Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts

Sunday, March 03, 2013

What happened to Timothy Geithner?

A  news story from the 'as quiet as it's kept department'...    This info never came to my attention until now!

Here's infomation how the incident took place 1 year ago:





U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrested and questioned.



slavmart

Published on Mar 10, 2012


As predicted, the collapse of the financial mafia is accelerating. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was detained for questioning by New York police on February 24th and was released after giving evidence about many high level financial criminals, according to New York police sources. "In most cases we have to slap people to get them to talk but in his case we had to slap him to shut him up," one of the interrogators joked. Geithner has been released but is accompanied at all times by an armed deputy to make sure he does not leave the country.

Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is also proving to be very talkative, sources in Europe say. Berlusconi has been released. Meanwhile, meetings between White Dragon Society representatives and South Korean government officials last week in Seoul were very productive.

In general what has happened is that dozens of high level informants have come forth in the past weeks and detailed testimony by them is being gathered. Apart from Geithner and Berlusconi, the talking big fish include members of the Rothschild family who have come forth with startling information.

The cabalists for their part are still fighting to preserve their expired power and control. The latest scam they are working on involves the $6 trillion worth of 1934 gold back securities that were seized in Switzerland recently.


.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

What Cooked the World's Economy?


It wasn't your overdue mortgage.

By James Lieber Wednesday, Jan 28 2009



Details
James Lieber is a lawyer whose books on business and politics include Friendly Takeover (Penguin) and Rats in the Grain (Basic Books). This is his fifth article for the Voice.




It's 2009. You're laid off, furloughed, foreclosed on, or you know someone who is. You wonder where you'll fit into the grim new semi-socialistic post-post-industrial economy colloquially known as "this mess."

You're astonished and possibly ashamed that mutant financial instruments dreamed up in your great country have spawned worldwide misery. You can't comprehend, much less trim, the amount of bailout money parachuting into the laps of incompetents, hoarders, and miscreants. It's been a tough century so far: 9/11, Iraq, and now this. At least we have a bright new president. He'll give you a job painting a bridge. You may need it to keep body and soul together.

The basic story line so far is that we are all to blame, including homeowners who bit off more than they could chew, lenders who wrote absurd adjustable-rate mortgages, and greedy investment bankers.

Credit derivatives also figure heavily in the plot. Apologists say that these became so complicated that even Wall Street couldn't understand them and that they created "an unacceptable level of risk." Then these blowhards tell us that the bailout will pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the credit arteries and save the patient, which is the world's financial system. It will take time-maybe a year or so-but if everyone hangs in there, we'll be all right. No structural damage has been done, and all's well that ends well.

Sorry, but that's drivel. In fact, what we are living through is the worst financial scandal in history. It dwarfs 1929, Ponzi's scheme, Teapot Dome, the South Sea Bubble, tulip bulbs, you name it. Bernie Madoff? He's peanuts.

Credit derivatives-those securities that few have ever seen-are one reason why this crisis is so different from 1929.

Derivatives weren't initially evil. They began as insurance policies on large loans. A bank that wished to lend money to a big, but shaky, venture, like what Ford or GM have become, could hedge its bet by buying a credit derivative to cover losses if the debtor defaulted. Derivatives weren't cheap, but in the era of globalization and declining American competitiveness, they were prudent. Interestingly, the company that put the basic hardware and software together for pricing and clearing derivatives was Bloomberg. It was quite expensive for a financial institution-say, a bank-to get a Bloomberg machine and receive the specialized training required to certify analysts who would figure out the terms of the insurance. These Bloomberg terminals, originally called Market Masters, were first installed at Merrill Lynch in the late 1980s.

Subsequently, thousands of units have been placed in trading and financial institutions; they became the cornerstone of Michael Bloomberg's wealth, marrying his skills as a securities trader and an electrical engineer.

It's an open question when or if he or his company knew how they would be misused over time to devastate the world's economy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast-forward to the early years of the Clinton administration. After an initial surge of regulatory behavior in favor of fair markets, especially in antitrust, that sort of behavior was abandoned, and free markets triumphed. The result was a morass of white-collar sociopathy at Archer Daniels Midland, Enron, and WorldCom, and in a host of markets ranging from oil to vitamins.

This was the beginning of the heyday of hedge funds. Unregulated investment houses were originally based on the questionable but legal practice of short-selling-selling a financial instrument you don't own in hopes of buying it back later at a lower price. That way, you hedge your bets: You cover your investment in a company in case a company's stock price falls.

But hedge funds later diversified their practices beyond that easy definition. These funds acquired a good deal of popular mystique. They made scads of money. Their notoriously high entry fees-up to 5 percent of the investment, plus as much as 36 percent of profits-served as barriers to all but the richest investors, who gave fortunes to the funds to play with. The funds boasted of having genius analysts and fabulous proprietary algorithms. Few could discern what they really did, but the returns, for those who could buy in, often seemed magical.

But it wasn't magic. It amounted to the return of the age-old scam called "bucket shops." Also sometimes known as "boiler rooms," bucket shops emerged after the Civil War. Usually, they were storefronts where people came to bet on stocks without owning them. Unlike their customers, the shops actually owned blocks of stock. If customers were betting that a stock would go up, the shops would sell it and the price would plunge; if bettors were bearish, the shops would buy. In this way, they cleaned out their customers. Frenetic bucket-shop activity caused the Panic of 1907. By 1909, New York had banned bucket shops, and every other state soon followed.

In the mid-'90s, though, the credit-derivatives industry was hitting its stride and argued vehemently for exclusion from all state and federal anti-bucket-shop regulations. On the side of the industry were Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and his deputy, Lawrence Summers. Holding the fort for the regulators was Brooksley Born, who headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The three financial titans ridiculed the virtually unknown and cloutless, but brilliant and prophetic Born, who warned that unrestricted derivatives trading would "threaten our regulated markets, or indeed, our economy, without any federal agency knowing about it." Warren Buffett also weighed in against deregulation.


.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Fight Over Finance Oversight, and Bernanke, Gets Hotter


Joseph Schuman

Fight Over Finance Oversight, and Bernanke, Gets Hotter
Posted:
12/2/09


(Dec. 2) -- The fight to tame U.S. oversight of banks and Wall Street heated up Wednesday and now looks likely to dominate this week's hearing on the renomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The House Financial Services Committee voted 31-27 along party lines to send an overhaul of financial regulation to the floor of the House for debate next week, a victory for chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., but not a complete one. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted the vote, saying they want greater financial help for their communities amid all the fiscal stimulus measures of the past year. Those votes -- the caucus includes 41 representatives -- could be pivotal when the bill is put to a vote by the full House.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the bill, dubbed the Financial Stability Act, would increase congressional oversight of the Fed by broadening the Government Accountability Office's authority over the Fed's financial operations. Critics of the bill argue that any increase in political supervision of the Fed would weaken the U.S. central bank's credibility. Proponents say that credibility was already undercut more by the failure of the Fed and other agencies to foresee and prevent the subprime-mortgage meltdown that cascaded into a global recession.

