfeld’s attention Then, there was this, which is actually pretty sensible and uncontroversial. TO: Honorable Andrew Card FROM: Donald Rumsfeld SUBJECT: Military Detailees March 28, 200l lo:28 Andy, are you going to take a look sometime at the way the demand for members of the armed services in the total White House complex has ballooned’? 1 am told it has gone from 1,400 to 2,100. 1 don’t know from when, or whether that figure is accurate, but it is worth checking. We might want to think about ways that that number can be cut down and possibly ways more could be reimbursable, rather than non-reimbursable. Also, it may make sense to replace some functions now performed by uniformed military personnel with contract employees, as WC are doing at the Pentagon. For example, mess attendants for U.S. forces in Bosnia are provided by an outside contractor, not by soldiers. Let me know what you think. Thanks. I WlR:dh 03270 l-24 And, proving that Eisenhower’s famed military-industrial complex is now more properly accurately described as a military-industrial-congressional complex, is this: 2001-02-22 Re Ethics Laws Category: George W Bush Secretary of Defense (21) – 2001 – Snowflakes … of the new Congressional ethics laws that apply to the Executive Branch is that the contractor community has to be very careful about dealing with the Executive Branch, but they … February 22, 2001 9:08 PM SUBJECT: Ethics Laws One of the side effects of the new Congressional ethics laws that apply to the Executive Branch is that the contractor community has to be very careful about dealing with the Executive Branch, but they don’t have to be careful about dealing with the Congress. As a result, since I was last here, there has been a process taking place that has knitted the defense contractor community to the Congress with an unfortunate effect on the defense establishment. Finally, there was this. If Rumsfeld has bothered to look at how this training has actually turned out he is probably feeling embarrassed. Contractors such as DynCorp and others have been heavily involved in this and have received loads of criticism for their efforts. 2. 2002-04-23 to Gen Franks re Contractors Category: George W Bush Secretary of Defense (21) – 2002 – Snowflakes … 2002-04-23 to Gen Franks re Contractors … April 23, 2002 6:30 PM TO: Gen. Franks CC: Gen. Myers FROM: Donald Rumsfeld SUBJECT: Contractors Have you thought of using contractors to train the Afghan army? Thanks. DHR:dh 042302-24

Read the full article →

Obama’s Big Budget Cut Proposals Target The Poor

February 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — As Democrats and Republicans wrangle over fiscal austerity and the shape of the 2012 federal budget, the White House is targeting programs in the $4 trillion budget that benefit low-income Americans. It’s a sop to moderates and conservatives, and it’s likely to infuriate voters who put President Barack Obama in the White House. In the past week, the Obama administration has signaled that it will propose significant cuts to community service block grants and an energy assistance program that helps poor people stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer. A White House source familiar with the budget process told HuffPost that the president will propose cutting $2.5 billion from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program , or LIHEAP, which received $5.1 billion in federal funds in 2009. That program distributes money to states, which then distribute it to social service agencies to help families heat or cool their homes. The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association , a group that represents state aid officials in Washington, said Wednesday that the bad economy has forced more low-income households to rely on LIHEAP. About 8.3 million households used it in fiscal 2010, up from 7.7 million and 5.8 million during the previous two years, and the association expects eligible applications to rise to 8.9 million this year. NEADA director Mark Wolfe told HuffPost that the administration’s proposal would cut off 3.5 million households. “It’s just a cruel proposal,” Wolfe said. “What this would do is take some of the most vulnerable families in the country off energy assistance.” HuffPost readers: Used LIHEAP to heat your home? Tell us about it — email arthur@huffingtonpost.com . Wolfe said he assumed the White House had “drawn a circle” around education-aid programs like Pell Grants and Head Start. “My guess is that the administration sees a course of programs they want to protect,” he said. “But why offer this up before the Republicans suggest cuts. Why volunteer us? Why volunteer LIHEAP?” The White House declined to address these concerns on the record, though a source noted that energy prices are lower now than when Congress increased LIHEAP funding for 2009. Although energy prices have indeed declined since then, Bob Greenstein, the director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, pointed out that the overall economy hasn’t improved much since then. Price drops don’t offer much relief to people still looking for jobs. “The unemployment rate is higher and there are lot more people that have low incomes today than during fiscal 2008 when this was written,” Greenstein said. “I’m certainly surprised and disappointed at this cut.” And this isn’t the only program for low-income people that the White House has put on the chopping block, at a time when the administration and Congress chose to extend tax cuts for upper income and wealthy Americans. Community service block grants, which fund community organizers in poor neighborhoods, are also facing cuts. During the 2008 campaign, Obama emphasized that his own resume included a stint as a community organizer. White House budget director Jacob Lew said in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Obama would propose cleaving block-grant allocations to $350 million from $700 million. “These are grassroots groups working in poor communities, dedicated to empowering those living there and helping them with some of life’s basic necessities,” Lew wrote. “These are the kinds of programs that President Obama worked with when he was a community organizer, so this cut is not easy for him.” David Bradley, director of the National Community Action Foundation, that works with Congress and local governments on behalf of programs for low-income people, said he was surprised that the president, a former community organizer, would go after programs that represent such a tiny part of the massive federal budget. “The question is why? Why pick on this program? It makes a statement, particularly when you’re able to say, ‘Here’s a program I really care about,’” Bradley said. “Once the Obama administration throws a poverty program in the water, it starts a feeding frenzy.” Bradley said the the White House has thrown chum into the waters swirling around the budget-cut debate. He said the Obama administration’s move simply emboldened Republicans to propose even deeper cuts to the same programs. In the wake of the White House proposal, Republicans said yesterday that they would seek $405 million in cuts to community service block grants as part of their proposed continuing resolution , a stopgap budget measure that would fund the federal government for the rest of the year. Even before word of the block grant and LIHEAP cuts, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty worried that the White House will abandon a waning homeless prevention program created by the stimulus bill. The White House has also stepped on other programs for poor folks. In August, it pushed Congress to pass a child-nutrition bill — a priority of the First Lady’s — that was paid for in part with cuts to future funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as “food stamps.” At the time, the Food Research and Action Center, a national anti-hunger organization that lobbies on behalf of food stamps and other programs, estimated that a family of four will receive $59 less per month starting in November 2013 as a result of the $2.2-billion cut, which came on the heels of another $11.9-billion cut to food stamps that was folded into a state-aid bill. More than 100 House Democrats protested and promised to block the child nutrition bill because of the cuts, but the White House persuaded them to fall in line. With mounting evidence that the White House is willing to sacrifice low-income assistance as it jockeys for position in budget and election battles, it may be hard this time around to convince congressional Democrats to support the proposed block grant or LIHEAP cuts. The 11 Democratic members of Congress from Massachusetts sent Obama a letter on Monday opposing cuts to the block grants. And one prominent Democrat has already voiced his displeasure with the LIHEAP proposal. “I understand that difficult cuts have to be made,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to the White House on Wednesday. “But in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens. I request that the administration preserve LIHEAP funding at least to the Fiscal Year 2010 funding at $5.1 billion when it submits its FY12 budget proposal to Congress.” In Massachusetts, eligible applications to LIHEAP increased 21.1 percent in 2009, and that represents a population of voters likely to be as disgruntled about the White House’s proposal as Kerry.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Why the Republican Attack on "Job-Killing Regulations" Is Dumb

February 10, 2011

Republicans aim to end all “job-killing regulations” — especially those that, according to House Speaker John Boehner, are “strangling” business with detailed requirements over health, safety, the environment, corporate governance and finance. Here’s another instance of where the White House’s attempt to preempt Republican rhetoric (the president said last week his administration would root out all nonsensical and inefficient regulation) ends up legitimizing it — and re-framing the public debate around an issue that’s hardly central to what ails America. The reason we have continued sky-high unemployment has nothing to do with excessive regulation. There was no sudden outpouring of federal regulation in 2007 before the economy tanked and millions lost their jobs. If anything, the economy unraveled because of too little regulation. Wall Street went on a binge, remember? The Street could get almost free money from the Fed (which had reduced interest rates to near zero) and do just about whatever it wanted with it. Thirty years of deregulation, culminating with the dismantling of Glass-Steagall and the abject failure of regulators at the Fed and the SEC to use the authority they still had, enabled the Street to make bundles of money and expose the rest of the economy to unprecedented levels of risk. The Fed had slashed interest rates in the early 2000s, by the way, because the corporate looting scandals at Enron, Worldcom, Sunbeam, and other major corporations had sapped investor confidence. Those scandals themselves wouldn’t have happened had securities regulations been stronger and better enforced. No one wants unnecessary regulation. And rules ought to be clear and simple. But let’s be real. Most of the complexity and verbiage that finds its way into the Code of Federal Regulations is the result of industry lawyers and lobbyists who exploit every potential ambiguity to avoid doing what lawmakers intend — thereby necessitating ever-more detailed and picayune rules to close the loopholes. It’s an endless cat-and-mouse game that runs from regulatory agencies through the courts and then back again. And it’s occurring right now, as regulations are being drawn up to put the health care and financial laws into effect. There’s no necessary trade-off between regulations and jobs. Regulations that are designed well — that tell industry what to achieve by a certain date but don’t dictate exactly how (such as fuel economy standards) — can generate innovation as companies compete to find the most efficient solutions. And innovations can lead to more jobs as they spawn new products and industries. Even where there is a trade-off — where regulations are costly and those costs result in fewer jobs — it still makes sense to opt for regulation when the public benefits exceed the costs to industry. We could have millions more jobs tomorrow if we eviscerated all health and safety regulations and allowed our air to turn yellow and our rivers and lakes to become fetid stinkholes. But that would be dumb. “Job-killing regulations” is a silly phrase that substitutes for real thought. And it’s a distraction from the hard work of creating more jobs in America. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Rakim Brooks: Obama and the King Who Knelt in the Snow

February 9, 2011

On Monday, President Obama spoke to the Chamber of Commerce, the leading business-interest lobby in the United States. The occasion marked the President’s newest attempt to rally business to solve America’s short and long-term economic problems. Unfortunately, it also served to remind the American people that corporate business, not the American people, control the country’s destiny. Mr. Obama’s presentation was civil, even buoyant, but that did nothing to hide the tension between him and the Chamber. Mr. Obama stood in front of men and women who had fought health care reform viciously, spent millions successfully advertising against Democratic incumbents in the 2010 elections, opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, and who now were refusing to spend billions of dollars being held in reserve. He was well aware that many in the room wanted, to quote Rush Limbaugh his Presidency to fail. Yet, rather than “take on the special interests” as he had promised to do so many times in his 2008 campaign and presidency, he played the political version of Mr. Rogers. “I’m here in the interest of being more neighborly,” Mr. Obama told the Chamber. “Maybe if we would have brought over a fruit cake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off on a better foot. But I’m going to make it up.” His speech underscored his enduring desire to work with US businesses to get America back on the right track: “If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it.” The President stressed that private business would lead America out of the recession and back to global prominence. And in all of this the U.S. government and the Obama Administration would act as a sidekick. It was disturbing to watch Mr. Obama strain to buddy-up with his political enemies, not because it is likely to prove ineffective, but because it made the leader of the free world seem servile and insignificant. With each half-hearted punch line, Mr. Obama became more and more like the king who knelt in the snow. The scene was Europe at the turn of the first century. Pope Gregory VII had attempted to strip Emperor Henry IV of his sovereign right to appoint the clergymen that served the Holy Roman Empire. When the Emperor resisted and, in a show of ultimate defiance, challenged Gregory’s legitimacy as Holy Pontiff, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor, thus severing him from the Holy Church and all of Christendom. The events that followed were pure political spectacle. After a series of diplomatic scuffles, the Emperor chose to apologize to the Pope. And in the most dramatic display of servility, he marched to meet the Pope in Italy. But when he arrived, the Pope refused to grant him entry. The Emperor, determined to regain favor, then stood in the snow, barefoot, praying for forgiveness. For three days, the Emperor was given no quarter or sustenance. Still, he continued to pray without knowing whether his prayers would be heard; the Pope had previously declared the excommunication irrevocable. On the third day, Pope Gregory relented, and the Emperor was received back into the Christian family. But the point had been made. What came to be known as the Investiture Controversy demonstrated the Papacy’s power to kings throughout Europe and, for centuries, sovereign monarchs cowed before the Pope and the Church. I first heard this story in high school, and I’ve never forgotten it because my adolescent mind could not imagine any Head of State, even of the smallest nation, kneeling before a non-state authority. It just served to remind me how different things were now. No President would ever be caught in such a position, I thought. And then I read President Obama’s speech and could only wonder, “How long has the President been kneeling?” Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest that he might have been in this position for a very long time – we are just now beginning to take notice. But what’s worse is that Mr. Obama’s kneeling reveals that American democracy is imperiled. A democratic nation should be ruled by the many, not the few. Yet, the Chamber of Commerce is attempting to determine the economic, and thus political, fate of our nation. Like religious authorities of the first millennium, business has asserted its dominance over the affairs of sovereign men. What is to be done? The responses of both the political Right and Left have been unimpressive. The political right would have us believe that the President has been hostile to business. If he would only be friendlier to business interests and stop confusing them with unnecessary regulations, the economy would jump-start. But the truth is that President Obama has been more than neighborly, to the tune of $700 billion. He’s promised more in his State of the Union, saying the U.S. would focus on infrastructure and technology spending. All this and the Right still thinks that he’s hostile? They must be taking that fruitcake joke seriously! If the Right thinks Mr. Obama has been too hostile, the Left believes he’s been too friendly. They look at his Cabinet and Staff and hold their noses. His inner circle reeks of Wall Street types and centrists like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and new White House Chief of Staff William Daley. Too much money and too little concern for the disadvantaged, critics shout. Cornel West has gone so far as to pose the most existential of questions to the President: “How deep is your love for poor and working people?” The problem with this question is that it could be turned right around and posed to the American Left. This is not to say that Mr. Obama has not clung to the center, but did he have a choice? After 2008, the legions of young, independent, and African American voters that helped Mr. Obama secure the presidency abandoned the Democrats in the midterm elections. When he needed them most, they didn’t turn up to the ballot box and, thus, we saw Democratic majorities shredded in both the House and the Senate. It’s no surprise then that the President compromised with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the rich. He didn’t have the legislative support to do otherwise. But he did secure unemployment benefits for over 14 million Americans who need them. Is that not love? And, if that’s not enough, let’s remember, if raising one child takes a village, it takes more than one man to raise a nation. In short, the Left would rather chastise President Obama than help him to his feet, while the Right would prefer to ask him to lie down flat on his belly and grovel (as though that would help). None of this serves the interests of the American people. What the Right and Left seem to be missing is that this isn’t about one man. The way the Chamber and corporate business interests approach the President speaks volumes about how they treat each of us. It is no wonder then that, as Mr. Obama is being cowed, millions of Americans are unemployed, millions more are underemployed, and states are either going into the red, forcing their citizens to do without vital services, or both. The Nation’s fate is tied to its President’s, and as long as he is kept kneeling, America will not move forward. Corporate business interests have had a strangle hold on Washington for many decades now. And the President’s kneeling reveals that there is no easy way to break this corporate death grip. One thing is clear, however: It is in our interest – Left, Right and, yes, Tea Party – to form a collective bulwark against the Chamber and its attempts to determine our political futures, to tell the Chamber that a free people will not bend before the will of business as man once bent before the will of God. Because, if we fail to stand together, we’ll all be left with cold (wet) feet.

