Category Archives: Uncategorized

Cooking the Books: Fannie and Freddie Not In the Budget

04 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

As if the staggering numbers that are in President Obama’s budget weren’t enough, take a look at what’s not there:

“Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Look through President Barack Obama’s proposed 2011 budget and you’ll see a line calling for a $235 million increase in the Justice Department’s funding to fight financial fraud. Lucky for them, the people who wrote the budget can’t be prosecuted for cooking the government’s books.

…They are keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac off the government’s balance sheet and out of the federal budget, along with their $1.6 trillion of corporate debt and $4.7 trillion of mortgage obligations...Fannie and Freddie aren’t merely wards of the state. Practically speaking, they are the entire U.S. housing market. Their liabilities are the government’s liabilities.

White House budget director Peter Orszag on September 9, 2008, two days after Fannie and Freddie were seized, when he was director of the Congressional Budget Office:

“The degree of control exercised by the federal government over these entities is so strong that the best treatment is to incorporate them into the federal budget.”

That control is stronger today. Congress and the Treasury have given the companies a blank check to blow through whatever taxpayer money is necessary to keep the U.S. housing market afloat. Anyone buying large quantities of U.S. government bonds knows these liabilities exist. So why pretend they don’t?”

A good question for those who promised openness and transparency.

Another Round of AIG Bonuses

03 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Under the word “chutzpah” in the dictionary, it should say “also see AIG.”

“American International Group plans Wednesday to pay another round of employee bonuses, worth about $100 million, said several people familiar with the matter, a year after similar payments at the bailed-out insurance giant infuriated many Americans and inflamed Washington.”

Yes, Washington was “inflamed.” And they did what? Bluster, as usual.

“This week’s retention payments go to those employees at the company’s Financial Products division who agreed recently to accept 10 to 20 percent less money than AIG had initially promised them two years ago.”

How very generous of them. Especially taking into account that the Financial Products division is the “unit which traded in the derivatives that imploded in September 2008, leading to the biggest government bailout in history.” That would be the implosion that left the taxpayers on the hook for over $180 billion. These are the people AIG needs to retain? They don’t need to be re-tained, in fact some of them should be de-tained. Like in the crossbar hotel.

It gets better:

“The agreement calls for employees who still work for the financial products unit to accept 10 percent cutbacks, while employees who have left the company must take 20 percent cuts…But some people have not agreed to the cutbacks and are insisting on the entire amounts. People with knowledge of the negotiations said that a vast majority of those still employed at A.I.G. had accepted the cuts, but only about a third of the former employees had done so.”

Some are even going to court:

“Andrew Goodstadt, a New York lawyer who represents more than a dozen current and former Financial Products employees, said he hoped the deal would be a step toward normalcy. “My clients are looking forward to getting paid their contractual entitlements,” he said, “and resolving this matter once and for all.”

Yes Mr. Goodstadt, your honorable clients who just want AIG to make good on its agreement with them. How about what they agreed to do after the last round of obscene  bonuses hit the fan:

“At the height of the controversy last spring, employees at the firm signaled they would return a total of $45 million by the end of 2009. A government audit in the fall showed that only about $19 million was returned.”

So by my calculations counselor, your clients still owe us $26 million. Cash only please, no checks.

The "Gang of Eight" on the Senate Banking Committee

02 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Obama, Republicans, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Since the “Gang of Six” in the Senate Finance Committee worked out so well, and produced such outstanding results (sarc) in writing health care reform legislation, why not just repeat the process in the Senate Banking Committee as they tackle reforming the financial industry? More openness and transparency from our elected officials in Washington:

“For two months, four pairs of Senate Banking Committee members — each with one Democrat and one Republican — have been meeting behind closed doors to reach a bipartisan compromise on regulatory reform.”

Here are the 8 senators involved, along with the amounts each has taken from financial industry PACs:

Chris Dodd, (D-CT) $3,124,237
Richard Shelby (R-AL) $2,171,369
Mark Warner (D-VA) $330,800
Bob Corker (R-TN) $426,750
Jack Reed (D-RI) $1,554,449
Judd Gregg (R-NH) $709,941
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $1,629,295
Micheal Crapo (R-ID) $1,237,955

That’s a grand total of $11,184,796. And these are the people who are going to reform the financial system? That’ll be the day. But as good as things are for this new “Gang of Eight.” they’re about to get better:

“…the president’s new proposals have already provoked a sharp increase in the volume and energy of the lobbying on regulatory reform, with more chief executives stepping over their government relations staff to request personal meetings with lawmakers. The big banks, the lobbyists say, have become increasingly alarmed that the legislative process may move in unexpected directions outside their control.”