Bernanke will likely be asked to address the matter himself on Thursday before the Senate banking committee, which is considering his nomination by President Obama to a second term as the country's chief financial steward. That hearing and any discussion of new restraints on the Fed were already expected to be animated, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made sure of that Wednesday evening.

Sanders placed a hold on the Bernanke nomination, faulting both the Fed chairman's role in the financial crisis and his chairmanship of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. "The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few," Sanders said. "What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy.

" The hold will likely delay the renomination, but Bernanke appears to have enough support from Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to keep his job. The tenor of Thursday's hearing could indicate which way it will go.

A host of financial-regulation reform bills under consideration in Congress have already been subjected to repeated rounds of disparagement and lobbying from financial firms, which object to a tighter leash but have been restrained in their public criticism by the economic pain and popular anger of the past year. On the other side of the fight, consumer advocates have vociferously called for greater regulation, and the Obama administration has made passage of a bill one of its top economic priorities.

But the shape of a final measure -- for both the House legislation and a similar measure in the Senate -- is far from clear and might not take form before next year.

The thrust of the House bill aims to strengthen oversight across the spectrum of the finance industries by creating a council, headed by the Treasury, that will seek to identify and address systemic risks in the marketplace that could lead to another financial crisis. It would consolidate authority of the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators to deal with crises, create new safeguards for insurance companies like AIG and other nonbanks -- so that none becomes "too big to fail" -- and force lenders to assume a greater portion of the risk in their loans rather than pass along all the risk to investors. The bill would also place limits on any future government bailouts.

The bill is likely to undergo changes by the full House, and if it passes there perhaps wholesale revision once the Senate finishes work on its version. Work on financial reform has stalled in the Senate Banking Committee, where Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is trying to get Republicans to contribute to and support his proposal.



Source:

Friday, November 13, 2009

Billionaire Bill Gates says Wall St pay too high


Billionaire Bill Gates says Wall St pay too high
Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:16pm EST


* Bill Gates warns limits on Wall St pay could backfire

* Gates says government ownership of AIG "unnatural"

By Michelle Nichols

NEW YORK, Nov 11 (Reuters) - Bill Gates said on Wednesday he believes Wall Street pay is "often too high" and that U.S. government ownership of American International Group Inc (AIG.N) worries him because it has devalued the giant insurer.

The billionaire Microsoft (MSFT.O) founder, who retired in 2008 to concentrate on philanthropy, blamed a 1993 U.S. law that capped executive salaries at $1 million and warned that further bids to try limit Wall Street pay could also backfire.

"It was a bad milestone in controlling executive salaries when that $1 million cap went on," Gates told a discussion on philanthropy at the 92nd Street Y cultural and community center in New York City.

"The compensation problem is a very interesting problem. I do think compensation is often too high, but it's a very tough problem to solve," said Gates, who was also ranked by Forbes on Wednesday as the 10th most powerful person in the world.

The $1 million limit on salaries encouraged companies to instead give executives lucrative stock options, sending pay to vast new heights.

U.S. officials are again pushing for Wall Street pay practices to be reformed to curb the excessive risk-taking that fueled the crisis and pushed the financial system to the brink of collapse last year.

Huge pay packages for banks and other financial firms have ignited public anger at a time the U.S. unemployment rate is at a 26-year high of 10.2 percent.

"What happened was a surprise to people and it comes from everybody being so optimistic and over ebullient and having a view of risk and price appreciation that was completely out of kilter," Gates said of the financial crisis.

The U.S. government spent hundreds of billions of dollars during the crisis bailing out several Wall Street firms, including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N) and AIG which is now 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers.

"I do worry that when the government owns an entity like AIG that you can greatly devalue that entity by having it essentially have to behave as though it part of the government," Gates said.

"It's an unnatural situation when the government owns a lot of a private company. Unfortunately there is a view that that should exist for a long term. There's some devaluation of what that asset would have been worth if it hadn't had to go through that kind of management structure. It's unavoidable," he said. (Editing by Lincoln Feast)
.

88887777
/
P.S. Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
I believe that Bill Gates really has lost touch with reality.
He believes that nobody else should achieve the indecent wealth that he has attained.
How ironic that a man that converted his $46 Billion assets into Euros a few years ago should now call for a limit on the amount of dollars that American financial entrepreneurs should earn?
.
Bill Gates is calling for a control on how much Wall Street traders should earn. Several weeks ago, President Obama stressed that CEO's of major corporations (ones that received bail-outs?) should have a salary cap. My response to these nouveaux riches idealists is: Why stop at salary limits on Wall Street movers and shakers, or Executives of America's major corporations? Why not also limit the salaries of government (public servants) employees, especially politicians and administrative officials (cabinet members)? I believe it's a crime for most of the citizens to suffice with a supply of ever dwindling crumbs while the elected officials, and those appointed to represent them gallivant around on multiple Hundreds of thousands of dollars stipends (and get $10 -20,000 increases regularly); Living a separate reality from that of the average constituent who barely breaks even after job cuts, rising prices, diminishing dollar value, etc.
.....
Hypocrisy is my response to all those caviar eating jet-set amnesiacs that have forgotten what it's like to have to work all week for peanuts; Here in the land of the Constitution; Not, Tajikistan!
.
Freedom begins at home; Or, has is it now changed to Democracy everywhere else, and tyranny for the natives in the USA?
.
Arsenio.
.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Andrew Sorkin's 'Inside Story' On Financial Collapse


Georgetown Global Forum
In 2007, the World Economic Forum named Andrew Ross Sorkin a Young Global Leader.


Andrew Sorkin's 'Inside Story' On Financial Collapse


Financial journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin discusses his investigation into what really happened one year ago during the financial collapse and bailout. ...
(October 20, 2009)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113938903

Currently on NPR's "Fresh Air" ...


........................................................ The Story:

Andrew Sorkin's 'Inside Story' On Financial Collapse
October 20, 2009

Audio for this story from Fresh Air from WHYY will be available at approx. 3:00 p.m. ET
Transcript

October 20, 2009
Financial journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin talks with Fresh Air host Terry Gross about his investigation into what really happened one year ago, during the financial collapse and bailout. It's an epic tale that's he's documented in a new book: Too Big To Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System — and Themselves.