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: Business Doesn’t Need American Workers

February 7, 2011

Once again, the job numbers are dismal. In January, the U.S. economy created just 36,000 domestic jobs, far below the roughly 145,000 that economists had forecast. The unemployment rate fell, to 9 percent, but only because more and more discouraged workers are giving up and leaving the workforce. The U.S. still has a jobs gap of about 14 million jobs, and that number is increasing as the labor force grows. Counting people who’ve given up, or who are working part time when they want full time jobs, the real unemployment number is around 17 percent. America now has about 25 million people either out of work or underemployed. Meanwhile, corporate profits continue to set records. Profits in the third quarter of 2010 were 1.659 trillion, about 28 percent higher than a year before, and the highest year-to-year increase on record. What’s going on? Very simply, America’s corporations no longer need America’s workers. As Harold Meyerson documents in a brilliant piece for The American Prospect , our most admired corporations — GE, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Intel — are creating ever more jobs overseas and relatively fewer at home. This has the double benefit of taking advantage of cheap labor abroad and disciplining workers to accept low wages at home. Along with the high unemployment rates have come declining earnings. Meyerson writes: “In 2001, 32 percent of the income of the firms on Standard & Poor’s index of the 500 largest publicly traded U.S. companies came from abroad. By 2008, that figure had grown to 48 percent.” This record contrasts dramatically with that of the right’s favorite whipping boy — Western Europe. Germany is gaining jobs at a rapid clip. Its industrialists are committed to producing at home, and just in case they get ideas of making outsourcing a way of life, they have strong unions who negotiate agreements on where production is located. Germany’s labor costs are the highest in the world, but Germany nonetheless runs the world’s largest export surplus — 7 percent of GDP — while America runs chronic trade deficits. Barring drastic policy changes, our jobless recovery is likely to continue. There are three parts to the problem. First, while the economy is still in deep recession, both the administration and its Republican critics are already talking about steeper budget cuts. President Obama talks a good game about infrastructure spending, but it’s hard to see where the funds will come from as deficit hawks in both parties prevail. In Sunday’s New York Times , Jacob Lew, the president’s budget director, wrote a depressing (in both senses of the word) oped piece on the case for deeper budget cuts. In theory, massive infrastructure spending could create a lot of good jobs, but the Obama budget is likely to offer new spending at token levels to prove his good faith as a deficit-hawk, and the Republicans will likely deny him even that. Then there is the problem that Meyerson nails. The Obama administration is not about to take issue with American companies that profit from locating ever more production abroad. The corporate elite is fiercely opposed to any limits on its freedom to relocate, and Obama is on a mission to make peace with big business. The administration continues to promote “free trade” deals on the premise that they will create jobs — but more and more of those jobs get created offshore. Both political parties are in denial about the plain fact that American industry is competing against an industrial system in China radically different from our own. If a company like GE wants to operate in China, the Beijing regime extracts conditions that violate the spirit if not the letter of the World Trade Organization. Companies are made to take on Chinese partners, to transfer sensitive proprietary technology, and to shift their production and R&D to China. In exchange, they get government subsidies and docile workers. Eventually, much of their production is displaced by their Chinese partners, but in the meantime they make a lot of money. In the past two decades, company after company concluded that the U.S. government didn’t really care if we lost our manufacturing base. The Chinese government was making them an offer they couldn’t refuse, so one by one they made a separate peace with Beijing. At the latest U.S.-China summit, there was clucking about its overvalued currency, though last week the Treasury, out of solicitude for the feelings of Beijing’s leaders, once again declined to name China as a currency manipulator. But the overvalued Renminbi is a sideshow. The main game, which even relative hawks in the U.S. government just won’t raise, is China’s rigged industrial system. Why won’t American officials go there? Because American corporations have adapted just fine. Finally, there is the service economy. As many defenders of off-shoring have pointed out, even if Apple produces most of its products in China, a lot of the value-added stays in the U.S. Apple sales create jobs for workers in retail stores, warehouses, and shipping, as well as a relative handful of elite software and hardware designer jobs, not to mention corporate profits. Swell, but in the absence of a labor movement, or higher minimum wages, or other pressure for decent retailing wages, the service economy is turning into a Wal-Mart economy, where domestic service jobs that are created mostly pay lousy wages. These alarming job trends were not caused by the financial collapse that began in 2007. Rather, the prolonged recession revealed deep structural changes in the U.S. economy that reflect a gross imbalance between a corporate elite and ordinary working people. So if you want to know why the Democratic Party did so badly in the 2010 midterms, it’s because the administration lacked a plausible story about how to alter these basic dynamics. And it lacked that story because it was unwilling to challenge the corporate business model that disdains American workers. In light of that reality, the latest gestures by the president to show the business elite just what a good fellow he is are not just disappointing, but they are foolish politics. The president’s approval ratings may be up slightly in the wake of the Tucson shootings. The attack gave Obama an opening to shame the Republicans for their shrill partisanship and to model civility. But high-minded gestures will not cure the jobs crisis. The 2012 election will be won or lost in the industrial heartland, where states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Pennsylvania are devastated from the recession, and whose jobs are not coming back as long as current policies continue. There is a whole other strategy available for dealing with the jobs crisis — a constructive economic nationalism. But neither the White House nor the Republican opposition is offering it. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril .

Read the full article →

Video: Goolsbee Says U.S. Jobs Report Reflects `Uncertainties’

February 4, 2011

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, talks about data showing U.S. unemployment declined to 9 percent last month from 9.4 percent in December. The number of new jobs rose 36,000, according to the Labor Department. Goolsbee, speaking with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop,” also discusses President Obama’s fiscal policy and protests in Egypt. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

U.S. Will Hit Debt Limit In April/May, Treasury Says

February 2, 2011

WASHINGTON (By David Lawder) – The United States will hit a $14.3 trillion statutory limit on its debt slightly later than previously estimated, the Treasury said on Wednesday as it unveiled a still-hefty debt auction schedule. Treasury officials said the limit would now be hit between April 5 and May 31, versus a previous estimate of end-March to mid-May. The later time frame reflected an upward revision to estimates of tax receipts and a downward revision to projected borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The officials said they were proceeding with borrowing plans under the assumption Congress will raise the limit without a protracted battle, an assumption financial markets share. How much it should be raised is a question for Congress, they said. “We do not have a have particular figure that we have put to Congress. That is their prerogative to offer that,” Mary Miller, Treasury assistant secretary for financial markets, told a news conference. If Congress does not raise the limit in a timely way, the government could be forced to scale back operations. A failure to lift the limit could raise the specter of a first-ever U.S. debt default and push up interest rates sharply. Financial markets have not yet shown any nervousness over the debt limit, which has typically been raised after political grumbling. Treasury yields rose on Wednesday as higher oil prices fueled inflation concerns, but the 10-year note remained below 3.5 percent resistance level. Still, there will be political skirmishes along the way. A number of Republican lawmakers have raised opposition to increasing the limit without significant concessions on spending cuts from the Obama administration. A contentious debate is expected after the White House unveils its proposed fiscal 2012 budget later this month. “Given the history of debt limit fights, brinkmanship will rule the day, and nothing of significance will happen in February,” said Pierpont Securities analyst Stephen Stanley adding that a resolution could drag out “to the bitter end.” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said the delay in hitting the debt limit buys more time for Congress to reach consensus on a plan to control long-term deficits — a complex and difficult task. “The increase in the debt limit, the amount of it, is much less important to me than having a plan that over time brings down this debt,” Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, told reporters. “That to me is the key.” EMERGENCY ACTION The Treasury can take special measures such as dipping into government pension funds, to delay hitting the limit by up to another eight weeks, potentially pushing the day of reckoning into July. It plans to provide a new estimate on the timing at the start of every month. It already has begun to draw down a $200 billion Federal Reserve supplementary financing account, and Miller said the next step would be to halt issuance of debt to state and local governments, which has totaled $36.4 billion since October. Treasury’s Miller said the government had no plans to selectively cut or delay payments to employees or contractors . That “would in a sense be defaulting on our obligations, so it’s not a path that we want to go down,” she said. She added that accelerating sales of assets held by the government, such as shares in bailed-out companies or mortgage-backed securities, was also not an option that Treasury wanted to consider. On Monday, the Treasury slashed its borrowing estimate for the current quarter by $194 billion due to the drawdown of the Fed account. But overall, it said spending needs are increasing due to the recently enacted package of extended tax cuts and unemployment benefits. The Congressional Budget Office last week estimated a record $1.48 trillion for fiscal 2011, up from $1.29 trillion last year. The Treasury said it intends to meet this funding increase through a rise in short-term bill auction sizes, while keeping longer-term note and bond auctions steady at current levels. As expected, the Treasury announced a $72 billion refunding of its maturing 3-year, 10-year and 30-year debt, unchanged from the last refunding in April. The auctions will raise about $50.2 billion in new cash. The Treasury also disclosed that it had discussed with big bond dealers the possibility of an “ultra-long” bond with a maturity of 40, 50, or 100 years, as one of several options to broaden the investor base for Treasury debt. Miller said no decisions on this front were imminent. (Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Andrew Hay) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: Fraudclosure: Will State AGs Step Up to Their Moment in History?

February 2, 2011

Rumor has it that the 50-state attorneys general investigation into the Fraudclosure scandal is wrapping up. It’s time for a backbone check. Will the state attorneys general just ask the big banks and service providers to turn over a chunk of change from seemingly bottomless pockets? (This strategy was pursued by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) with little impact). Or will Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller take the lead in wrestling a real settlement out of the banks so that families hammered by unemployment and underemployment can stay in their homes? Widespread Criminality Americans know that the big banks and the mortgage service providers got us into this hole by pursuing an array of financial crimes. The SEC settlements alone have revealed a plethora of illegal, predatory and deceptive lending related to mortgages, securities fraud, accounting fraud, insider trading, brokerage fraud, bribery of government officials, criminal conflict of interest, deception of shareholders and investors, and more. Now the “robo-signing” scandal is pulling back the curtain on Act II of this white collar crime spree — revealing a new array of financial crimes by the very same institutions: robo-signing, fake witnesses, fake notaries, fake documents, fake attorneys, not to mention plain old theft as servicers rob consumers of hundreds or thousands of dollars in misapplied fees. There are additional crimes related to the way that banks have failed to correctly transfer promissory notes through the system and efforts to mislead and defraud investors. The short story is that many homeowners were foreclosed upon based on falsified documents by a bank who was not the true holder of the mortgage note. This is a crisis not only for individual homeowners, but investors who bought flawed mortgage-backed securities and for the financial system as a whole. Not a Single Prosecution of a Major Player Perverse incentives on Wall Street allowed top executives to make more money on flawed loans than boring old 30-year mortgages. Even though there is widespread agreement that Wall Street’s endless appetite for high-interest, high-fees loans to fuel the mortgage securitization machine had a causal role in supercharging the housing bubble, not one mortgage servicer provider or big bank CEO has been put in jail. This compares to over 1,000 successful prosecutions of top officers during the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. While the SEC has been churning out fines resulting in a long list of “settlements”, Wall Street firms are beginning to set aside money and treat these actions merely as the cost of doing business. There is nothing more instructive than jail time, but the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been hoodwinked by America’s biggest hoodlums, preferring to arrest a string of penny-ante Jersey mobsters than the Mafioso hiding in plain sight at Wall Street and Broadway. The DOJ delights in arresting people like Vinny Carwash” Frogiero, Frank “Meatball” Ballantoni, Anthino “Hootie” Russo while Jamie “Pretty Boy” Dimon, Lloyd “Godswork” Blankfein and Vikram “Slumdog” Pandit collect record bonuses. History is Calling In the history of the financial crisis, state AGs have so far come out looking pretty good. State AGs were the first in the nation to recognize that the predatory lending practices of firms such as Ameriquest and Countrywide were a danger to consumers and to the entire U.S. economy. In 2004, they were radically preempted from taking action against these crimes by Bush-appointed federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Now state AGs have another moment to outshine negligent federal prosecutors. State AGs can take a series of actions that the Feds have failed to take. First of all, they can book the crooks and force top officers to trade pinstripes for jail stripes. Secondly, they can force the banks into settlements with individual homeowners that really take a bite out of their profits, complete with foreclosure redos and damages for harmed homeowners. They can also subject the banks to ongoing independent audits of their foreclosure procedures and they can demand that the banks force principle write downs and other across-the-board measures that will stabilize communities and the economy. February 3rd National Day of Action The rocking National People’s Action and other anti-foreclosure groups are calling for a national day of action tomorrow to urge the AGs to do the right thing. But why wait? You can go to BanskterUSA.org to email the lead investigator, Iowa AG Tom Miller, and urge him to do the right thing. You can also join thousands of people across the country by click here to find your AG’s phone number so you can ask him or her directly for meaningful action on foreclosure. If you are struggling with these issues, think about meeting up with your neighbors. “Mortgage Madness Meetups” are being facilitated by Huffington Post . The next worldwide meetup day is February 8th. Finally, if you are trapped in the snow today, check out Dylan Ratigan’s excellent series on the housing crisis “No Way to Live” on MSNBC.