Well, we certainly have to put a stop to that. Can’t have anything going on that the banksters can’t “control,” can we? Speaking of banksters:

“...Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase had lunch with Mr. Obama last Tuesday, and then met separately on Friday with the Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner.”

No doubt to discuss who they like in Sunday’s Super Bowl.

Obama Administration “Quietly Maneuvering” to Renew Patriot Act

29 Tuesday Dec 2009

Posted by in George W. Bush, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

More of George W. Bush’s third term, coming at us while our attention is focused elsewhere:

“With key sections of the U.S. Patriot Act set to expire Dec. 31, the Obama administration – essentially tiptoeing through the corridors of Congress and using the raucous health care debate as cover – has quietly maneuvered for renewal of the controversial provisions, which he opposed as a senator.

This week, with time running out and no time to debate the bill on its merits, Democratic supporters of reauthorization in the Senate tried but fail to win House support to embed the provisions in a separate $626 billion Pentagon funding bill. The House has passed a bill with stronger civil liberties protections, but that version is not expected to survive.”

Well, of course not. We don’t need no stinkin’civil liberties. Safety at all costs, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned.

“Perhaps the most contentious measure is the business records provision, also known as the library provision, which allows the government to seek a court order forcing private entities such as banks, hospitals, and libraries to hand over “any tangible thing” – from library circulation records to medical records – officials think is relevant in a terrorist investigation.”

“Think” is relevant? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just another outdated, pre-9/11 concept, I suppose.

“Earlier this year, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) had worked to place language in the bill strengthening civil liberties protections, but in the judiciary committee the Obama administration worked with Republicans to craft seven amendments, effectively watering down Feingold’s work.”

Ain’t bi-partisanship a beautiful thing?

“Feingold did win an amendment that restricts so-called “sneak and peek” searches that allow the government to enter a home and perform a search without having to inform the subject of the search until months later. The senator’s amendment requires that subjects of sneak-and-peek searches be notified within seven days, unless a judge grants an extension.”
Nice caveat. Now here’s the reality.

“In 2008, the federal government reported 763 sneak-and-peak warrant requests and 528 requests for extensions, as of the year ending Sept. 30, 2008. Four of the applications were denied…Only three of the 763 warrant requests were terrorism related. Sixty-five percent concerned drug investigations.”

Here are the three provisions which the Bush Obama administration is “quietly maneuvering” to renew. More openness and transparency.

“The first…would allow a secret court to continue to permit “roving wiretaps” without the government identifying who is being targeted, or which specific phone lines or communication devices are to be monitored. What officials must do is assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist.

Under the “lone wolf” statute, the U.S. may target for surveillance non-U.S. persons it believes are engaging in terrorism or are preparing to undertake terrorist activities, whether or not that person can be linked to a foreign power or organization. Previously, the government had to establish such a link.”

The second provision, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, permits the FBI to ask a FISA, or secret court, to order the production of any item relevant to a FISA investigation…As with roving wiretaps, the government must assert that the records are relevant to foreign intelligence gathering and/or a terrorism investigation.

What a difference 3 years makes:

“As an Illinois senator in 2005, Barack Obama opposed the core of these provisions when they were up for renewal then, saying he wanted to safeguard the country from terrorist attack but had concerns about seeking business records and the wiretapping language.

Three years later, however, Obama was singing a different tune, voting to allow warrantless wiretaps of Americans’ calls if they were communicating overseas with somebody the government believed was linked to terrorism.”

Quite a “change,” huh?

“There Isn’t a Health Care Crisis”

26 Sunday Jul 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

I guess not.   “July 3, 2008 (Reuters) – Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh signed an eight-year contract extension worth as much as $400 million with Clear Channel Communications Inc, The New York Times said on its website on Wednesday. Limbaugh’s paycheck of $50 million a year represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009, the newspaper’s website said.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about ““There Isn’t a Health Care Crisis”“, posted with vodpod

“Birthers” Hit The Big Time

23 Thursday Jul 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The “birthers,” that formerly fringe element of the Republican Party who still question the citizenship of President Obama, are back in the news because of this video from a townhall meeting held by Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware.

The disturbing part of this clip is not the lady waving her own birth certificate around and screaming “I want my country back,” but the cheers she gets from the others in attendance, and the boos Rep. Castle receives when he says that President Obama “is a citizen of the United States.”

The reason I say this is a formerly fringe element is that this view is quickly becoming the mainstream of the Republican Party and the right.