Sorkin is the award-winning chief mergers and acquisitions reporter for The New York Times, where he also writes a column and serves as assistant editor of business and finance news. He founded and edits DealBook, the Times' multimedia financial journal.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113938903

Sunday, October 18, 2009

As Goldman Gloats, What Does It Matter For Us?



Mark Lennihan/AP
Goldman Sachs headquarters, in New York. The Wall Street firm again showed its trading prowess, helping it earn more than $3 billion in the third quarter.


by Russell Roberts
October 16, 2009


Listen to the Story
All Things Considered
[3 min 50 sec]

October 16, 2009

Should we care about Goldman's profits and compensation? It's pretty gauche when your take-home pay is millions of dollars while some of your neighbors can't find work. But is it wrong? Is it something those of us on the outside should care about?

Normally, I'd say it's nobody's business. What people get paid is best left to the marketplace.

But Goldman Sachs is different because those of us on the outside are really on the inside. Goldman Sachs was propped up with our money. Not the money it took directly from the government and paid back. The money that AIG gave it that really came from the taxpayer.

Goldman Sachs being proud of its performance this year is like the Harlem Globetrotters bragging that they went undefeated. It's not really a normal competition.

Goldman Sachs played the same game as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers — they made lousy investments financed with borrowed money. When the assets fell in value, Bear and Lehman died. They were reckless with other people's money.

But Goldman Sachs is still here, Why?

Part of the reason is that maybe it took a little less risk and maybe hedged against that risk a little better. But part of the reason Goldman lives and thrives is that the government bailed out AIG. Almost 13 billion dollars of the money the government sent to AIG went out the door and over to Goldman Sachs. This money included loans and insurance Goldman bought on its bad bets. Some of that insurance turned out to be a bad bet, too. But Goldman didn't bear the cost. The taxpayers did.

Part of the reason Goldman and other Wall Street firms made so many bad bets is they knew they might be rescued. And most of the time, they were.

The rescue of large financial institutions is justified as a way to save the system and protect Main Street from a tsunami of financial instability.








Russell Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a research scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He hosts the weekly podcast EconTalk.org


But capitalism is a profit-and-loss system. The profits encourage risk-taking. The losses encourage prudence. If the taxpayer almost always eats the losses for the losers, you don't have capitalism. You have crony capitalism.

The latest rescue of Wall St has taken hundreds of billions of dollars from average Americans and given that money to some of the richest people in human history, people who made bad bets and should have been taking enormous losses. Instead, they've been taken care of. Their triumph makes Bernie Madoff look like a small-time operator.

The key policymakers, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, have been praised for keeping things afloat. But to what purpose? What's the virtue of saving crony capitalism? Maybe they prevented an even worse recession.

There's no way of knowing. But they have deeply damaged both capitalism and democracy.

We have a financial system that not only rewards cronies and encourages recklessness. It also funnels precious capital into areas like the housing sector instead of into more productive investments.

We have to stop rescuing the reckless. We have to let people who make bad decisions bear the consequences.

Profit and loss. The rest of us live that way. Wall Street can too.

Russell Roberts holds the Smith Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he is also professor of economics. He is a research scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the host of the weekly podcast EconTalk.org.
.
.
.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Wealth Redistribution Has Begun But Problems Loom


March 30, 2009 12:23AM
The Wealth Redistribution Has Begun But Problems Loom
By Brian Sullivan


While campaigning, President Obama made the now-famous comment to the now-infamous plumber that he wants to “spread the wealth around” by raising taxes. He certainly isn’t alone these days in wanting to stick it to the wealthy. Protesters at the G20 meeting, in the streets of New York City and on bus tours of AIG executives’ homes are all calling for higher taxes and their populist rage is being heard. New York state has agreed to a massive tax increase on those making more than $300,000 per year. Other states are discussing similar moves. The federal government’s tax increase on those making $250,000 per year will begin in 2011. That hike is also likely to be accompanied by a reduction in the amount of interest allowed as a deduction on home mortgages. It is a tax triplet whose cumulative impact is that a doctor in New York making $500,000 per year is facing a tax hike of more than $2,000 per month. That increase will then be scattered through government spending, a “middle class tax cut” that provides a two-income family with a meager $13 more per week, along with the filling of a variety of state budget gaps, particularly in government employee pension plans.
The weak economy, bank bailouts, AIG bonuses and a collapsed housing market has created a wave of anger at the top end of the economic spectrum. Out of work laborers hold signs saying “tax the rich,” seemingly under the belief that higher taxes are a panacea to America’s, or at least their, economic problems. Those groups are going to get what they are asking for, as taxes are set to rise on a number of different fronts. And while the higher tax proponents will net a small political victory, history says they will likely encounter few big changes in their own scenarios.
Higher marginal tax rates may provide families with a few extra dollars of temporary relief, but are unlikely to provide better job prospects long term. Higher tax nations do not traditionally have lower unemployment rates than the United States, and periods of higher taxes in America haven’t helped the under or unemployed find new work. In fact, generally the opposite is true. As an example, higher tax European and Scandinavian countries have traditionally also posted much higher unemployment rates than the United States. The percentage of individuals actually looking for work (and are thus counted in those figures) is even lower in these countries. Only a few years ago Italy found itself out of the top 100 list of national employment rates. Many European nations actual unemployment rates are even worse than the numbers indicate, as there are millions in those nations who live entirely off state sponsored welfare their entire lives and are thus not measured in official data. France, a country considered a model of socialist economic thinking more than most, is going in the opposite direction of America and cutting income tax rates. In 2007 the new government led by Nicolas Sarkozy eliminated income taxes on any “overtime” work done beyond the traditional 35-hour work week as part of an overall plan to increase French competitiveness and productivity.
There also appears to be little positive correlation between high taxes on the wealthy and job creation in America. The top tax rate in the 1970s was a staggering 70% yet unemployment averaged around 7-8% for most of the decade, topping out above 10% for the first few months of 1983. Only when the impact of the Reagan tax cuts of the early 80s began to be felt did joblessness fall. Franklin Roosevelt raised the highest end tax rate to 94%, and while the unemployment rate did fall in the later half of the 1930s it was still more than 17% in 1939.
The favored argument of those in favor of higher taxes is that the Obama top-end is simply placing the tax rate back to where it was under Bill Clinton in the go-go 1990s. Supporters of that era tend to forget two important things. First, the 90s decade was highlighted by the boom in personal computing and the growth of an entirely new industry in the Internet and software. Second, we found out the hard way that much of the “go” in the “go-go” 90s was based on a bubble economy in tech stocks. The problem now is that we are recovering from a much bigger economic problem - the housing bubble created by the Fed’s interest rate cuts after the tech bubble burst and the terrorist attacks on 9/11. We also lack a nascent technology such as the Internet to help build a new economy and good jobs to drag us out of the slump as we did in the early 1990s.
New York is raising taxes on the very top earners by a staggering 31%. The second highest group of earners will face a smaller but still punishing tax increase of 14.5%. Assuming many of those earners do not move to lower tax states and their incomes stay the same (big assumptions in this economy), those tax hikes will together add $4 billion dollars to the Empire State’s coffers. It sounds like a lot until you consider that New York’s budget deficit is a whopping 400% more than that amount at $16 billion and growing. Ironically, much of that huge budget gap is due to falling income tax receipts as many of the “rich” Wall Street crowd lose their jobs or make less money. Until those high paying and high tax generating jobs return, the burden will grow on the fewer high earners left. That is, until they too finally break down, leave the state or do as many high income earners do and underreport their incomes to get around higher taxes.
Sadly, it is likely those screaming loudest about higher taxes on the rich who will get hurt the most when they get them. Travel is already down 30-plus percent to Las Vegas this year and the city has one of the fastest growing unemployment rates in the country. Retail workers across America are losing their jobs as stores close and companies go under. Towncar drivers in New York report business is down even more. The stories are endless, but the spending of those with money is not anymore. In the end, that doctor in New York will probably take one fewer vacation per year, drive his car for a year or two longer before buying a new one and perhaps even trade down into a smaller home. Lost in the frenzy though, few will care. Except for the bellhop at the hotel, the car salesman or the worker at the furniture store.
Bizarrely though, the higher tax crowd seems to have little interest in discussing real job creation or long term improvements in the economy. The shouting seems to be more punitive. Many “working party” type organizations have long pressed for tax hikes on those making more than $250,000 per year, saying that the wealthy should “share the sacrifice.” Notice the tone of the language. Instead of “how can we make things better” we instead hear “we should all suffer together.” The implication seems to be that it is more desirable to bring the top down than to try to bring the bottom up.