Read the full article →

Video: Axelrod on Egypt Protests: Political Capital With Al Hunt

January 29, 2011

Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) — White House adviser David Axelrod talks with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt about Egypt’s political unrest and the need for democratic “reforms” in the country. Bloomberg’s Hans Nichols and Lisa Lerer discuss President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address and Egypt’s government. Bloomberg’s John McCormick reports on Rahm Emanuel’s bid to succeed Richard M. Daley as mayor of Chicago. Commentators Margaret Carlson and Kate O’Beirne discuss Obama’s speech and the Republican Party’s response. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Cluelessness Trifecta as Tea Party Flubs Response to Obama State of the Union

January 28, 2011

I have already written about the economic cluelessness of Obama’s State of the Union Address and the cluelessness of the official Republican response. Neither party seems to grasp that free trade killed the Great American Job Machine, and both are grasping at straws, repeating mantras from 30 years ago, or promoting policies (a NAFTA with South Korea?!) that will make things even worse. But I was holding out a tiny glimmer of hope for the Tea Party. Whatever one may think of them on other issues, they are a populist insurgency, so if a challenge to the Demopublican Tweedledum-Tweedledee consensus on trade was to emerge somewhere, it just might be here. And polls now report that a solid 61% majority of Tea Party supporters are now against free trade agreements. Unfortunately, the Washington leadership of this loosely-organized movement is notoriously not the same as its rank and file, and the response to the State of the Union by Tea Party supporter Rep. Bachmann merely repeated the same mistakes as the official Republican response: a) no grasp of the Keynesian idea of deficit spending to get out of recession, and b) no idea why jobs are being lost. She said, Two years ago, when Barack Obama became our president, unemployment was 7.8 percent and our national debt stood at what seemed like a staggering $10.6 trillion dollars. We wondered whether the president would cut spending, reduce the deficit and implement real job-creating policies. Unfortunately, the president’s strategy for recovery was to spend a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus program, fueled by borrowed money. The White House promised us that all the spending would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Well not only did that plan fail to deliver, but within three months the national jobless rate spiked to 9.4 percent. It hasn’t been lower for 20 straight months. While the government grew, we lost more than 2 million jobs…In October of 2001, our national unemployment rate was at 5.3 percent. In 2008 it was at 6.6 percent. But just eight months after President Obama promised lower unemployment, that rate spiked to a staggering 10.1 percent. Today, unemployment is at 9.4 percent with about 400,000 new claims every week. Narrowly true, most of it, but why, Michelle? Why is the jobs engine broken? No mention of that in your speech. Just some bits from the old Reaganite deregulation agenda — as if deregulation hadn’t caused a big part of our current mess, and as if we could ever win a race to lower regulatory standards with Guandong. The Tea Party claims to believe in returning to the Founders’ vision of America. Well, here’s something they should consider: the founders were explicitly against free trade. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is what they need to be pondering right about now.

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: NADA — Auto Dealers Preparing for Great 2011

January 27, 2011

As the automobile industry appears to be improving, the National Automobile Dealer Association is getting read for its annual automotive convention. With car and truck sales predicted to be between 12-13 million cars it should be a big year for manufacturers and dealers. I personally think annual sales will exceed even the most optimistic expectations. But the winners will not be those that depend on the economy’s recovery but rather those that depend on great processes, great execution and great people. Car and truck dealers and manufacturers nationwide have been gravely impacted by the economic crisis, reducing sales of new automobiles from seventeen million to under ten million annually. Thousands of car dealerships were closed resulting in tens of thousands of lost jobs at the retail level not counting those lost because of cutbacks at the manufacturer level. Just retail auto dealers are responsible for over 1 million jobs in the U.S. so their solvency is critical to the US economic recovery! Founded in 1917, NADA represents more than seventeen thousand new car and truck dealers, both domestic and import, with more than 37,500 separate franchises. More than 91 percent of U.S. new-vehicle dealers are NADA members and a large majority is expected to attend the day event in San Francisco. I am working with NADA again this year to deliver automotive sales and management training workshops that will demonstrate exact strategies that automobile dealers must employ to get their part of the upcoming recovery. While people will be returning to car dealerships in the upcoming year, increased competition is forcing dealers to be better at the customer experience. In addition to providing sales and management workshops for their annual convention, NADA is very active on Capitol Hill supporting its members. I aggressively worked with NADA in its most recent victory passing the Brownback Amendment which excluded auto dealers from the White House’s bank reform bill. This would have limited dealers ability to provide financing to car buyers and gravely impacted the dealers’ viability and limited financing choices for automotive consumers. The Nada Convention 2011 is being held in San Francisco, CA Feb 5-7. Grant Cardone, NY Times Best Selling Author, Automotive Sales Training Expert

Read the full article →

Arianna Huffington: Davos Notes: State of the Union Shrugs, Burnout Davos Style, and the Spirit of RFK Hovers Above the CNBC Unemployment Debate

January 27, 2011

Day One: What State of the Union? Davos 2011 is off and running. I’ve been surprised how little talk there’s been today about the president’s State of the Union speech. I know it aired here at 3 in the morning, but people here are rarely asleep at 3 in the morning (a Davos sleep challenge would be, well, a major challenge — more on that in a bit). Plus, everyone here has an iPad, laptop, or mobile phone (and often all three), so it wouldn’t be hard to watch a replay. But it doesn’t seem to be on people’s radar screen. At a reception hosted by Yale President Rick Levin, I ran into the Chamber of Commerce’s CEO Tom Donohue and asked him what he thought of the speech. “I liked parts of it,” he said. “What didn’t you like?” I asked. “With gasoline prices headed to over $4 a gallon,” he replied, “there was no reason to demagogue oil companies.” And a TV producer, who asked for anonymity to protect his chances of ever playing basketball with Obama, was focused on the president’s makeup: “It was dreadful,” he told me. “He looked so yellow, it was like he was jaundiced. It was so bad, John Boehner looked natural by comparison.” But other than smatterings, not much post-speech chatter. The Video That Must Be Daily Viewing at the White House and Congress My day started with taking part in a CNBC debate entitled “The West Isn’t Working,” focused on global employment. The debate was divided into two parts. The first part was on the motion, “For a dynamic workforce, go East!” and centered on the rise of China and India and the decline of the West as an engine for growth and employment opportunities. Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, the chairman of Biocon, argued in favor of the motion while Barry Silbert, the CEO of SecondMarket, argued against. Laura Tyson, a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Philip Jennings, the general secretary of the UNI Global Union, and I challenged both sides with our own comments and questions. The second half of the debate addressed the motion, “Education is a failing industry,” looking at the mismatch between demand for skilled workers and education supply. Jeffrey Joerres, the CEO of Manpower Inc., made the case that the education system needs to change, because it isn’t filling the needs of employers. Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, argued that education is doing many things right, and that while “training prepares people for the jobs of 2011, education prepares people for the jobs of 2021.” After each motion was debated, there was a “Call to Action” segment where everyone was asked to offer tangible solutions to the problems being debated. The debate was taped and will air on CNBC on Feb. 4 . It was a lively debate, but for me the most memorable part of it was a powerful short video highlighting the global unemployment crisis that was shown at the start of the program. Before the audience was let into the auditorium, the CNBC crew was doing a technical run-through with Maria Bartiromo, who was moderating the debate. So I got to watch the video five or six times in a row. And each time its potent mix of doomsday music, depressing statistics, and images of global unemployment (especially among the young) and political unrest really hit me. So when the debate started, I told the audience: “This video should be played at the White House and in every Congressional office every single morning until unemployment drops to pre-recession levels.” Watching it leaves you feeling like you can’t just sit there — you have to do something before it’s too late. It reminded me of the time Bobby Kennedy, as Attorney General, brought his brother’s Cabinet to his office at the Justice Department and locked the door, forcing them to stay there for four hours discussing how to best address the crisis of poverty in America. I was ready to lock the doors of the Congress Centre auditorium until we had determined to do something concrete about unemployment. As soon as we get a preview of the video from CNBC we will post it. Bursting at the Seams The Congress Centre, the official hub of the World Economic Forum, has been expanded and renovated, but there is still the feeling of a crowded, buzzing beehive — especially in the main executive lounge outside the Sanada room where many of the sessions take place. Today, the lounge was so packed — with people who instead of attending panels and speeches were schmoozing — there wasn’t a seat to be found. So, when I met up with Justin Webb and Sareen Bains, who were interviewing me for the BBC’s Today show, we ended up sitting on the floor and doing the interview there. As we sat there, a constant stream of people walked by — including Jamie Dimon and Larry Summers. I wonder if they thought I was having a 60s moment and had decided to start some sort of Davos sit-in as part of my “doing something about unemployment” drive. Burnout, Davos-Style As I said, getting enough sleep isn’t the highest priority among Davos participants. It’s partly the active, after-hours scene (many of the parties don’t even start until 10 or 11), and partly the way lack of sleep has become a sort of virility symbol for many of the world’s movers and shakers. In the cult of no sleep, 7 a.m. is the new 9 a.m. Despite the late nights, trying to make a breakfast appointment in Davos is an exercise in sleep deprivation one-upmanship. “Oh, hi Arianna, yeah, 8 is a bit late, but it’s fine because that’ll give me time to have gotten in a couple of ski runs and a conference call with Moscow first.” The WEF organizers have apparently noticed the trend and have put together a panel to explore the question, “Why is it the latest fashion to be a burnout victim?” The panel description defines burnout as “a condition of emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion” that results when “striving for recognition and success is exaggerated and the balance between work, family life and leisure is lost.” The panel is fittingly scheduled for Saturday, the last day of the forum, in the middle of the afternoon, which seems like a missed opportunity — how much more resonant it would have been if it was held at 3:30 a.m. instead of 3:30 p.m. Make of This What You Will It’s worth noting that the only panel on the entire program that directly addressed poverty, a session entitled “Making Poverty History,” and featuring A.R. Rahman, the award-winning composer of the score for Slumdog Millionaire , was canceled. According to the WEF website: “No contributors could be retrieved for this session.” Maybe they were afraid the ghost of Bobby Kennedy would show up and lock them all in.

Read the full article →

Robert E. Scott: Exports and Jobs: Less Than Half the Story

January 26, 2011

President Obama talked about doubling exports in the State of the Union Address last night as a strategy to create jobs. It’s a great sound bite, but woefully incomplete economics. While exports support American jobs, imports displace them ; when imports grow faster than exports, our trade deficit expands and American jobs are lost. Between 2001 and 2007 (both business cycle peaks), we lost 3.4 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, and the fact that the trade deficit as a share of GDP rose by roughly one third is a key reason why. Lately, when the President has talked about jobs and trade, he mentions the jobs associated with exports but ignores those lost due to growing imports. It’s like watching baseball, but only counting runs scored by the home team — lots of fun but it won’t tell you anything about how well they are doing. Last week, the President talked a lot about expanding exports to China . But he rarely mentioned imports or the trade deficit. We heard a lot about unfair trade and job losses during Obama’s primary campaign, but those words disappeared after the election. One reason may be that President Obama has surrounded himself with advisors from multinational companies, who have more to gain from outsourcing than from domestic job creation. For example, just this week, the President appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Our exports to China did increase rapidly last year — by about $23 billion, and this did support job creation. But imports increased about three times as fast, by $71 billion, which cost the U.S. many more jobs than exports supported. On balance, the growth in our trade deficit with China cost the United States at least one half million jobs in 2010 . We have huge trade deficits with China because of massive currency manipulation and many other unfair trade practices. Currency manipulation acts like a subsidy on all of China’s exports to the United States, and puts an identical tax on U.S. exports to China, and to every other country in the world where we compete with China, which is our most important trade competitor. The U.S. could recover at least a million jobs by forcing China to revalue its currency now . We will have a record trade deficit of nearly $275 billion with China in 2010. President Obama is unlikely to acknowledge that trade with China cost us a half million jobs in 2010; the U.S. China trade deficit is growing rapidly and job displacement will worsen in the future unless something is done to end China’s currency manipulation and other unfair trade policies. The Obama administration’s trade policies are failing because corporate executives are designing them. Many key staff members have close ties to multinational corporations and Wall Street, such as new White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley (former executive of JPMorgan Chase), former Treasury official Gene Sperling, recently appointed head of the National Economic Council in the White House (formerly worked for Goldman Sachs); and recently departed NEC director Lawrence Summers, who received $5.2 million from a Wall Street hedge fund between stints in the Clinton and Obama administrations. Summers, Sperling and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (also from Wall Street) played key roles in opposing efforts within the Obama administration to impose tariffs on Chinese goods if the Chinese Government continued to manipulate their currency. Multinational corporations are responsible for outsourcing millions of U.S. jobs. What’s good for their corporate profits (and executive pay) often conflicts with the national interest of the United States to maximize job creation and production in this country. Even U.S.-based MNCs sometimes profit enormously from China’s unfair trade and industrial policies and currency manipulation. China spent $199 billion last quarter alone buying foreign currency reserves (primarily treasury bills) in order to keep its currency artificially low. They now hold $2.85 trillion in foreign currency reserves. The best estimates suggest that the Chinese yuan (RMB) is at least 30-40% undervalued. That amounts to a subsidy of 30%-40% on all the goods imported by GE and other MNCs from China. These companies would lose billions in profits if China revalued the yuan (RMB) and made these goods more expensive, so they are actively opposing efforts to compel China to revalue. Multinational corporations don’t need government assistance — they are sitting on $2 trillion in cash that they are investing in financial securities, rather than real capital that would create new jobs. They have all the cash they need to invest in R&D and to expand their factories. They can also afford to file trade cases to protect their fair trade and patent rights, which can cost millions of dollars for a single case. Instead, however, while they hoard their cash at home, they are investing abroad. China is giving hundreds of billions in subsidies to MNCs to move factories from the U.S. and other countries and locate them in China. For example, Evergreen Solar announced last week that it will close its solar cell factory in Massachusetts , which opened in 2008 with $43 million in state subsidies. Chinese banks offered Evergreen financing for two-thirds of the cost of its new plant at rates “as low as 4.8 percent” with no principal payments or interest payments due until the end of the loan in 2015. Even cheap labor is beside the point. U.S. clean energy loan guarantees can’t compete with the Chinese loan subsidies. This is another reason why MNCs will oppose (overtly or covertly) efforts to enforce fair trade laws by the Obama Administration. Americans who work for a living should be outraged that the President has appointed an executive of a firm that has offshored tens of thousands of jobs to serve as one of his key advisors. G.E.’s Immelt, the President’s newest CEO advisor, says that he wants to create jobs in the United States. But as Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing showed last week , Immelt and GE have been leading the charge of the outsourcers. He notes that GE has “slashed their American workforce to fewer than 150,000, [and] dramatically expanded its global presence, now employing over 300,000 workers worldwide.” The President visited Immelt at a GE Plant in Schenectady, New York, last week where they celebrated $45 billion in new trade deals with China, like the joint venture GE just signed with China AVIC, an avionics firm that supplies components to both civilian and military jet makers in China. GE claims that the deal will create jobs in the US, but they are giving away the keys to their kingdom by transferring key avionics technology to China AVIC. GE put $200 million and its technology in the deal and the Chinese partner is putting up $700 million. GE is effectively selling its treasure for beads and trinkets. This is supposed to be a 50 year deal, but the way these deals usually work, the Chinese partner will appropriate GE’s technology and then kick them out in a few years. Within ten years China AVIC will be a global leader in avionics, and GE will be out of the business. This, in essence, has been the result of China’s indigenous innovation policies, which have forced foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese firms, according to the National Association of Manufacturers . The deal may boost short term profits and Jeffrey Immelt’s bonuses, but thousands of American jobs will disappear. Who in our government is representing those workers? The deal will supposedly be limited strictly to domestic avionics, but it would be unwise to blindly trust the Chinese partner — this deal will give their military aircraft access to cutting edge US technology; two weeks ago, when Defense Sectary Gates visited China, their military conducted the first test flight of a new stealth fighter — they are catching up fast. Small and medium sized manufacturers create most of the jobs in the U.S. — not the giant corporations. Unlike the big companies, small and medium sized firms cannot get access to enough capital to finance working capital or expansion needs. President Obama should have appointed someone like Laurie S. Moncrieff — President, Adaptive Manufacturing Services and Schmald Tool & Die, Inc., a dynamic business leader who speaks for small and medium sized firms. (Moncrieff appeared at an EPI currency forum last March ). She would make an outstanding Chair for the new White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. In his State of the Union Address last night, the President proposed some new investments in infrastructure and measures designed to boost competitiveness. We do need to invest hundreds of billions of public and private dollars each year for the next few years to rebuild our aging infrastructure and lay the foundations for new clean energy industries and for conservation. And those investments can support millions of new jobs. But their effectiveness will just be blunted if we shy away from fixing our trade problems with China and other countries that use unfair trade policies to take away jobs and production from U.S. workers and domestic companies. Without effective trade policies, too much of the boost to U.S. jobs that can be gained from our rebuilt highways and railroads will leak away in the form of rising imports. The President needs to address both imports and exports. He needs to tell us how he plans to end currency manipulation this year, and his plans for ending unfair trade. Eliminating the U.S. non-oil trade deficit would support over five million U.S. jobs, and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax revenues and reduced spending on unemployment and other social services over the next few years. It’s time to end illegal currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, and to do that the President needs a new crop of advisors who care more about American job creation than outsourcing and MNC profits.