Legislation has been introduced by Rep. Bill Posey of Florida, and co-sponsored by nine other Republican members of the House, five of whom are from Texas by the way, that would “require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.”

De facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program that “Barack Obama has yet to have to prove he’s a citizen.”

When a caller to Lou Dobbs radio show said President Obama was “rushing all these programs through by whatever means, knowing he will soon be exposed as a fake, a fraud, a . . . Kenyan,” Dobbs’ response was, “Certainly your view can’t be discounted.”

Then there was Liz “Baby Dick” Cheney, who was on Larry King Live with James Carville. Instead of saying outright that the “birthers” are, to use Carville’s word “ludicrous,” Ms. Cheney tried to elude the issue by saying,“People are uncomfortable with a president who is reluctant to defend the nation overseas.”

When later asked for a clarification, Cheney gave the equally slippery answer, “I don’t have any question about Barack Obama’s right to be President of the United States.”

What these “birthers,” and those who continue to aid and abet their lunacy, are doing is to not only question Barack Obama’s citizenship, but his legitimacy as president of the United States. Let’s see, what could be their motivation? What is the difference between the 44th president and the previous 43.

Let me think about that, I’ll get back to you.

Bachmann Too Wingnutty For The Wingnuts

03 Friday Jul 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Times are tough in Bachmann-land ladies and gentlemen, even fellow Republicans are asking the Minnesota Congresswoman to put a lid on her babbling about not properly filling out the Census form.

“Three Republican members of the House subcommittee overseeing the 2010 census are asking a fellow Republican, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, to back off her boycott of the national population count.

Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia and John Mica of Florida, members of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Achieves, are afraid that her repeated threat to ignore the forms could be contagious.

“Boycotting the constitutionally mandated Census is illogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country,” they said in a statement Wednesday.”

As if Rep. Bachmann being called out by her Republican colleagues wasn’t bad enough, two of the three, McHenry and Westmoreland are not exactly the more reasonable members of the Republican caucus themselves.

Here’s Congressman McHenry on the mission of the GOP between now and the mid-term elections:

“We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010. Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”

And it was Congresswoman Westmoreland who said this last November when asked about Michelle Obama:

“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Senator Obama, they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity.”

When these 2 tell you to rein it in, and call you “illogical,” you’re really out there.

The response from the Bachmann camp comes via spokeswoman Debbee Keller:

“Congresswoman Bachmann can not be reached, but we appreciate their views and hope to be able to work with them to keep ACORN — which has earned public mistrust through its repeated voter registration fraud — out of the Census.”

Wait a minute, “cannot be reached?” Two questions come to mind. Does the Appalachian Trail run through Minnesota, and has anybody seen Governor Sanford?

A Public Option Will Destroy Competition? What Competition?

30 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The next time you hear one of our elected officials in Washington rail against President Obama’s proposed public option on health insurance by saying it will “destroy the marketplace” (Richard Shelby) or that there’s “plenty of competition in the private insurance market” (Joe Lieberman) remember this report from Heath Care for America Now (HCAN).

The only thing in danger of being destroyed is the monopoly the large insurance companies presently hold, and which they are willing to make any amount of campaign contributions (aka bribes) to continue.

Consider the following:

“In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven’t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated.”

“Highly concentrated,” according to the U.S. Justice Department means that one company holds more than a 42 % share of the market, a level reached in 31 states.

“In Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas, and Iowa, the two largest health insurers control at least 80% of the statewide market.”

In Senator Shelby’s own state of Alabama, Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83% of the statewide market, the highest rate in the nation for a single company. Is this what he is intent on preserving? Apparently so.

Right here in Texas, two companies, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, control 59% of the market. Our own Senator John Cornyn was one of 9 GOP senators who sent a letter to President Obama which said “a federal government takeover of our healthcare system would take decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and place them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.” I suppose placing those decisions in the hands of an insurance company “bureaucracy” is acceptable.

But having a monopoly can be a very profitable enterprise:

“Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. In 2007 alone, the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million—an average of $11.9 million each.

That is 468 times more than the $25,434 an average American worker made that year. Moreover, the health insurance industry invests more in buying back its own stock and rewarding its shareholders than in improving system operations, reducing premiums, or in developing ways to pay doctors and hospitals fairly.”

For those of us who pay premiums however, it’s not such a sweetheart deal. They have risen more than 87%, on average, over the past 6 years. From 1999-2007, while the average U. S. wage growth was 29%, the average premium growth was 120%.

This is the status quo that Shelby, Lieberman, Cornyn, the big insurance companies, and their lobbyists want to maintain. It’s up to us to let them know that another 15 years of business as usual is unacceptable.