Thursday, June 18, 2009

Federal Reserve to gain power under plan


Targets dangers to economy
By (Contact) Tuesday, June 16, 2009


The Federal Reserve, already arguably the most powerful agency in the U.S. government, will get sweeping new authority to regulate any company whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy and markets under the Obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan.

The final plan due to be released on Wednesday -- which originally aimed to streamline and consolidate banking and securities regulation in one or two agencies -- now is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources.

The most likely candidate for elimination is the Office of Thrift Supervision, whose failure to detect and forestall problems at Countrywide, IndyMac, Washington Mutual and other freewheeling mortgage lenders is thought to have contributed to the financial crisis.

The decision to concentrate sweeping new powers at the already overstretched Fed is not without controversy. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which must approve any regulatory overhaul, has raised objections to that approach, and so has Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila C. Bair.

TWT RELATED STORIES:





Ms. Bair advocates an alternative where a council of top bank regulators would make decisions on whether to step in, regulate or close major corporations like the American International Group whose failure posed a risk to the whole economy and financial system. The Fed stepped in to save AIG last year without having such powers, but the result was a costly and muddled bailout that no one wants to repeat.

To accommodate dissenting views, the administration will propose that a council of regulators advise the Fed, although the Fed will have the final say, according to administration officials. The new powers augment the Fed's existing broad authorities to intervene to prevent crises that could seriously damage the markets and economy.

"What we're trying to do is focus on the things that were at the core of the problems we saw in the crisis," said Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner at a Time Warner Economic Summit in New York on Monday.

"When you have too many people involved, there's an accountability problem," he said. "At the core of making the system stronger is to give one place in the system clear accountability, responsibility and authority for preventing future crises."

Mr. Geithner said that while the administration would have preferred a more streamlined regulatory structure with fewer agencies, ensuring fewer gaps in oversight and less opportunity for "regulatory arbitrage" by lenders, it would have had to start "from scratch" to accomplish that. It decided instead to work within the patchwork of multiple agencies established over the past century or so in response to various financial crises.

While the administration decided against merging the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, it will insist on plugging the extensive gaps that have allowed some of the largest securities markets in world history, known as derivatives, to develop without oversight or regulation.

"All derivatives contracts will be subject to regulation and all derivatives dealers subject to supervision," Mr. Geithner said in an opinion piece Monday co-authored by National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers, adding that "regulators will be empowered to enforce rules against manipulation and abuse."

Mr. Geithner said a key part of the plan will impose stiffer requirements for setting aside reserve capital by large financial institutions whose far-flung and risky activities around the world pose the greatest threat of disrupting markets.

Strengthening protections for consumers and investors, possibly through a new commission charged with monitoring the development of new loans and instruments in the marketplace, also will be an important new element of the plan, he said.

..


Sunday, May 10, 2009

666: Goldman's latest bonus bears the mark of the beast


Something strange is stirring. Even the young are joining the chorus of concern that this tarnished giant is part of a financial oligarchy that holds the US in its grip, writes Stephen Foley in New York

Sunday, 3 May 2009


Something strange is afoot when Popbitch – provider of a weekly email beloved of students, stuffed full of celebrity tittle-tattle and links to the silliest miscellany of the web – breaks off from such glorious trivia to encourage readers to support GoldmanSachs666.com, a deadly serious website measuring the political tentacles of the mighty investment bank.

Something strange, too, when Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, becomes a hero of the internet and the satirical comedy-show circuit on cable TV, promoting his theory that the US is in the grip of a financial oligarchy.

The credit-market catastrophe that has plunged the world into recession is everywhere stirring new ways of thinking about how banking relates to the wider world, but nowhere more so than among a generation coming into political consciousness in these searing times. Something is brewing, some argue, that could make the "regulatory-financial complex" something to rail against in the same way that the military-industrial complex was in the Cold War.

And for all the impression it is giving that it has survived the credit crisis with its pre-eminent position on Wall Street intact, this should worry Goldman Sachs. More so than any other firm, it exists at the intersection of politics and high finance, and therefore has most to lose if this nascent movement turns it into the next ExxonMobil or Wal-Mart – firms whose every move could attract protest, and whose reputation could take years to repair.

"It was listening to the news coming out of AIG that got me fired up," says Mike Morgan, founder of GoldmanSachs666.com. "While politicians were screaming about $165m paid out to AIG executives in bonuses, $180bn was walking out the door."

Goldman, incidentally, has abandoned its attempts to shut the site down.

Mr Morgan is referring to the government bailout of AIG, whose collapse would have sent shockwaves through the markets. The Federal Reserve and the then-treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, decided to funnel public funds to AIG, and its counterparties were paid in full. You don't have to scratch far into the internet to find conspiracy theories: Mr Paulson was chief executive of Goldman before going into government; he appointed Edward Liddy, formerly of Goldman, to run AIG; Goldman was AIG's biggest counterparty, receiving $12.9bn from AIG after the bailout. (It says it was hedged and would not have lost even if AIG did go under.)