Read the full article →

Artisanal Ice Cream Makers To Sit With First Lady At State Of The Union

January 25, 2011

Joining a host of guests invited to sit with the first lady for tonight’s State of the Union address are Kendra Baker and Zachary Davis, who opened Penny Ice Creamery , an artisanal ice cream shop in Santa Cruz, CA, with the help of a $250,000 Recovery Act SBA loan. Baker and Davis posted an open thank-you in the form of a a YouTube video back in October that got the attention of the White House, and in November, Vice President Biden personally called them to thank them for the video and wish them luck with their shop. From the White House’s release on the first lady’s State of the Union guests: Business partners Kendra Baker and Zachary Davis had a dream of opening an organic, homemade ice cream shop in Santa Cruz, California, but had trouble finding a lender that would help finance their dream. With the help of a Recovery Act SBA loan of $250,000, Kendra and Zack were able open the doors to The Penny Ice Creamery in August 2010. The SBA Recovery Act funding allowed them to not only open the shop, but also to employ eleven people, purchase American-made equipment, and to hire nearly twenty local businesses to design and renovate the space. Kendra and Zack were so thankful for the financing help, that they posted a video on YouTube thanking the Administration and Members of Congress for their Recovery Act SBA loan. As a result of the video, the Vice President called them in November 2010 to thank them for the video and wish them good luck. Unlike most ice cream shops, Penny Ice doesn’t buy pre-made bases, which means they have to pasteurize their homemade base in-house. In a recent interview with Civil Eats , Baker explained the detailed process: In order to make your ice cream from scratch, you have to pasteurize your base, so that’s kind of the step that most people don’t do. They buy a pre-made base from a large distributor and they are adding flavor to it. When we were developing this business plan we wanted to have complete control over our recipes and what went into our product. Any time you create an ice cream base it has to be pasteurized, that’s the California Department of Food & Agriculture law. So we had to create a creamer, which is essentially the micro version of what you would find at a large milk production facility. We had to purchase a pasteurizer that fits our production cycle, which is seven to 15 gallons, because we make everything in really small batches. The process for that is you have to bring up the base to a minimum of 155 degrees with an airspace temperature of five degrees above that. We have to hold it for 30 minutes after which you draw your product and pull it down to below 40 degrees. Our production cycle is actually a two day process. There is a cooling and an aging period, because ice cream is actually enhanced when it is allowed to sit for about 24 hours. The next day you spin it and then it goes through a hardening period where it needs to go into a deep freezer. After that we can start to temper it, which is a softening of the ice cream, before we actually serve it. So it’s a lengthy process. They also discussed the work involved in starting up, and their November call from the White house: ZD: …I’m a firm believer in the American dream and I want everyone to believe that anything is possible. It’s not to say it’s not a lot of work. We put in over two years now, putting this together, just the loan part itself was over six months of extremely frequent back and forth to the bank giving them all the information they needed, proving ourselves. It’s not like we just said, “Oh, we’re going to go get an SBA loan” and walked into the bank and they gave us the money. There’s work, it’s all real work. KB: We had no idea what type of response we would get and we never anticipated that we would actually get a call from the White House…that was pretty incredible. Penny Ice Creamery’s YouTube thank-you video :

Read the full article →

Marc Stoiber: Green B2B: The Secret Sauce For Better Employees?

January 24, 2011

Sustainability is very much a headline in B2C. But we don’t hear much on the subject in B2B. Is it happening? What are the motivators for B2B businesses going green? And what are the consequences of ‘wait and see’? This article is the second in a three part series exploring B2B sustainability issues, culminating in a webinar Tuesday, February 8, 1pm EST (10am PST). To add the webinar to your Outlook calendar, click here . Sometimes, a clever opener is the best way to draw readers. And other times, well, you just let the facts speak for themselves: • Mail sorters at the main US Post Office in Reno, Nevada became the most productive and error-free in the western US after a ‘green’ energy and lighting upgrade in their building. The $300,000 upgrade produced $50,000 in yearly energy and maintenance savings…and a whopping $400,000 annual productivity gain from employees . • VeriFone, a subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard that makes electronic swipe readers to verify credit cards, renovated their building, beating California’s strict Title 24 building code by 60 percent with a 7.5-year payback. More astonishing, however, was the five percent increase in employee productivity and 45 percent drop in absenteeism after the overhaul. These benefits brought payback to under a year, for a return on investment of more than 100 percent. • The Superior Die Set Corporation of Oak Creek, Wisconsin upgraded lighting for $3,000, providing annual energy and maintenance savings of $1,750 – a payback of 20 months. But reduced reflections allowed drafters to cut turn-around time for drawings by more than 11.3 percent , worth $37,500 a year, reducing the payback to under one month. These cases have two things in common. First, each company greened their operations to raise operational efficiency and comply with legislation. And second, each company was taken by surprise when a side benefit – happy employees – seemed to produce unexpected returns. The Best Employees Want Green A recent poll on MonsterTRAK.com found that 80% of young professionals are interested in securing a job that has positive impact on the environment, and 92% would be more inclined to work for a company that is environmentally friendly. How do they find those jobs? One way is through the Environmental Defense Fund’s unique Climate Corps . EDF Climate Corps places specially-trained students from leading business schools in companies to develop energy efficiency plans. One glance at Climate Corps’ website reveals the top caliber talent attracted to the program – and the incredible benefits to partner companies. But are employees picking green companies in meaningful numbers? Anecdotal evidence would suggest so. On a recent visit to Patagonia HQ in Ventura, CA I learned that for each job opening posted, the company receives thousands of qualified applicants. It’s no surprise the company defied the recession, and continues to grow at a healthy pace. Attracting talent is only part of the equation. Andy Mercy is CEO of Angelpoints , a company that helps clients build more effective corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. In a recent conversation, Mercy said employee CSR programs create benefits far beyond lessening the company’s ecological footprint. In one of the companies serviced by Angelpoints: • Galvanizing employees around CSR produced one of the most positive aspects of job satisfaction 75% of the time; • 49% of employees reported they learned valuable new job skills through the CSR activities; • 64% of the CSR activities resulted in new business leads, when employees were teamed with clients or suppliers in joint programs. Creating a happier, healthier workplace seems an obvious way to boost productivity and attract the best workers. Sadly, this fact is lost on the majority of B2B CEO’s. What Are You Missing? Ian Sugarbroad, former CEO of LGC Wireless, built his B2B company in the hypercompetitive environment of Silicon Valley. In a phone conversation, Sugarbroad credited his corporate green programs with maintaining a stable, highly motivated workforce. And he can’t believe green hasn’t become par for the course among B2B CEO’s. “It definitely hasn’t become standard procedure in Silicon Valley. I believe only 30% of CEO’s think about CSR. 20% just go with the flow, adopting the same green behavior as their competitors. And 50% don’t get it at all – they think building a great company is still as simple as building a great product.” Fact is, an alarmingly high number of B2B companies aren’t up to speed on green issues that could seriously impact their business. According to Scott Wilson of IHS , a recent study conducted by his firm revealed that 45% of B2B’s were unaware of ‘conflict mineral’ legislation enacted in July 2010 – legislation that could cripple electronics suppliers. How does your company stack up? Are you at risk of losing employees, as well as being penalized by legislation or customers greening their supply chain? Learn. Adapt. And Communicate. There are three major lessons to be learned. First, stay informed. This is easier said than done, as information flow has become a torrent. But it’s vital that someone in your company tracks both customer trends and legislation. Second, use the information to adapt to your environment. This adaptation needs to be strategic – choose your areas of green focus with an eye on the white space you could claim. And finally, communicate and engage your employees. Ensure they know what you’re doing in green. Even better, engage them to shape the green course of your company.

Read the full article →

Vampire Squid? Big Government? U.S. Crisis Reports Murky

January 24, 2011

WASHINGTON (By Kevin Drawbaugh and Dave Clarke) – Three competing, politically recognizable tales of the financial crisis will emerge this week when a U.S. congressional panel finally concludes its 20-month investigation. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has failed to produce a consensus explanation of the 2007-2009 banking debacle, as it was asked to do in May 2009. Instead, the 10-member panel has fractured along the same ideological fault lines that divide much of political Washington. Three reports will be issued by commission members on Thursday, each conforming with a familiar political slant. The panel’s six Democrats, including Chairman Phil Angelides, will offer a report focused on the greed and power of Wall Street, a lack of effective regulation and the “shadow banking” system, said people familiar with the document. Derivatives markets will come in for sharp criticism from the Democrats, along with a 1999 law that allowed bank holding companies to move into other financial businesses, and the immense influence of Wall Street on government. One person, who asked not to be identified, compared the Angelides report to the “vampire squid” view of the crisis, referring to a memorable 2009 description by journalist Matt Taibbi of Goldman Sachs Group Inc as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” Republican commission member Peter Wallison will offer his own dissenting report that largely blames the crisis on the housing policy of “big government.” This well-worn GOP view is shared by conservative foes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the troubled giants of mortgage finance. THIRD REPORT Three other Republican commission members will offer a separate account of the crisis. People familiar with it said it will downplay the banks’ culpability and clout and stress a confluence of global trends in tracing the origins of the devastating crisis that peaked in late 2008. “It is what it is,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican commission member said of the lack of a single narrative coming out of the commission’s work. “We know where Peter Wallison is, and in my view the majority went too far to the left for me to sign on. So we ended up in the middle,” Holtz-Eakin told Reuters regarding the report he will issue with former GOP Representative Bill Thomas and former Bush White House economic adviser Keith Hennessey. That dissent, like Wallison’s, will be attached to the main report being released by Angelides and the Democrats. A year ago, the commission hauled some of banking’s heaviest hitters into public hearings for questioning. Goldman Sachs Group Inc Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein, JPMorgan Chase & Co CEO Jamie Dimon and former Citigroup executives testified to the panel. Angelides noted pointedly as the commission got going in mid-2009 that it would have the power to refer cases for criminal prosecution, but that now seems unlikely to occur. One Wall Street investor, focused on the still-unfolding Basel III global bank capital accord, said the congressionally appointed commission’s potential findings were “already in the past. “What else is it going to tell us? That we were light on capital and light on reserves? We know that, and that’s already going up on Basel III,” the investor said. (Additional reporting by Maria Aspan in New York, editing by Gerald E. McCormick) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Stop the Korea Free Trade Agreement!