Mr Morgan is not the sort of young hot head you find protesting against the G8. He is a 53-year-old registered financial adviser from Florida, but he has attracted a handful of volunteers to beef up the website and to amass information on the Goldman alumni network and its power. "Goldman dipped into taxpayer funds via AIG," he says. "Who gets paid off 100 cents on the dollar these days? Only Goldman it seems. It is all about looking at the connections. Where do all the Goldman Sachs executives go? I see them as running the world. They are like the Standard Oil of the last century, too big and too powerful, with people flocking from Goldman to government and from government to Goldman."

It is a point that is being made forcibly by a growing number of people, from the lowliest bloggers to the most respected economists. Mr Johnson's claims of oligarchy are echoed by Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, for example, and the notion is going mainstream. The New York Times devoted acres to a forensic investigation of Tim Geithner's diary from when the Treasury Secretary was running the New York Federal Reserve and appeared to have what it claimed were "unusually close ties with Wall Street executives", including those at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, thanks to his mentor, Robert Rubin, a former treasury secretary who has been a senior figure at both banks.

Goldman has swung into action to try to arrest a public-relations nightmare in the making, and its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, knows precisely what is at stake. He has been most outspoken among Wall Street bosses in speeches and newspaper op-ed columns about Wall Street's need to change. At a speech to the Council of Institutional Investors last month, he said the disasters of the past year have been "humbling", and that pay practices on the Street look "self-serving and greedy in hindsight". He has argued that bonus practices should be changed, to reflect longer-term performance rather than one-year profits, which we all now know can be wiped away in future years. But reducing the psychological primacy of the bonus culture on Wall Street does not appear to be on his corporate agenda, and Goldman's first-quarter results revealed it was setting aside $4.7bn (£3.2bn) to pay salaries and bonuses for the quarter – 18 per cent more than in the same period a year ago, despite a 7 per cent fall in the number of staff.

"It is not about what you say, it is about what you do," says Anthony Johndrow, the managing director of the Reputation Institute, a New York consultancy. "Financial services firms cannot simply run a warm and fuzzy PR or ad campaign. The challenge is to find a way to make a statement and to address the trust that has been violated, to promise action that proves the company 'gets it'. The authentic enterprise takes responsibility for its actions and their impact."

Authenticity has become one of marketing's hottest concepts. Advertising executives insist that any message that does not reflect what a company really stands for is doomed to backfire. In the PR world, the "authentic enterprise" is one that understands how changing its image requires changing the fundamental way it does business. For Goldman, its reputation on Wall Street is that it is the smartest, best-connected and most lucrative place to be. Beyond Wall Street, is that enough to satisfy?

Mr Johndrow's Reputation Institute has just conducted research that suggests it is not – far from it. In its annual survey of the public reputation of 153 of the biggest companies in the US, released a few days ago, Goldman has plunged into the bottom six, in with oil companies and Dick Cheney's old oil-services firm, Halliburton. The survey gives a score based on public ratings of the trust and good feelings they have for each firm, and Goldman's rating fell 17 per cent. Only AIG's fell more.

Goldman Sachs's spokesman, Lucas van Praag, says: "We think our reputation is critically important, particularly in our hiring activities. The Reputation Institute survey is mainly focused on retail brands and we are not a retail firm. Although we were disappointed, we were not particularly surprised."

Mr Johndrow explains: "The world of Wall Street is a small world, and up to now it seems executives have considered that the reputations of the banks only really matter to a few people within that world. The reputation of Goldman Sachs versus, say, Credit Suisse, is the most important thing, and its regard for the general public as a stakeholder has been minimal. But now the public has a stake as taxpayers, yet the banks have not yet done anything to acknowledge what that means."

Reputation is an "intangible asset" whose diminution could have profound business consequences, he adds. Public fury can quickly be channelled through politicians into harsh new regulations and restrictions.

And it could, ultimately, hit Goldman's ability to attract the brightest graduates. As Mr Johndrow explains: "When you go back to your home town or your school, it stops being about how many expensive cigars and yachts and mansions you have. Justifying your job involves talking about its wider impact on society."





Monday, March 23, 2009

President Obama, Why Did You Pay Blackwater $70 Million in February?



Obama may keep the company on the government payroll months after its Iraq contract expires. Not bad for a firm supposedly going down in flames.
For those already outraged at the AIG bonus scandal, here is a fact that should add more fuel to the fire: The Obama administration has paid the mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater nearly $70 million to operate in Iraq and, according to The Washington Times, may keep the company on the payroll months past the official expiration of its Iraq contract in May. I reviewed Blackwater's recent transactions with the Obama State Department and discovered a $45 million payment to Blackwater on February 4, 2009 for "protective services-Iraq." It is described as a "funding action only." Here is the interesting part: The estimated "Ultimate Completion Date" is 5/07/2011.

The Washington Times (as described below) reported on a $22 million payment to Blackwater on February 2. Combined with the $45 million payment I discovered, that's nearly $67 million in 72 hours. Not bad for a company supposedly going down in flames.

With the U.S. economy in shambles and millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet and keep their homes, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton need to explain to U.S. taxpayers how they justify these mega-payments to a scandal-plagued mercenary company. (At the very least, someone should ask Robert Gibbs about it).

It has been widely reported that the Bush administration's preferred mercenary company, which recently renamed itself Xe, will soon be leaving Iraq. That news came early this year after the State Department, under immense public pressure, announced it would not renew the company's lucrative deal to act as the private paramilitary force for senior U.S. occupation officials. The Iraqi government has said it wants the company to leave Iraq and says it has revoked the company's operating license. The Obama administration continues to use Blackwater in Afghanistan and the company has extensive domestic training contracts with the military and law enforcement agencies inside the borders of the U.S.

Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that some of Blackwater's armed operatives may simply be rehired by two other US mercenary firms that are expected to take over Blackwater's work in Iraq under the Obama administration: Triple Canopy and DynCorp. Now, The Washington Times reports that the State Department has signed contracts with Blackwater that appear to extend the company's presence in Iraq at least until September 2009.

According to the paper:

"On Feb. 2, a department spokesman was asked whether officials planned to renew one of Blackwater's contracts past May. The spokesman, Robert Wood, said the department had told Blackwater 'we did not plan to renew the company's existing task force orders for protective security details in Iraq.'

"But records available through a federal procurement database show that on that same day, the State Department approved a $22.2 million contract modification for Blackwater 'security personnel' in Iraq, with a job completion date of Sept. 3, 2009."

"Why would you continue to use Blackwater when the Iraqi government has banned the highly controversial company and there are other choices?" said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay told The Washington Times the contract modification involves aviation services. "The place of performance is Iraq, but it is totally different than the Baghdad one that expires in May," he said. Sloan called the State Department's explanation of the Feb. 2 deal a "parsing of words" and said "they should just be straight with us." Xe spokeswoman Anne Tyrell declined to comment on the status of the company's work in Iraq or the Feb. 2 contract modification. She said the company was aware that the State Department had indicated that it did not plan to renew its contracts in Iraq but that Xe officials had not received specific information about leaving the country. "We're following their direction," she said.

Blackwater recently renamed itself Xe and its owner Erik Prince "resigned" as CEO, though he remains its sole owner and chairman.

UPDATE: Could Arlen Specter's Logic on AIG Bonuses Be Applied to Blackwater?

Several people have written me asking what the Obama administration should do with Blackwater, following reports that the State Department paid the company some $70 million over a 72 hour period in February.

Many people take the position that Obama is dealing with remnants of the Bush administration's disastrous policies and that it will take time to unravel. Fair enough. But, with the U.S. economy in shambles, is it really a priority to make good on payments to a company like Blackwater?

I have long written that the Obama Iraq policy will necessitate using mercenary forces. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Obama's refusal to scrap that monstrous U.S. fortress they are calling an embassy. If it's not going to be Blackwater guarding Obama's occupation officials, it will be Triple Canopy and DynCorp (who will in turn hire a bunch of the "fired" Blackwater guys anyway). The point here is this: I disagree that the reality is simply that Obama needs time to phase out Blackwater and his hands are tied when it comes to paying them on existing contracts. I believe Obama needs them to sustain his bad Iraq policy, which will continue the occupation, albeit with a softer face. If Obama wanted to, he could outright fire Blackwater. Henry Waxman and others have called for that. He certainly would have the support of the American people, particularly given how much money Blackwater has milked from the U.S. treasury.

All of this brings me to Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, former chair of the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, he was interviewed on MSNBC by Andrea Mitchell about the AIG bonuses. Read what he says about the AIG contracts not having to be honored and then apply the logic to Obama's Blackwater situation:

Mitchell: What say you when it comes to these bonuses? Should they be taxed back? Should the AIG executives who approved the bonuses have to commit hari-kari? With whom do you side?

Specter: Andrea, they're not enforceable under the law. They are against public policy. It is obviously against public policy to pay bonuses to people who caused the problem. If you have, for example, a contract for the sale of heroin, that's not enforceable. You take those cases to court, they won't be enforced. It's just that plain. It's set out very simply in the restatement of the law on contracts

(.....)

Mitchell: Well, you know, there's been a lot ventilating on all sides, but you're a former district attorney, a former prosecutor, experienced lawyer and we tend to trust your judgment on this, former Judiciary Chairman. So let me hear you out on when you say they're not enforceable, the top economic adviser and the Treasury Secretary said that these were contracts that if the government broke the contracts, there would be greater expense in going to court and suing to get the money back.

What would the next steps be in a practical way to get the money back and break the contracts?

Specter: The top economic adviser and the Secretary of the Treasury are wrong again. It happens too often to be excusable. I'd like to argue this as a legal matter. If you have a contract, which is against public policy, it is not enforceable. I gave you an extreme example. If you have a contract for the delivery of heroin, the use of heroin, the delivery of heroin is against the law, you can't enforce it.

Let those individuals who claim that they're entitled to bonuses go to court and the government will defend the case and will say these are against public policy. How can you pay a bonus to this individual in this company, which raised the problem and caused this $180 billion bailout and now they want bonuses on top? It is simply unenforceable.

.


.

U.S. law-making is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship


U.S. law-making is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship
By Terence Corcoran


Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.

As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?

Probably not, if only because there are good reasons for optimism. The U.S. economy has pulled out of self-destructive political spirals in the past, spurred on by its business class and corporate leaders, the profit-making and market-creating people who rose above the political turmoil to once again lift the world out of financial crisis. It’s happened many times before, except for once, when it took 20 years to rise out of the Great Depression.

Past success, however, is no guarantee of future recovery, especially now when there are daily disasters and new indicators of political breakdown. All developments are not disasters in themselves. The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.

One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.

But America is at risk in other ways, especially in the technical business of setting and executing policy. The presidency of Barack Obama has set out on a course that has no precedent in U.S. history. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal transformed the U.S. economy during the Great Depression, pushed America off on a sharply different political and ideological course. The Obama administration is different in many ways, not least in its supreme self-confidence in its methods and objectives.

Reform of health care, environmental policy, education, energy, banking, regulation — every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy has been put on alert for major change. Expansion of government spending, plunging the U.S. into unprecedented deficits, is without parallel. In economic policy, through regulation and control of energy output, financial services and monetary expansion, the U.S. government has embarked on a fundamental reshaping of America. It is designed, in short, to bring on the end of America.

The spillover effect of all this on the rest of the world promises to be dramatically disruptive. The greatest global risk is in monetary and currency policy. Below is a chart that graphically demonstrates the sharp deviation in monetary policy from past norms. Under the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve is in the midst of a giant economic experiment, flooding the world with U.S. dollars, hoping that flood will stimulate economic activity.

The total monetary base, already at astronomical levels, is now expected to take another big hit with the new Fed policy of buying up U.S. longer-term treasury bills in a bid to drive down long-term interest rates.

Mr. Bernanke is sometimes known as “Helicopter Ben” because he once in an academic paper referred to the use of “helicopters” full of money to rescue an economy from deflation. In comments Wednesday to explain the Fed’s new policy of buying $300-billion in U.S. treasury bills, Mr. Bernanke noted that the Fed is now more worried about inflation being too low than about it getting too high in the future.

For the rest of the world, however, the worry is that America is at risk of becoming the fountainhead of a new inflationary outburst. The U.S. dollar is now in decline, gold is moving sharply higher, and new global currency turmoil is on the horizon.

It may not happen. A paper just published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, source of the chart above, says that the Fed will have to be prepared to absorb all the excess money it has poured into the U.S. economy. It will be a technical and political challenge unlike any central bank has ever undertaken. The future of America is at stake.
.


.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Prez Sets Stage for Future Persecution of Christianity


By Rev. Michael Bresciani Thursday, March 19, 2009


President Obama’s show of anger with AIG for giving out bonus money to its top exec’s has raised the ire of the nation and in AIG it has started an open rebellion. America may have a lot of enemies but AIG would hardly make the top ten list of real bad guys. What’s the spin?

The Washington Post is reporting “a mob effect” inside AIG. The Post said “A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn’t show up at all.”

A little ‘choking up’ shouldn’t cause a riot but when it’s seen in a newbie President who seems to be on the frontline in the fight for the little guy all bets are off.