January 23, 2011

You would think America had learned its lesson from NAFTA, which the Labor Department has estimated cost us 525,000 jobs. But no. President Obama and the Republican leadership are united in pressing for ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS-FTA). This is an agreement which the Economic Policy Institute estimates will cost us 159,000 more jobs over the next five years. Yes, you read that correctly. At a time when even the president admits that his number one economic priority is job creation, and has created an entire new commission for that purpose, they’re going ahead with it anyway. It gives the phrase “contradictions of capitalism” a whole new meaning. Make no mistake: we’re in big trouble. The US economy has entirely lost the ability to create jobs in tradable sectors, and the recent downward blip in unemployment was merely the result of more people giving up looking, which causes them to drop out of the statistics. Even the official U.S. International Trade Commission has admitted that KORUS-FTA will cause significant job losses. And not just in low-end industries. The ITC foresees the electronic equipment manufacturing industry, with average wages of $30.38 in 2008, as a major victim. The supposed logic of America swapping junk jobs for high-end jobs simply isn’t the way the economics really works out. Pace free-market mythology, there are actually well-understood reasons for this, if you dig a little into what economists already know. Was this the Obama America voted for in 2008? No. That Obama is at an undisclosed location somewhere. He campaigned against KORUS-FTA during the 2008 campaign. (It was originally negotiated, but not ratified by Congress, by Bush in 2007.) Among other things, that Obama said: I strongly support the inclusion of meaningful, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all trade agreements. As president, I will work to ensure that the U.S. again leads the world in ensuring that consumer products produced across the world are done in a manner that supports workers, not undermines them. Nice words, but none of them are reflected in KORUS-FTA, which contains no serious new provisions on these issues. This agreement is essentially a NAFTA clone. It is, in fact, the biggest trade agreement since NAFTA, and the first since Canada with an industrialized country. This agreement, like NAFTA and the dozen or so other free trade agreements America has signed since NAFTA, is fundamentally an offshoring agreement. It is about making it easier for U.S. companies to move work overseas. The provisions to protect workers and consumers are unenforceable window dressing. Don’t be fooled by the fact that some unions, like the United Auto Workers (UAW), have endorsed the agreement. This is part of a cynical ploy by the White House to split the trade union movement in order to keep the AFL-CIO neutral. The UAW’s out-of-touch leadership is so punch-drunk from the 2008 collapse of the U.S. auto industry that it has lost touch not only with what is good for the American economy as a whole, but with what is good for rank-and-file auto workers. Don’t take my word for it: in the words of Al Benchich, retired president of UAW Local 909: The UAW Administration Caucus is the one-party state that controls the UAW at the International level. Every International officer is a member of the Caucus, and they surround themselves with appointed international reps that unquestioningly do their bidding. No wonder other, more democratic and more intelligent, unions, like Leo Gerard’s United Steelworkers, are criticizing the UAW for its decision to support KORUS-FTA. Interestingly, the UAW’s past record of criticizing KORUS-FTA is more honest than anything they’re doing in a desperate bid to help keep Obama in the White House. For example, here’s what they originally said about this agreement: KORUS-FTA has inadequate protections and enforcement mechanisms to enforce either the spirit or the letter of the law. Precisely . And changes made since then are, as noted, minimal. As an example of how one-sided the treaty is, consider that it now allows — to great rejoicing — America to export 75,000 cars a year to Korea. This translates to a measly 800 jobs. Korea’s exports of cars to the U.S. in 2009, on the other hand? Try 476,833. Furthermore, even if the U.S. does get to sell more cars in Korea, American companies will mostly not be making the steel, tires, and other components that go into them, because the agreement allows cars with 65 percent foreign content to count as “American.” This is just one example of how KORUS-FTA isn’t even as good as the deal the EU just signed with Korea. (The EU got a 55 percent standard on this item.) And remember that the EU and most of its member states, of course, don’t really practice free trade anyway: they practice a covertly managed trade that has kept the EU’s trade balance within pocket change of zero over the last two decades, while America has been running deficits around the $500 billion mark. “Free trade agreement,” in American English, means “free trade agreement.” In other languages, it means “politely codified agreement for managed trade at a low tariff.” The Europeans invented this game — called mercantilism — back when international trade was conducted with sailing ships. South Korea learned it from the Japanese. Uncle Sam (and maybe John Bull and a few others) are the only naïfs who still don’t get it. Despite what the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are saying, this agreement makes no sense as a strategy to reduce our horrendous trade deficit. America’s trade deficits have a long record of going up , not down, when we sign trade agreements with other nations. Paradoxically, trade agreements even seem to sabotage our own trade with foreign nations: according to an analysis by the group Public Citizen, in recent years our exports to nations we have free-trade agreements with have actually grown at less than half the pace of our exports to nations we don’t have these agreements with. So these agreements don’t hold water as trade-expanding measures. Even leaving aside trade-balance issues, this agreement is a disaster, thanks to something called “investor-state arbitration.” Like NAFTA, it compromises American sovereignty and subjects American democracy to having its own laws overruled by foreign judges as interfering with trade. Under NAFTA to date, over $326 million in damages has been paid out by governments as a result of challenges to natural resource policies, environmental protection, and health and safety measures. There about 80 Korean corporations, with about 270 facilities around the U.S., that would acquire the right to challenge our laws under KORUS-FTA. What kind of problems could this cause? The U.S. was forced in 1996 to weaken Clean Air Act rules on gasoline contaminants in response to a challenge by Venezuela and Brazil. In 1998, we were forced to weaken Endangered Species Act protections for sea turtles thanks to a challenge by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand concerning the shrimp industry. The EU today endures trade sanctions by the U.S. for not relaxing its ban on hormone-treated beef. In 1996, the WTO ruled against the EU’s Lome Convention, a preferential trading scheme for 71 former European colonies in the Third World. In 2003, the Bush administration sued the EU over its moratorium on genetically modified foods. It gets worse. KORUS-FTA also signs away our right (and Korea’s, too, not that this makes it any better) to a wide range of financial regulations of the kind that might have helped avoid the crisis of 2008. For example, it forfeits our right to limit the size of financial institutions. It forfeits our right to place firewalls between different kinds of financial activities in order to prevent volatility in one market from collapsing another. It prevents us from limiting what financial services financial institutions may offer — Enron Savings & Mortgage, here we come… It bans regulation of derivatives. It ban limits on capital flows designed to tame volatile “hot money.” Why is the U.S. flirting with making such an appalling mistake yet again? Because a) multinational corporations have bought our political system and b) because our government would rather play power politics than keep its own (declining) economic house in order. It is remarkable how stuck we are in the 1950′s, with an invincible economy at home and a Cold War abroad. As a report by the Senate Finance Committee once put it: Throughout most of the postwar era, U.S. trade policy has been the orphan of U.S. foreign policy. Too often the Executive has granted trade concessions to accomplish political objectives. Rather than conducting U.S. international economic relations on sound economic and commercial principles, the executive has set trade and monetary policy in a foreign aid context. An example has been the Executive’s unwillingness to enforce U.S. trade statutes in response to foreign unfair trade practices. Ironically, it may eventually be our own decline that solves our trade problems, by rescuing us from our own arrogance and stupidity. When we finally realize we can’t take our economy for granted, we may finally stop giving away the store in international trade. P.S. There have been huge demonstrations against KORUS-FTA in Seoul, South Korea. If you live in the Bay Area, there’ll be a protest outside Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco mansion on January 29. Click here for more details.

Read the full article →

SOTU PREVIEW: What Obama Will Focus On In Tuesday’s Address

January 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Under pressure to energize the economy, President Barack Obama said Saturday he will use his State of the Union address to outline an agenda to create jobs now and boost American competitiveness over the long term. Heading quickly into re-election mode, Obama is expected to use Tuesday’s prime-time speech to promote spending on innovation while also promising to reduce the national debt and cooperate with emboldened Republicans. “I’m focused on making sure the economy is working for everybody, for the entire American family,” Obama said Saturday in an uncommon preview of his speech, offered up in an online video to his supporters late Saturday afternoon. The president announced that the economy would be the main topic of his speech, a nod to how important that issue is to the country’s standing and his own as well. At the halfway point of his term, Obama said the economy is on firmer footing than it was two years ago: it is growing again, albeit slowly, while the stock market is rising, and corporate profits are climbing. But with the unemployment rate stubbornly stuck above 9 percent, Obama will signal a shift Tuesday from short-term stabilization policies toward ones focused on job creation and longer-term growth. Obama offered no details on specific proposals he will call for in his address, though he has offered hints in recent weeks. Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet. In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama also highlighted free trade as a way to increase U.S. exports and put Americans to work. “That’s how we’ll create jobs today,” Obama said. “That’s how we’ll make America more competitive tomorrow. And that’s how we’ll win the future.” Obama’s challenge will be to find the money and political will to spend it, at a time when he’s pledged to reduce spending and tackle the mountainous debt. In his preview to supporters Saturday, Obama said he would emphasize fiscal restraint Tuesday, but didn’t go into detail, saying only that any spending cuts should be done in a “responsible way.” The president is under growing pressure to tackle the debt from the public and lawmakers, particularly some newly elected Republicans who ran on pledges to cut spending. Obama, too, has made spending cuts a priority, setting up a bipartisan fiscal commission which recommended tax hikes and cuts to entitlement programs – both efforts that would likely be a hard sell with the American people. Obama will speak Tuesday to a Congress changed both by Republican wins in the November election and the attempted assassination of one of its own. Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head two weeks ago during an event in her district in Tucson, Ariz. Since then, the president has appealed for more civility in politics, and in a nod to that ideal, some Democrats and Republicans will break with tradition and sit alongside each other in the House chamber Tuesday night. Obama hinted Saturday that he would build on that theme during the State of the Union, tying the country’s economic success to bipartisan cooperation. “We’re up to it, as long as we come together as a people_Republicans, Democrats, Independents_as long as we focus on what binds us together as a people, as long as we’re willing to find common ground even as we’re having some very vigorous debates,” Obama said. The White House sees competitiveness as a framework Republicans could support. GOP lawmakers traditionally have backed the types of trade deals and research-and-development efforts that Obama is promoting. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared to give the president an opening when he said last week in a speech that “my advice to my colleagues is if the president is willing to do what we would do anyway, then we should say yes.” Yet for all the talk of bipartisanship, Obama will deliver Tuesday’s address at a time when his White House is shifting into re-election mode. Obama plans to file papers to formally run for re-election around March, and several aides are moving to Chicago to run the 2012 campaign. Saturday’s video preview to supporters signaled a return to the campaign-style outreach Obama’s team mastered in 2008, and underscored his need to rally his base around his agenda. The White House is keenly aware that Obama’s re-election prospects likely hinge on the state of the economy. More than half of those questioned in a new Associated Press-GfK poll disapproved of how he’s handled the economy, and just 35 percent said it’s improved on his watch. Three-quarters of those surveyed did say it’s unrealistic to expect noticeable improvements after two years. They said it will take longer. Obama’s preview Saturday focused exclusively on his domestic agenda, with no mention of foreign policy. Obama is, however, expected to frame his call for competitiveness in global terms, calling for a new Sputnik moment – a reference to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of the first satellite, ahead of the U.S. He intends to say the U.S. is again facing challenges from abroad, this time from fast-growing economies in China, India and throughout Southeast Asia. In his travels to Asia and during Chinese President Hu Jintao’s recent trip to Washington, Obama has said he’s been struck by the rapid rise of that region and the laser-like focus on competing in the global economy. “They are thinking each and every day about how to educate their work force, rebuild their infrastructure, enter into new markets,” Obama said in November, after wrapping up a 10-day Asia trip. “We should feel confident about our ability to compete, but we are going to have to step up our game.”

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: American Competitiveness, and the President’s New Relationship with American Business

January 22, 2011

Whenever you hear a business executive or politician use the term “American competitiveness,” watch your wallet. Few terms in public discourse have gone so directly from obscurity to meaninglessness without any intervening period of coherence. President Obama just appointed Jeffry Immelt, GE’s CEO, to head his outside panel of economic advisors, replacing Paul Volcker. According to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Immelt has “agreed to work through what makes our country more competitive.” In an opinion piece for the Washington Post announcing his acceptance, Immelt wrote “there is nothing inevitable about America’s declining manufacturing competitiveness if we work together to reverse it.” But what’s American “competitiveness” and how do you measure it? Here are some different definitions: It’s American exports. Okay, but the easiest way for American companies to increase their exports from the US is for their American-made products to become cheaper internationally. And for them to reduce the price of their American-made stuff they have to cut their costs of production in here. Their biggest cost is their payrolls. So it follows that the simplest way for them to become more “competitive” is to cut their payrolls — either by substituting software and automated machinery for their US workers, or getting (or forcing) their US workers to accept wage and benefit cuts. It’s net exports. Another way to think about American “competitiveness” is the balance of trade — how much we import from abroad versus how much they import from us. The easiest and most direct way to improve the trade balance is to coax the value of the dollar down relative to foreign currencies (the Fed’s current strategy for flooding the economy with money could have this effect). The result is everything we make becomes cheaper to the rest of the world. But even if other nations were willing to let this happen (doubtful; we’d probably have a currency war instead as they tried to coax down the value of their currencies in response), we’d pay a high price. Everything the rest of the world makes would become more expensive for us. It’s the profits of American-based companies. In case you haven’t noticed, the profits of American corporations are soaring. That’s largely because sales from their foreign-based operations are booming (especially in China, Brazil, and India). It’s also because they’ve cut their costs of production in the US (see the first item above). American-based companies have become global — making and selling all over the world — so their profitability has little or nothing to do with the number and quality of jobs here in the US. In fact, it may be inversely related. It’s the number and quality of American jobs. This is my preferred definition, but on this measure we’re doing terribly badly. Most Americans are imprisoned in a terrible trade-off — they can get a job, but only one that pays considerably less than the one they used to have, or they can face unemployment or insecure contract work. The only sure way to improve the quality of jobs over the long term is to build the productivity of American workers and the US overall, which means major investments in education, infrastructure, and basic R&D. But it’s far from clear American corporations and their executives will pay the taxes needed to make these investments. And the only sure way to improve the number of jobs is to give the vast middle and working classes of America sufficient purchasing power to get the economy going again. But here again, it’s far from clear American corporations and their executives will be willing to push for a more progressive tax code, along with wage subsidies, that would put more money into average workers’ pockets. It’s politically important for President Obama, as for any president, to be available to American business, and to avoid the moniker of being “anti-business.” But the president must not be seduced into believing — and must not allow the public to be similarly seduced into thinking — that the well-being of American business is synonymous with the well-being of Americans. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Bevis Longstreth: Obama’s Phoenix: The Council on Jobs and Competitiveness

January 22, 2011

President Obama today named GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt to head the White House Council he has served on over the past two years under the leadership of former Fed Chairman Paul A. Volcker. This advisory body, originally named the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, lacked traction with the White House and, as a consequence, declined in political significance even as the stature of Mr. Volcker soared among those in the country who value sound and independent thinking over political calculation and sail-trimming. As author of the major element in the Financial Reform legislation enacted last year that would directly address, in part, the huge risks to our financial system caused by proprietary activities of large banks — the eponymously named “Volcker Rule” — Mr. Volcker might easily have been seen by Wall Street as a formidable foe. At the outset of President Obama’s term, the White House surely would have known him to be seen that way, for his record of putting national welfare ahead of private interest is a long and distinguished one. Somehow, in one of the most remarkable PR tricks in this writer’s memory, Republican leadership convinced the press, and through it, a large share of our nation’s citizens, that the President had been deliberately, and effectively, anti-business. Many business leaders joined in this libel, including Jeffrey Immelt, in a speech last summer in Rome. In fact, this claim is patently false. However, in the nation’s Capitol, where mirrors enlarge clever fallacies until they appear to be true, the President has chosen to respond by seeking to endear himself to business. To that end, he has undertaken a number ofsteps that carry him into an ever-tighter embrace of all to which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that lowest common denominator of the business community, aspires. And so, rising like a Phoenix, the defunct Economic Recovery Advisory Board is reconstituted with Big Business at its helm, new membership in support and a new name to capture the President’s emerging affection for job creation. It could work. It might work under Jeffrey Immelt’s leadership, although he is better known for creating jobs off-shore than onshore. Since 2005 GE has shed 27,000 jobs, shrinking from 161,000 to 134,000 in 2009. And, of course, Big Business is not the place that economists would naturally think of first as the most promising place to generate jobs. When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the White House in 1933,there were some 18 million destitute Americans needing help. To address this problem, and the growing number of those out of work, he was quick to bring to Washington not a leader of big business but Harry Hopkins, a social worker whose mission in New York State had been to provide relief for the unemployed. The principal vehicle for addressing these problems was the Works Progress Administration, or WPA as it became known, an agency that under Hopkins’ leadership and FDR’s vigorous support, achieved lasting monuments to its success in meeting human suffering with the offer of work. It is hard to imagine a WPA II becoming a priority of Mr. Immelt’s Council, although that is precisely what, as a matter of first and highest priority, it should do. Alas, any examination of the history of our Government’s handling of the unemployment problem under President Herbert Hoover between the Great Crash and FDR’s inauguration, reveals parallels to what President Obama did today that are unnerving to the extent they predict how the phoenix-like Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will behave under the leadership of Big Business. In 1930, President Hoover appointed Colonel Arthur Woods to head a committee on unemployment known as the “President’s Emergency Committee for Employment.” Woods was a distinguished public servant, not of the size of Paul Volcker but formed from the same mold of personal integrity. He had served with distinction as Police Commissioner for New York City. His Committee functioned from October, 1930 to August 1931. During that time it investigated the plight of the unemployed and the degree to which states and municipalities could cope. It recommended Federal relief in a highly textured report to the President. Hoover spoke to Congress soon after receiving that report, on December 2, 1930, rejecting its findings and blaming foreigners for the depression. “The fundamental strength of the Nation’s economic life is unimpaired,” he announced. Economic conditions worsened. Unemployment grew. On August 19, 1931, President Hoover appointed Walter S. Gifford, President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, to head a new advisory committee titled the “President’s Organization on Unemployment Relief”. At the time, ATT was of equal or greater stature than GE is today, and Mr. Gifford was a model representative of Big Business. Mr. Gifford proved as steadfast as President Hoover was to the principle that the problems of unemployment were to be solved, if at all, by states and municipalities. These men feared national responsibility more than they feared national unemployment. Only time will tell whether this past is the tragic prologue to our future.

Read the full article →

Anna Lappe: Taking Walmart’s PR Blitz With A Grain Of Salt

January 21, 2011

Walmart made big news yesterday with a press conference alongside the First Lady to announce new company commitments. Most of the mainstream media coverage of the Walmart announcement seemed to buy the company PR that it was taking valiant steps to improve the affordability and health qualities of the food it sells. Among these commitments, Walmart said it will be working with food suppliers to reduce sodium, sugars, and trans fat in certain products by 2015; developing its own seal to help consumers identify healthier products; and addressing hunger by opening Walmart stores in the nation’s “food deserts.” Do these Walmart promises really hold big upsides for health and food insecurity?The Times seemed to think so, running with this headline: “Wal-Mart Shifts Strategy to Promote Healthy Foods.” (Am I crazy or does that read remarkably like the Walmart press release: “Walmart Launches Major Initiative to Make Food Healthier and Healthier Food More Affordable”?) Had The Times been aiming for accuracy it might better have titled the article: “Walmart Launches PR Campaign Promoting Promises to Win the Hearts and Minds of Urban Consumers.” With little critical coverage in the mainstream media, we are left to ponder the impact of these Walmart commitments ourselves. Thankfully, we have the wisdom of experts like Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics and What to Eat, to shed light on these claims. (Check out her take here ). One of Nestle’s most important points is that Walmart’s promise to develop its own front-of-package seal is a clever preemption of work underway at the Institutes of Medicine and FDA to “establish research-based criteria” for such packaging and create regulations for the entire industry, with real oversight. Let’s dig deeper and look carefully at what the company is saying it is committing to doing. Specifically, Wal-Mart is pledging to “reduce sodium by 25 percent, eliminate industrially added trans fats, and reduce added sugars by 10 percent by 2015″ in some of the processed foods that it carries. Impressive? Not so fast. First, consider that it’s not unusual for a can of soup to contain as much as 2,291 mg, or more, of sodium. (For perspective, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend we consume just 1,500 mg a day). We need to reduce that sodium figure significantly more than 25 percent on many of Walmart products before we dare call them “healthy.” As for trans fats, public health advocates have long been advocating for all food producers to eliminate trans fats across the entire food supply. Finally, a 12 oz. can of Coke, for instance, bought at Walmart–and which the company notoriously pushes at steep discounts –will already contain 39 grams of sugars, the upper limit of what is often suggested as the total daily consumption for non-diabetics. In other words, Walmart’s nutritional commitments are really about making the unhealthy processed food it sells marginally better, at best; at worse, it’s offering the veneer of healthfulness to foods that should be considered bad for us. These nutritional promises are not only weak in their aspirational goals; they’re also non-binding, which means we’ve got to take the company on its word. These nutritional promises are not only weak in their aspirational goals; they’re also non-binding, which means we’ve got to take the company on its word. (The White House’s Sam Kass has stressed that all these proposals can be verified in an “open, transparent” manner. But with Walmart’s history of backroom deals–like its lobbying with other retailers against strict meth laws –I’m dubious). Corporate driven, non-binding promises like these are also the oldest trick in the food industry PR playbook. Just ask Michele Simon author of Appetite for Profit, who details how Pepsi, Kraft, and numerous other food companies have made similar promises and gotten big payback with good press even though they’ve done very little to actually improve the health qualities of their products. These commitments also receive great press at first–note the windfall for Walmart–but there is little accountability over time when the changes are supposed to be made. Now, let’s turn to the Walmart claim that the company wants to move into urban markets, and reduce the costs of some of its food items, to help low-income people access more affordable food. The New York Times writes that “that low-income people, especially those who receive food stamps, face special dietary challenges because eating healthy costs more and healthier food is harder to get in their neighborhoods.” Yet, the Times fails to mention the studies that have found that because of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, its employees rely on food stamps and other social services far more than the typical retail employee. While Walmart is spending a lot of time and money saying they plan to address food insecurity, the company is actually exacerbating its underlying root causes. The Times also mentions that Walmart will help address food deserts, defined as “a dearth of grocery stores selling fresh produce in rural and underserved urban areas,” by building more stores, the paper didn’t quote any community-based activists addressing these so-called food deserts on the ground. Do these community advocates think Walmart is the solution? Are they happy Walmart has set its eyes on Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, and other urban markets? Of those I’ve talked to, all are skeptical of the company’s promises and highly critical of the Walmart model: the anti-worker rights , low-wage, low-benefit way of doing business. We also have plenty of evidence now that when Walmart moves into town, the company puts small businesses out of business and sucks capital out of the community. For every dollar spent at a Walmart, only a small fraction stays to benefit the local economy. We’ve seen enough evidence, too, that the company has a long, dark track record of sex discrimination and workers rights abuses. Let’s be clear, expanding into so-called food deserts is an expansion strategy for Walmart. It’s not a charitable move. Making a big PR splash about improving the health qualities of its food is a smart tactic to deflect attention from the real impact of Walmart on the quality of life for Americans. (Is it a coincidence that this press conference occurred the same week a new study was gaining attention that tracked health and population data and found links between Walmart expansion from 1996 to 2005 and increased rates of obesity?) As far as I’m concerned, as long as the company depresses wages, exploits workers, violates workers rights, and pushes highly processed foods and sodas, Walmart is not only failing to address the problem of food deserts and food insecurity, the company is exacerbating their root causes. Originally published on CivilEats.org Anna Lappé is the author most recently of Diet for a Hot Planet (Bloomsbury USA 2010) and is a fellow of the Glynwood Institute for Sustainable Food and Farming and a former Food and Society Fellow, a program of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Read the full article →

Video: Regulators and Lobbyists Among D.C.’s Top Power Brokers

January 21, 2011

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Megan Hughes reports on the top power brokers in Washington featured in the latest edition of Bloomberg Businessweek magazine, including Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and lobbyist Kirsten Chadwick. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Lynn Parramore: Another Big Kiss for Big Business? Volcker out, Immelt in

January 21, 2011

Today, President Obama welcomes Jeffrey Immelt to his White House inner circle as chair of a newly created jobs council after saying good-bye to economic adviser and Wall Street critic Paul Volcker, who is leaving after a two-year term. Is this good news for workers… or corporate executives? Our economic brains at the Roosevelt Institute weigh in. Volcker out and Immelt in, because the administration now wants to emphasize ‘recovery’ and ‘jobs’ instead of ‘crisis stabilization’? Since when did any stabilization not include jobs as a top priority? What we actually have here is the disappearance from the scene of the best known and most visible critic of the excesses of the financial sector and his replacement by the sitting CEO of a company that is heavily dependent on government aid of all sorts, including diplomatic assistance to invest more in China. This is not about jobs, but political money — the White House knows that after Citizens United, it will need to raise about a billion dollars — that’s right, a billion — for its reelection campaign. That’s the context in which this and its other recent appointments need to be judged. ~Thomas Ferguson, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Professor of Political Science at U Mass, Boston President Obama seems to be putting all efforts into cultivating the confidence of the corporate community. One can see the appointment of Mr. Immelt in this light. It is an interesting question as to whether the CEO of a multinational corporation that employs many people outside of the USA will be a leader who aligns his thinking with the needs of the American people and job creation within the 50 United States. Corporations with large Foreign Direct Investments have very interesting incentives regarding military spending, exchange rate negotiations and labor policies that may not align with the well being of our citizens. It is important that Mr. Immelt embrace the larger concerns of U.S. society if he is to be a successful public servant and foster the reelection of President Obama in 2012. ~ Robert Johnson, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking GE Capital, the major subsidiary of GE, is a major shadow bank. It used GE’s high-quality credit rating to become a major player in the capital markets, much in the same way AIG FP used the boring insurance industry’s high credit rating. GE Capital was the single largest issuer of commercial paper going into the financial crisis…GE has been at the forefront of blurring a ‘financial services’-centric model of business onto the remains of a hollowed-out manufacturing base, one kept in a minimal state just strong enough to qualify for high credit scoring…All in all, not especially a big win for the Jobs and Competitiveness. ~ Mike Konczal, Roosevelt Institute Fellow (read further analysis from Konczal on this topic here ). *Ferguson’s comments also appeared in a press release put out by the Institute for Public Accuracy . Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

GE CEO To Replace Volcker On Obama’s Economic Team

January 21, 2011

Early Friday morning, Obama announced a significant shift for the White House economic team: the war against Wall Street greed has lost a major player, and corporate America has gained an advocate. General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt will be the new head of a Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. This panel will replace Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, formerly headed by Paul Volcker. The two men have significantly different backgrounds. Immelt is a lifelong Republican and, as Bloomberg put it, “a corporate heavyweight who can help burnish Obama’s pro-business credentials.” Volcker, a Democrat, was the creator of the eponymous rule in last year’s financial regulation bill which was designed to limit banks’ ability to use taxpayer-backed funds to make investments on their own behalf. In John Cassidy’s excellent New Yorker profile , he describes Volcker’s tenure in the White House as “a campaign to curb greed and speculation on Wall Street.” This news follows the appointment of Gene Sperling as the new top White House economic adviser and William Daley , a top JP Morgan executive, as the new White House chief of staff. Sperling, while he has never worked full-time in the financial sector, made millions on Wall Street in an advisory capacity even as the economy tanked. Daley, for his part, opposed Obama’s consumer protection agency. In a statement, Obama said that Immelt’s mission will be to help boost up the private sector to speed up economic growth and promote competition. “As we enter a new phase in our recovery, I have asked the new council to focus its work on finding new ways to encourage the private sector to hire and invest in American competitiveness,” the President wrote. The Washington Post characterized this move as a shift towards a focus on job creation and economic improvement: “The council’s new leadership and mission reflects the administration’s shift from trying to halt the recession to broader efforts to improve the U.S. economy and create jobs.” In an Op-Ed in t oday’s Post , Immelt outlined some of his goals. The piece is short on details but focusses in on three areas: manufacturing and export, free trade, and innovation. He writes: “My hope is that the council will be a sounding board for ideas and a catalyst for action on jobs and competitiveness. It will include small and large businesses, labor, economists and government.” In Peter Baker’s lengthy NYT feature looking at the frustration brewing inside the Obama administration’s efforts to fix the economy, Baker notes: “[Obama] surely knows that if he cannot figure out in the next two years how to create jobs, he may lose his own.” Now, he is changing the players. Baker tracks the changing personell and agenda: “The path from crisis to anemic recovery was marked by turmoil inside the White House. The economic team fractured repeatedly over philosophy (should jobs or deficits take priority?) and personality (who got to attend which meetings?), resulting in feuds that ultimately helped break it apart. The process felt like a treadmill, as one former official put it, with proposals sometimes debated for months before decisions were reached. The word commonly used by those involved is “dysfunctional,” and in recent months, most of the initial team has left or made plans to leave, including Larry Summers, Christina Romer, Peter Orszag, Rahm Emanuel and Paul Volcker. With Geithner as its anchor, a new economic team is being built around Bill Clinton-era figures like William Daley, Gene Sperling and Jack Lew, a group assembled to joust with Republicans instead of one another. Rather than responding to crises or putting into motion grand macroeconomic theories, they will focus on pushing the recovery into higher gear while at the same time figuring out how to reduce the deficit — two goals that some see as incompatible in the short term. And along the way, they need to convince Americans that the president is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Read the full article →

GE Posts Big Quarter On Equipment Orders

January 21, 2011

NEW YORK — General Electric Co. said Friday its fourth-quarter net income increased 52 percent as the company made more money on both the industrial and lending sides of its business. The lending arm, GE Capital, suffered huge writedowns on risky loans during the financial crisis, so GE has been focusing on its industrial businesses. Industrial sales rose during the fourth quarter and orders for equipment, an indication of future business, were up 20 percent. The improvement led CEO Jeff Immelt to say that “GE exits 2010 with significant momentum.” The company is also benefitting from the Obama administration’s recent diplomatic and trade efforts with India and China. GE, which makes products from dishwashers to wind turbines and finances large projects around the globe, said net income rose to $4.46 billion, or 42 cents per share, in the final three months of the year from $2.94 billion, or 28 cents per share, a year ago. Earnings from continuing operations were 36 cents a share. That tops analysts’ expectations for earnings of 32 cents, according to FactSet. GE said revenue grew year-over-year for the first time in nine quarters, increasing 1 percent to $41.4 billion. Wall Street expected revenue of $40.3 billion. Shares rose 3.6 percent in premarket trading to $19.10. Overall orders grew 12 percent from a year ago. Besides the increase in equipment orders, services business orders rose 5 percent. Immelt noted that orders grew 4 percent at GE’s energy infrastructure business, which accounted for a quarter of GE’s operating revenue and more than a third of GE’s operating profit in 2010. GE’s total backlog stood at a record $175 billion on Dec. 31. GE Capital experienced a surge in activity in the fourth quarter and had net income of $1.1 billion. Loan volume increased 30 percent and losses and impairments dropped by $300 million from the third quarter. The Fairfield, Conn. company also said profit rose 38 percent at NBC Universal. GE expects to close the sale of a majority stake in NBC to Comcast this quarter. GE has made a number of moves to expand its energy business. It agreed in October to buy turbine-maker Dresser Inc. for $3 billion. In December, GE said it would acquire Wellstream Holdings PLC, which makes pipes and other equipment for deep-water oil production, for $1.3 billion. And GE said last week it would buy electrical equipment maker Lineage Power Holdings Inc. for $520 million. The company also has been a big winner in President Barack Obama’s efforts to expand U.S. businesses in emerging economies. It signed $1.6 billion worth of deals in India on the heels of Obama’s recent trip there, including $750 million in contracts from India’s Reliance Power to help expand the Samalkot power plant. On Wednesday, as Chinese President Hu Jintao visited the U.S., the White House said GE would form a clean-energy venture with Shenhua Energy Co. GE estimates the deal has the potential to generate up to $2.5 billion in U.S. exports. Immelt has said he expects profits will be driven by industrial growth in China and in November pledged that the company will invest $2 billion through 2012 to help China tackle its pressing energy and infrastructure needs.