If anyone is thinking of actually writing a book entitled “The Audacity of Hypocrisy” they may want to make note that AIG gave a whopping $101,332 according to New Orleans examiner.com to the campaigns of Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

To many Americans who see the choking up as a masterful diversionary ploy to take their minds off the 8,000 plus pork additions to the stimulus bill the anger is blatantly disingenuous.

To American Christians the anger and the hype are a giant diversionary tactic (intended or not) to pull attention away from another presidential act that so far has garnered much less media attention.

The President has announced to the Congress his intentions to sign the UN declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality. The declaration that George W. Bush shunned has now been OK’d by all 27 member nations of the European Union.

Ignoring the moral sensibilities of over half of the American public Barack Obama has proven that the hallmarks of his presidency will be to further amorality, prurient interests and the gay agenda regardless of America’s Christian heritage or the basic sentiments of the population. He has hit the ground running on pro-abortion and gay agenda causes that are causing disgust all the way from little independent fundamental churches to the Vatican.

The Bible does hold that homosexuality is a crime against nature but Barack Obama has assured the doubtful that they needn’t take the Apostle Paul’s warning in the first chapter of the book of Romans too seriously because it is after all “obscure” according to Obama in the Christian Post Mar 04, 2008.

Nature doesn’t have any courts so for the moment the gays are on relatively safe ground but according to scripture natures God does have a final session coming up.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Presidents ineptness at politics is second only to his weakness in theological treatise. Putting the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ over against or above the warnings against homosexuality made by Paul shows that Obama thinks the scripture is only inspired in spots and he sees himself as perfectly qualified to spot the spots!

It isn’t the nature of a passage that gives it authority but it is the authority of the one who inspired the passage. The word “all” summarizes this fact in this passage Barack Obama may have missed. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (1Tim 3:16)

Signing the UN declaration is groundwork for future persecution of the church. With a few well worded “hate crime” bills it is only a small step away from a day when quoting the Apostle Paul on homosexuality could result in prosecution and serious jail time across the globe.

Oddly, no one thinks the Vatican and the Muslim world have anything in common but they along with the remaining theologically conservative Protestants still hold that homosexuality is a curse to any society but especially the civilization of the last days.

AP writer Matthew Lee said on Mar 18, 2009 “Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.”

Over fifty countries still have anti-gay laws along with some states in the U.S. but with the help of America’s most liberal President in its history the world may be coaxed to the other side. But what is “the other side?” According to the scripture it is the final judgment and the return of Christ to wrest the governments of the world away from the hands of men.

In signing the UN declaration President Obama is keeping his own declaration that he is a “citizen of the world” alive and well but even that raises concern for those who are not yet sure he is even a citizen of the U.S. That controversy still rages and has recently seen a positive surge coming from Chief Justice John Roberts who has promised to read the petition of Dr. Orly Taitz questioning Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.

The jury is still out on Obama’s eligibility to be President but to those who are only nominally versed in scripture the controversy is already settled, Barack Obama will never make chief theologian; now or in the near future.

Those who stand entranced as if under the sway of a familiar spirit listening with awe to everything Obama says are not hearing the same thing as the rest of us.

We hear the meddling of a President who is micro-managing fiscal affairs by centering in on those he thinks are undeserving of benefits and those who are. We see a president who has one eye on the groups and minorities whose prurient interests read like the feature article of a porn magazine and the other eye on the path to putting America into the one world order whether we like it or not.

If we don’t give up, if we don’t sleep through, if we are not to busy to act then it would be reasonable to think that Mr. Obama will eventually run head on into some people who are also irate but for different reasons than those of the AIG executives.

It isn’t bonuses or bailouts we are upset with but eroding sovereignty, and the blocking of redress that was promised to us in our constitution. “We the people;” who so foolishly still believe our government is established for, by and of the people don’t want to be hypnotized we want to be heard.
We don’t want to be looked upon as discontented fools because we want to see Mr. Obama’s fully signed and sealed birth certificate. And we don’t want to be labeled as isolated and pompous because we aren’t ready to jump feet first into a world community that promises more of everything but nothing in particular but membership.

As for the endless gab about the economy Mr. Obama should have no complaints, we have allowed him not to tinker with our treasures but to gouge them. This is being done even while no citizen in our history ever thought the way to stave of a financial crisis was to spend all the money they had.

We stand on the side calling, imploring, perhaps even bellowing for our fellow citizens to come to their senses but few have ears to hear.

We are the wife who tugs on the arm of her husband; she whispers stern disapprobation into the ears of the husband who thinks he’s on a streak at the craps table. She knows he is on a streak. But she also knows he keeps raising the stake and the next throw of the dice could be the end of the family fortune.

We don’t care if you go down to the Leno stage and play the regular nice guy with the new ideas after shooting us in the fiscal foot. We will expect an accounting for our recovery and the expenses associated with it. We don’t think America needs a “Supreme American Idol” in addition to the cookie cutter models the American Idol show is offering to its mesmerized and accounted for every week.

Do we have a President who is gambling with America’s fame, fortune and future? Yes, say the nervous majority, and if they regain their composure they will act, they will refuse the tinkering, the recklessness and the personality hype that is clouding the real direction our Chief is proposing we take. Americans must decide America’s destiny not its government.

Since no other country in the world has ever even offered such a thing to its people why should we be in hurry to become part of a new world order? That answer being understood the only remaining question is how long will it take for America to reclaim what America really is?

Rev. Michael Bresciani Most recent columns
Rev Michael Bresciani is a Christian author and a columnist for several online conservative and Christian news and commentary sites. His website is The Website for Insight covers current events, politics, Christianity, movie and book reports and much more. Americanprophet.org. Rev. Bresciani can be reached at: ampro@americanprophet.org
.
.
Note: Bolds added for emphasis. Blogman.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Treasury Secretary Facing a Defining Moment

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Timothy F. Geithner finds his plate is more than full.

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: March 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — All three of President Obama’s top economic advisers were on message when they appeared Sunday on separate television talk shows. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, they said, had concluded, based on lawyers’ advice, that he could not stop the $165 million in bonuses that the American International Group was even then doling out to hundreds of employees.

But when Mr. Geithner and other officials met at the White House that night, the president’s political advisers — who had agreed to the day’s message — decided the growing outcry left Mr. Obama no choice but to publicly second-guess his Treasury secretary.

The next morning on camera, the president said he had directed Mr. Geithner to find a legal way “to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”

Thus began perhaps the worst week in a string of bad weeks for the Treasury secretary. The mixed messages on A.I.G. gave further ammunition to critics who had begun questioning Mr. Geithner’s credibility as the administration’s point man on the economy, an essential commodity if he is to help restore consumer confidence.