Read the full article →

Obama Losing Key Economic Adviser

January 21, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was stepping down from his role as head of an outside panel advising the White House on economic policy. “From his bold vision around how to reform our financial system to his thoughtful insight on how to make our economy work for working families again, Paul brought his brilliance and vast experience to bear on a host of difficult challenges,” Obama said in a statement. “I will always be grateful to Paul Volcker for his service as the head of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board,” Obama said. Reuters reported earlier this month that Volcker intended to leave the advisory board in February. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Obama Consumer Agency May Not Be Able To Oversee Payday Lenders, Mortgage Firms

January 19, 2011

The nascent consumer agency dedicated to protecting borrowers from abusive lenders, a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s efforts to reform the financial industry, will not be able to regulate the kinds of lenders that helped cause the crisis if the White House doesn’t meet a key deadline, federal auditors say. Firms like New Century Financial, Ameriquest, Fremont General and Countrywide Financial — lenders that aren’t banks and fall outside the bounds of regular federal supervision — made the kinds of shoddy mortgage loans that ultimately led to the housing crisis. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, currently led by Elizabeth Warren on an interim basis, is supposed to change that by putting them under the umbrella of a robust federal regulator. But if the White House can’t get a nominee through the Senate by July, the bureau will lack the authority to supervise nonbank lenders, according to a Jan. 10 report by the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve obtained by The Huffington Post. In six months, the agency officially assumes the power formally held by bank regulators. Bloomberg News first reported on the existence of the report Wednesday afternoon. The dilemma poses a challenge to the Obama administration, which sold the agency to Congress and the industry in part based on the promise that it will help level the playing field between banks and nonbanks when it comes to government oversight. Banks have long been regulated by federal agencies and subject to regular audits. Nonbanks, like home mortgage and payday lenders, have been subject to sporadic oversight, at best. Such companies have been hit with billions in fines and legal settlements in response to accusations they engaged in abusive and predatory lending. Adding to bankers’ frustrations is the fact that the agency, even without a director, will be able to oversee consumer lending by banks with more than $10 billion in assets. Because this authority already exists with bank regulators, the consumer agency will be able to assume this responsibility in July, federal auditors said in their report. Nonbanks, though, will be off-limits. The report puts added pressure on the White House to meet the July deadline. It has struggled to name an agency chief. Industry officials and their allies in Congress prefer someone who will take a more relaxed approach to oversight. Consumer advocates are pushing for an aggressive regulator who will prevent the kinds of abuses that were common during the housing boom. The White House is stuck in the middle of this fight, wanting to please its allies who helped get the agency enacted into law in the first place, and helped the administration counter critics who say it’s too close to Wall Street. But the administration also wants to name an agency head who will face limited opposition in the Senate. Created as part of Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law overhauling financial regulation, President Barack Obama hailed it as one of the top achievements of his presidency. Under pressure, President Barack Obama tapped Warren in September to lead the agency on a temporary basis. Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, is supposed to stand up the unit before it assumes its full power in July. The White House has two choices: either go around the Senate and tap the agency’s director through a recess appointment, or pick someone the Senate will confirm. Shortly before tapping Warren, Obama noted the difficulty he’s had in getting the Senate to confirm his nominees. “I’m concerned about all Senate confirmations these days,” Obama said Sept. 10. “I mean, if I nominate somebody for dog catcher…” “I’ve got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them,” he continued. Because of that difficulty, the White House “has always looked at a recess appointment as a possibility,” said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. “And they can’t let the agency go without a director come July.” White House spokesmen didn’t respond to e-mailed requests for comment. Opponents have vowed a nomination fight. Observers believe that whomever the White House chooses will likely face extensive grilling and opposition by Senators who oppose the very idea of a dedicated consumer agency. Not having a director in place by July — and thus preventing the agency from supervising nonbank lenders — would be a “positive” for the industry, said Bill Cosgrove, president and chief executive of Union National Mortgage Company, a nonbank lender based in Ohio. “What we’re concerned about is overkill in terms of regulation,” he said. Cosgrove added that state regulators, which currently oversee lenders like his firm, have stepped up their oversight of his industry. His firm has been audited by six different state regulators in the past year alone, he said. Though the auditors’ report places additional pressure on the administration to get a director in place so the agency can police firms like Cosgrove’s, and not face the wrath of bankers who will note the administration’s broken promise of a “level playing field,” Calhoun said he was confident that the White House will meet its deadline. “They have to,” he said. ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Exco Resources Limited (ASX:EXS) Announce Vertigo Resource Upgrade For White Dam Gold Project

January 13, 2011

Exco Resources Limited (ASX:EXS) Announce Vertigo Resource Upgrade For White Dam Gold Project

Read the full article →

Obama Sets Mission For New Team: Accelerate Economic Growth

January 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — His presidency tied to the fate of the economy, Barack Obama is revamping his economic policy team and signaling cooperation to ascendant Republicans and the business community at a pivotal moment in the nation’s recovery and Washington politics. The president is surrounding himself with veterans of the Clinton administration. Chief of staff William Daley, economic overseer Gene Sperling and recently confirmed budget director Jacob Lew form an inner circle with a history of bipartisanship and experience in the art of the deal. “Our mission has to be to accelerate hiring and accelerate growth,” the president declared Friday at a window manufacturing plant in suburban Maryland. It’s a mission facing political and economic crosscurrents, underscored Friday by a mixed bag of an unemployment report and a relatively upbeat but cautionary assessment of the economy from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The Labor Department said unemployment dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.8 percent and private employers added a net total of 113,000 jobs last month. But the drop in unemployment was due partly to people who stopped looking for work. Bernanke told the Senate Budget Committee that there’s rising evidence that a self-sustaining recovery is taking hold. “Overall, the pace of economic recovery seems likely to be moderately stronger in 2011 than it was in 2010,” he said. Continued high unemployment and slow growth into 2012 would certainly haunt Obama’s reelection campaign. But the ability to shape an economic policy is complicated by a divided Congress where Republicans are demanding deficit reductions while many Democrats seek more spending to spur the economy. Obama has moved to have it both ways, and to appeal to Republicans and business leaders who find value in international trade deals. To that end, he is wielding an economic message centered on competitiveness that spends on education initiatives to retool the workforce, embraces trade and provides tax breaks to businesses. At the same time, with a new chief of staff and a new director of the National Economic Council in place at the White House, Obama also is turning his focus toward tackling the deficit and debt. “Everybody knows that the long-run fiscal situation facing the country is one that we’ve got to address, and the president’s not afraid of that,” White House economist Austan Goolsbee said. “You will see when the president releases his budget in the coming weeks that he’s got a tough-minded approach.” With Daley, Sperling and Lew, Obama enters the second two years of his presidency counseled by Clinton era officials who have worked across party lines to cut economic deals. They recall a happier time, when unemployment was low, budgets were balanced and the economy was humming. Sperling was a key player in the bipartisan negotiations in December that extended Bush era tax rates for all taxpayers, including the wealthy – a Republican priority – but also included Obama priorities such as an extension of a refundable earned income tax credit and a 2 percent, year-long payroll tax cut. As director of the White House National Economic Council, Sperling will have a hand in shaping the course of nearly all of the administration’s economic policies, including looming battles with Republican lawmakers on spending cuts and raising the debt ceiling. “He’s a public servant who has devoted his life to making this economy work – and making it work, specifically, for middle-class families,” Obama said. Daley, a member of the Chicago political family dynasty, brings his record as a banker and political insider to the White House. As Clinton’s Commerce Secretary, he was a champion of the North American Free Trade Agreement – a pact that left a legacy of bitterness among some sectors of the Democratic Party. Before joining the White House Daley has advocated a moderate path for Obama and is a board member of the centrist group Third Way. On Friday, Obama also nominated Katharine G. Abraham to his Council of Economic Advisers and Heather Higginbottom as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Those two posts require Senate confirmation. Obama also elevated economic adviser Jason Furman to assistant to the president for economic policy. The changes set the stage for Obama’s State of the Union speech later this month. Expected to emphasize economic themes, it will be a blueprint not only for governing but an initial marker of his reelection campaign. But first, the president is engaging in some high-profile outreach to the business community. On Tuesday, he will go to Schenectady, N.Y., to tour a future GE battery manufacturing plant with GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. In four weeks, he will cross Lafayette Park in front of the White House to address the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade group that has battled his top policy initiatives on health care and financial regulation. But the Chamber can also be a potential partner for Obama, supporting greater spending on infrastructure and helping push trade deals in Congress. The president also has been prodding businesses to shake loose untapped corporate cash and create more jobs. At the Thompson Creek Window Company in Landover, Md., on Friday, Obama took note of the recent tax deal that allows businesses to expense 100 percent of their investments in 2011. The president made a direct appeal to other companies, telling them now is the time to capitalize on that opportunity. “If you are planning or thinking about making investments sometime in the future, make those investments now, and you’re going to make money,” Obama said. —– Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Kevin Connor: The Foreclosure Fraud Scandal Just Got Harder to Ignore

January 7, 2011

The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a major decision against the banks on the issue of foreclosure fraud earlier today. In US Trust vs. Ibanez , the court ruled that the banks in the case did not have standing to foreclose when they failed to assign the mortgage prior to foreclosure. The case carries significant implications, as many foreclosures may be declared invalid in Massachusetts, and the ruling could influence other state courts. The decision has already sent bank stocks down. Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has identified a fundamental problem with the mortgage securitization and foreclosure process, Wall Street bankers and their friends in Washington may also have a harder time working hand in glove to stamp out the foreclosure fraud firestorm. Last October, when foreclosure fraud started capturing national headlines, the Obama administration joined the banks’ PR offensive and helped spin illegal foreclosure as a minor clerical issue. At a critical point in the process, White House adviser David Axelrod appeared on Face the Nation to say that he regretted that there was “uncertainty” in the housing market, that the administration was working closely with financial institutions, and that they hoped the issue would be resolved quickly.  He also said that the administration opposed a nationwide moratorium due to the fact that some foreclosures were valid. At the time, Yves Smith said that the comments revealed “astonishing” priorities on the part of the Obama administration . We do not know whether Bank of America wrote Axelrod’s talking points, but we do know that he was partying with the bank’s top public relations strategist a few days later. Axelrod attended an epilepsy research fundraiser in Boston later that week that was co-chaired by Bank of America executive Anne Finucane . The other co-chair, along with Finucane’s husband? Axelrod’s wife, Susan , a co-founder of Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy. Other prominent attendees are listed here . In  one picture from the event , David is standing next to an amused Finucane, a huge, clownish smile on his face, trademark mustache and brow in full effect, with one arm extended as if he is about to shake the hand of the photographer. Obama’s point man on foreclosure fraud could not possibly look like a bigger corporate tool, arm in arm with Bank of America’s top public relations strategist at the height of the foreclosure fraud mess. The “foreclosure fraud as inconsequential clerical error” argument has always been spin meant to mislead the public, put forward by Wall Street with help from government cronies like David Axelrod. Zero Hedge calls these folks the “kleptocratic banker mafia syndicate,” and they come together at events like the Axelrod-Finucane fundraiser to further strengthen their social ties. But did they forget to invite the judge? When the foreclosure fraud scandal hits the front pages again, and threatens to hurt powerful financial institutions — rather than just the foreclosed, unemployed, and powerless — will the syndicate keep pushing the paperwork canard? Will Obama dispatch another Wall Street flack to the Sunday circuit, to say that the issue needs to be resolved quickly? And will talking points matter when court cases keep piling up? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Read the full article →

Divided States of America: Black America Suffers Depression-Like Joblessness

January 7, 2011

The latest snapshot of the American job market, released by the Labor Department on Friday, confirms what most ordinary people already knew without need of a government report: Little is improving quickly or broadly enough to dislodge the anxiety that has taken up long-term residence in many communities. The unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in December, from 9.8 percent the month prior. But that had little to do with people actually finding work, and much to do with the jobless simply giving up and halting their searches, dropping out of the statistical pool known as the labor force. A deeper dive past the headline numbers reveals a reality that ought to trigger national alarm but hasn’t for the simple reason that it is already embedded in the country we have unfortunately become: the Divided States of America. Among white people, the unemployment rate dropped in December to 8.5 percent — hardly acceptable, but manageable were the government spending more to expand a fraying social safety net and generate jobs. For black Americans, the unemployment rate was 15.8 percent. Professional economists will not pause for an instant at those figures. It is a truism that the black unemployment rate generally runs double the white one, and yet when did that become acceptable? How can there be so little discussion about a full-blown epidemic of joblessness in the African-American community, as if the commonplace incidence of despair — and, more recently, reversed progress — somehow amounts to old news? “Can you imagine any other group at that level of unemployment and the media dismissing it as not important?” the Rev. Jesse Jackson asked during an interview this week. He described deteriorating inner-city, predominantly-black communities in Chicago and Detroit. In New York, a recent study found that more than one-third of African-American men aged 16 to 24 were unemployed between early 2009 and the middle of last year. “These are the same areas that were targeted for foreclosure by the banks, through reverse redlining,” Jackson said, referring to the way subprime lending operations preyed with particular dispatch on minority communities. “These are the same areas that have less access to transportation, which makes it nearly impossible to get to where the jobs are. You are structurally locked out of economic participation and growth.” The picture becomes more vivid still using a broader Labor Department measure known as underemployment, which counts jobless people along with those who are working part-time for lack of full-time work, or who have given up looking for work but are eager for jobs. Among African-Americans, the underemployment rate was running just under 25 percent late last year, according to an analysis of government data by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. That compared to a rate of about 15 percent for white Americans. Nearly 15 years have passed since the publication of “When Work Disappears,” a masterful book by sociologist William Julius Wilson describing in compelling detail the impact on working class African-American neighborhoods suffering large job losses: in a word, disintegration. Little has changed since then except for an acceleration of the slide. There is no magic bullet for urban strife in poor communities, but if you had to pick one thing that can fix a great deal in one shot, a paycheck is as good as it gets, as Wilson’s book makes clear. A job is a source of pride, a reason to get out of bed, an imperative to take care of one’s health, and — if the economy is functioning properly — a justification to keep going and strive for better. A job is reason to steer clear of drugs and alcohol, and an alternative to the risk of earning money through crime. A job allows households to function, keeping families together, and proving children with the support they need. When jobs disappear so, too, do these sources of social cohesion, these motives to avoid trouble, these reasons for navigating the commonplace difficulties of any human day. Anger builds, which can lead to violence. Economic necessity motivates people to look for creative ways to earn money, sometimes taking them outside the law. Wilson convincingly argues that morally loaded, often-racist depictions of inner-city black poverty have tended to distract many Americans from the single greatest factor behind the troubles that have claimed once-vigorous communities — the steady bleeding of decent paychecks. When Wilson’s book was published back in 1996, the black unemployment rate sat at just above 10 percent. By 2000, with the American economy in the midst of a historic boom, it had dropped to 7 percent. But by early last year — following eight years of lean job creation and then two years of the worst recession in a half-century — the black unemployment rate exceeded 16 percent, or 1 in 6. Drill deeper into the Labor Department data, and the numbers get more disturbing still. Among black men between the ages of 25 and 29, the unemployment rate was just under 21 percent in December. And that actually constituted an improvement from the 25.7 percent it reached in the spring of 2009, during the worst of the Great Recession. In short, over the last decade, most of black America has been effectively ensnared in an endless recession that became flat-out catastrophic when the rest of the county officially sunk into the downturn in the fall of 2007. Even among black college graduates, the unemployment rate sat at just under 8 percent in December — four times the rate in late 2006, back when the economy was still producing jobs. By contrast, the unemployment rate for white college graduates sat at 4.3 percent in December, roughly double the rate at the beginning of the recession. It is difficult to absorb these numbers without coming to a simple conclusion: In black America, a veritable depression is still unfolding, tearing at communities that had previously seen substantial progress, turning first-time homeowners into foreclosure victims and transforming proud college graduates into bewildered jobless people, unclear why their hard work and education have failed to translate into the step up they were supposed to in the movie trailer version of the American dream. And yet, the political system is busy with other things, such as how to blame union labor for local budget disasters — caused by financial services companies that pay their executives seven- and eight-figure sums — or how to cut the federal budget deficit by depriving people of health care. In Washington, the leadership of both parties seems stuck in the mode of trying to manufacture the illusion of a recovery — via photo ops at factories and pontificating about spending cuts — while doing little or nothing to bring a real recovery about. Meanwhile, whole swaths of the economy are falling away, going uncounted in the monthly Labor Department surveys and little-regarded by politicians. In the calculus of American power, just as in the reports used by our economic experts to set policy, it’s as if much of black America has simply ceased to exist.

Read the full article →

Video: Warren `Can’t Believe’ Consumer Bureau Would Be Repealed

January 7, 2011

Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — Elizabeth Warren, the White House adviser assigned to set up a U.S. consumer financial-protection bureau, talks about the efforts by congressional Republicans to block funding for the new agency. Holly Petraeus, appointed by Warren to establish an office within the consumer agency dedicated to military personnel and their families, also speaks. They talk with Bloomberg’s Lizzie O’Leary. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Petraeus Plans Focus on Online Scams, Military Victims

January 7, 2011

Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — Elizabeth Warren, the White House adviser assigned to set up a U.S. consumer financial-protection bureau, and Holly Petraeus, appointed by Warren to establish an office within the consumer agency dedicated to military personnel and their families, talk about protecting service members from consumer fraud. Petraeus is the wife of Army General David Petraeus. They speak with Lizzie O’Leary on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

AlaskaDispatch.com: Alaska’s Oil Future May Lie With Independent Upstarts

January 4, 2011

What was the biggest trend in the Alaska oil industry in the last decade? Despite the hype, it wasn’t declining production, aging infrastructure or changes to the tax code, because all of those were merely accelerations of earlier trends. The biggest trend unique to the ’00s was the rise of independent oil companies on the North Slope. While BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil made headlines over the past decade, smaller oil companies leased hundreds of thousands of acres across the North Slope and drilled dozens of exploratory wells, leading to the first independently operated oil production in the history of the North Slope. If that trend continues, Alaska will become home to many smaller oil companies this decade, fundamentally changing how the North Slope works. “When we can produce a barrel, and prove to everybody else that we can produce a barrel, I think there’s going to be a flood of independents coming to the North Slope,” said Jim Winegarner, vice president of land for Brooks Range Petroleum Corp., an independent operator leading a joint venture of small companies on the North Slope. After years of exploration work, Brooks Range Petroleum is evaluating a prospect in Gwydyr Bay, the stretch of coast north of Prudhoe Bay. If the company sanctions the project, it would become the smallest oil producer on the North Slope. In the 2000s, Alaska proved it could be profitable for large independents, but Winegarner believes the same can be said for small independents, tiny players looking to compete on a big field. Indies large and small The term “independent” covers a lot of ground. They are usually “upstream” companies that focus exclusively on producing oil and natural gas, unlike the vertically integrated “majors” that also own pipelines, refineries, gas stations and research divisions. Independents cover a broad spectrum that includes multibillion-dollar international companies as well as domestic “mom-and-pop” oil producers. The two most prominent independents in Alaska are on the larger end of that spectrum. Anadarko Petroleum is one of the largest independents in the world, earning $9 billion in revenue last year and employing thousands. Since arriving in Alaska in the early 1990s, the Houston-based company helped bring the large Colville River unit online and drilled numerous exploration wells, including the first to target natural gas on the North Slope. Pioneer Natural Resources produces more than 100,000 barrels of oil per day on two continents. The Dallas company arrived in Alaska in 2002 and brought the Oooguruk field online in 2008, becoming the first independent producer in North Slope history. Brooks Range Petroleum, which only operates in Alaska and employs just a few people full time, is at the smaller end of the spectrum, alongside other independents active in Alaska, companies like Armstrong Oil and Gas, Savant Resources, UltraStar Exploration and various small companies that have all drilled wells on the North Slope since 2000. Independents are not entirely a recent phenomenon in Alaska. Prospectors drilled wells across the state in the first decade of the 20th century. That trend expanded after Congress passed the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, opening almost the entire territory to drilling and making access to land much easier: a matter of paperwork, rather than on-site staking. “This first-come-first-served method of leasing gave everyone, including the little guys, a chance to play in Alaska’s oil and gas leasing game,” Jack Roderick wrote in “Crude Dreams,” his history of the Alaska oil industry. Drilling is still difficult and expensive in Cook Inlet – though not quite as a difficult or expensive as the North Slope – yet it’s home to several independent companies. But since the discovery of Prudhoe Bay in 1968, majors have ruled the North Slope: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and their predecessors drilled most of the wells, made all the largest oil discoveries and built all the major infrastructure projects. Those majors have grown substantially since the 1960s, and the influx of independents in Alaska over the past decade can be traced to industry consolidation at the turn of the century. The gigantic companies created by those megamergers passed over many relatively large oil fields in favor of huge discoveries to replace their reserves. In Alaska, those mergers led to the Charter for the Development of the North Slope. While the Charter primarily outlined divestments needed to alleviate State of Alaska antitrust concerns, it also opened the door for independents to come to the North Slope, according to Jim Weeks, a former ARCO Alaska executive and managing member of the independent UltraStar Exploration, one of the smallest companies ever to explore for oil on the North Slope. “If it weren’t for the charter, I don’t think we’d be hanging around,” Weeks said. The Charter gave independents access. Today, it obligates ConocoPhillips and BP to license proprietary North Slope seismic data, to buy crude oil from small producers at a predetermined formula and to grant access to processing facilities “on reasonable terms.” It also created provisions for arbitration to keep disputes from getting out of control. In the first half of the ’00s, Denver-based Armstrong Oil and Gas brought a new business strategy to Alaska, drilling exploration wells to establish prospects like Oooguruk and Nikaitchuq that it then sold to larger companies to develop. Rising oil prices in the second half of the decade made more independents willing to risk the high cost of Alaska exploration. The Palin administration sweetened the deal by increasing tax credits for exploration, but also pursued other small-business-friendly avenues that did not make headlines, like pursuing legal cases to keep pipeline shipping rates low, which benefits independent producers. Smarter and faster So what will the next decade hold? Weeks doesn’t think independents will ever fill the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, which is already two-thirds empty, but he sees opportunity for job creation and economic growth. Winegarner quantified that economic impact. In 2008, Brooks Range Petroleum employed more than 400 people by running two drilling rigs and a seismic operation. But he also believes independents can collectively be important producers. “If we can go after these smaller reserves sizes that the major can’t justify, that’s going to add to the resource base and ultimately get much more oil out,” Winegarner said. In its most recent forecast, the Alaska Department of Revenue projected that North Slope oil production will fall from 616,000 barrels per day next year to 520,000 barrels per day in 2020, but shows new production increasing from about 5 percent to 51 percent of total oil production over the course of the decade. Independents bringing new production online could mean a new chapter in North Slope history. And if the smaller outfits continue arriving, the biggest change will be for the state, according to Alaska Division of Oil and Gas director Kevin Banks. “We’re going to have to be able to work smarter and faster,” said Banks, who oversees the state agency dealing most directly with oil companies. The current system for managing state lands – from holding lease sales to permitting wells to forming units – is the result of five decades of dealing with a few major oil companies developing several giant oil fields, not dozens of smaller companies spread across a huge area, exploring and developing a broad array of prospects. The system designed to promote responsible development at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk may not work for new arrivals like Great Bear Petroleum, which wants to drill into oil source rocks, or GMT Exploration, which holds leases in the White Hills and Beaufort Sea, or Savant, which helped BP bring the Badami unit back online. The first four decades of North Slope production played out simply: several large companies developing several large fields. Banks expect the next few decades to be more complex, with the majors pursuing big plays like offshore fields and heavy oil, larger independents bringing new production online, and smaller independents proving up plays, like Armstrong, or targeting overlooked prospects, like Brooks Range Petroleum.

Read the full article →

Debtris: Animation Captures The Scale Of U.S. Debt (VIDEO)

January 3, 2011

The Sunday talk shows this week sparked fresh anxiety over the U.S. debt puzzle this week, with Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers pushing back hard against GOP refusal to raise the debt ceiling . If the debt ceiling isn’t extended this spring, the U.S. government could be effectively shut down, as it defaults on its obligations, a possibility that Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, calls “the first default in history caused purely by insanity.” In an interview on ABC’s This Week Goolsbee hit the “game” rhetoric hard. “This is not a game… I don’t see why anybody’s talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling … There would be no reason for us to default other than that would be some kind of game. We shouldn’t even be discussing that.” The animators at Information Is Beautiful , however, have turned U.S. debt into a game of Tetris. Viewed below in relation to the cost of the credit crisis , the global cost of obesity related illness and total African debt to the West , our current debt problems don’t seem too severe. Behold, Debtris: The Game:

Read the full article →

Terry Newell: The Debt Tax

January 2, 2011

Don’t look now, but Congress just raised your taxes. How can that be? Didn’t they just approve a bill that will keep Bush-era tax cuts in place, lower the inheritance tax, and lower the Social Security tax for a year? Call it the “debt tax.” Whenever the federal government enacts a bill that it does not pay for, we go further into debt — in this case $900 billion. When you buy something you can’t afford, you borrow the money and pay interest on what you borrow. The interest the government has to pay on its debt has to come from you, the taxpayer, and thus it acts just like a tax — your tax dollars pay it. In 1940, the federal government paid $10.3 billion in interest on the debt, $78 for every man, woman and child in America at the time. In 1980, the government paid $111.6 billion in interest, or $491 for every American. Fast-forward to 2010, where the comparative figures were $168.4 billion and $545. Chump change. According to the President’s Budget for 2011, interest on the debt will be $474 billion by 2015, a per capita cost of $1,454. In short, the “debt tax” will increase nearly 300 percent in just five years. If this sounds like “so what, I don’t actually have to pay more,” think about it another way. If the federal government had no debt in 2015, it could lower your taxes by $1,458. For a family of four, that would amount to a tax bill nearly $6,000 less. According to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO, in 2020, when net interest on the debt is projected to cost $937 billion, that net interest will be 14 percent of federal spending, nearly as much as we will spend on Defense (15 percent) and Medicare (17%). Oh, and the per capita cost of the interest will by then be $2,789. In 1985, the entire federal budget was $946 billion. By 2020, based on CBO’s estimates, we’ll pay nearly that just in interest. In short, the “debt tax” in 2020 will equal what the federal budget was in 1985. One more thing. When you pay the debt tax, you might at least take comfort in the fact that your tax dollars are doing back to good old Uncle Sam, right? Well, only partially. The U.S. government owes nearly a third of its debt to foreign creditors (over $4 trillion). So, roughly 30 cents of each “debt tax” dollar goes to a list of countries that includes China (our biggest creditor by dollar volume), Japan, the U.K, Russia, the oil exporting countries of the Middle East and Brazil. Isn’t it comforting to know that our “debt tax” dollars are financing the growth of our competitors? On the brighter side of all this, you might think: well, Republicans, Democrats, and the White House finally stopped shouting at each other and agreed on something. They compromised. But how hard is it really to compromise on spending more money? Maybe each bill coming before Congress should have to report what impact it will have on the “debt tax.”

Read the full article →