Fair or not, questions about why Mr. Geithner did not know sooner about the A.I.G. bonuses and act to stop them threaten to overwhelm his achievements and undermine Mr. Obama’s overall economic agenda. The controversy comes as Mr. Geithner is about to announce details of the restructured bank rescue program, and it clouds prospects for more rescue funds that the administration is all but certain to need.

The once-heralded Wall Street credentials of Mr. Geithner, formerly the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were already marred by false starts in revamping the Bush administration’s bank rescue program, even as his perceived closeness to financiers and unease with populist politics left Main Street skeptical.

On Wednesday, a junior Republican in Congress and some traders on Wall Street went so far as to call for him to quit or be fired. The Republican leader of the House, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, told a conservative talk-radio host that the secretary is “on thin ice.”

But Mr. Geithner’s boss, the president, interjected a vote of “complete confidence.”

“Tim Geithner didn’t draft these contracts with A.I.G.,” Mr. Obama told reporters on the White House lawn as he left for California on Wednesday. “There has never been a secretary of the Treasury, except maybe Alexander Hamilton right after the Revolutionary War, who’s had to deal with the multiplicity of issues that Secretary Geithner is having to deal with — all at the same time.”

“He is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand,” the president continued. “And what we need to be doing is making sure that we are providing him the support that he needs.”

Mr. Geithner is shouldering more crises on his slight frame than most Treasury secretaries ever have. And he is doing so without the usual complement of Treasury assistants because of administration delays in vetting potential nominees — a consequence in part of its efforts to avoid embarrassments like the disclosures of Mr. Geithner’s past tax lapses, which nearly doomed his nomination.

Since before his confirmation in late January, Mr. Geithner has juggled a crushing workload: overhauling the Bush administration’s discredited financial bailout program; helping with Mr. Obama’s nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan; and managing the government effort to salvage the auto industry.

Mr. Geithner is now fashioning a new federal regulatory structure for the financial industry to replace the one that failed. He has developed a housing program that aims to avert up to nine million more foreclosures, and programs for getting credit flowing to small businesses and consumers as well as the major financial giants.

At 47, the same age as the president, Mr. Geithner works out at 5:30 a.m., gets to his desk by 6:30 and leaves 15 hours later.

On Tuesday last week, as he prepared for a meeting in London of the finance ministers of the Group of 20 nations, Mr. Geithner learned that A.I.G. by Sunday would send out the bonuses to employees at its financial products unit, which developed the risky derivatives now blamed for the global credit crisis.

With few senior political appointees on hand, the word came from one of the numerous career civil servants who keep the Treasury functioning through changes of administration, according to an official.

Mr. Geithner consulted lawyers. They told him the government could not override the contracts that the insurance conglomerate had signed in early 2008, when its financial products unit already was fast losing money.

On Wednesday evening, Mr. Geithner called A.I.G.’s government-appointed chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, and demanded that he renegotiate payments. The next morning, Mr. Geithner informed White House advisers. Later that day a senior adviser, David Axelrod, informed the president.

On Friday, Mr. Liddy said he could not block the bonuses; he did agree to reduce future executive bonuses set for July 15 and Sept. 15. With Mr. Geithner in London, Treasury officials tried to manage the potential criticism by leaking word to selected news media on Saturday. On Sunday, the economic advisers went on TV.

The A.I.G. tempest has been especially explosive for Mr. Geithner because, as president of the New York Fed, he was the one administration official who had been involved in the Bush-era bailouts.

Once A.I.G. was under the Fed’s control, its executive compensation plans hardly came up, according to officials.

For all the furor, “ultimately we will all be judged by whether we get out of this economic mess,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, “and Tim, with his intelligence, experience and dedication is the best guy to get us out.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19geithner.html?_r=1&hp
.

Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG

Dan Spencer
Right Side Politics Examiner

AP Photo/Ron Edmonds


Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG

March 17, 3:01 PM

Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:

"A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all."

With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.

Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?

For more info: Obama's A.I.G. crocodile tearsAIG to America: screw you

Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Bracing for a Bailout Backlash

Karin Cooper/CBS, via Associated Press
Lawrence H. Summers on “This Week” called new bonuses at A.I.G. outrageous.


News Analysis
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: March 15, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is increasingly concerned about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate President Obama’s agenda.
The administration’s sharp rebuke of the American International Group on Sunday for handing out $165 million in executive bonuses — Lawrence H. Summers, director of the president’s National Economic Council, described it as “outrageous” on “This Week” on ABC — marks the latest effort by the White House to distance itself from abuses that could feed potentially disruptive public anger.

“We’ve got enormous problems that need to be addressed,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said in an interview. “And it’s hard to address because there’s a lot of anger about the irresponsibility that led us to this point.”
This has been welling up for a long time,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s aides said any surge of such a sentiment could complicate efforts to win Congressional approval for the additional bailout packages that Mr. Obama has signaled will be necessary to stabilize the banking system.

As it is, there have already been moves in Congress to limit compensation to executives at banks and Wall Street firms that are receiving government help to survive.

Beyond that, a shifting political mood challenges Mr. Obama’s political skills, as he seeks to acknowledge the anger without becoming a target of it. A central question for Mr. Obama is whether his cool style — “in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger,” he said in his address to Congress last month — will prove effective when the country may be feeling more emotional.

Even as Mr. Summers was denouncing A.I.G. for the bonuses, he suggested that there was little if anything the government could do to stop them, seconding the conclusion of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. But even if their reasoning was legally sound, they also risked having the administration look ineffectual in the face of what Mr.
Summers said was the worst financial abuse of the last 18 months, since the economy began turning down in earnest.

“Never underestimate the capacity of angry populism in times of economic stress,” said Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. “A big challenge for President Obama will be to maintain a rational and tactical public discussion in the midst of this severe downturn. The desire for culprits at times like this is strong.”

In a further development, A.I.G. on Sunday named dozens of financial institutions that benefited from its huge rescue loan from the Federal Reserve last fall. The list included Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia.
On Monday, the White House is expected to unveil proposals to help small businesses, an effort to make clear that the administration is not only focusing its attentions on Wall Street and big corporations like the automakers.

But the financial crisis is the most acute problem facing the administration, one it will not be able to play down. Christina D. Romer, the White House’s chief economist, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC that the administration was close to unveiling details of its plan to remove the worst of the bad assets from the books of banks, a move sure to refocus attention on winners and losers from bailouts.

The disclosure that A.I.G., which has received $170 billion in government assistance to remain afloat and avert a cascade of failures in the financial system, is paying bonuses to its executives is the latest in a series of episodes that Mr. Obama’s aides said seemed to be feeding a resurgence of public anger.

The public responded angrily to previous disclosures of large bonuses on Wall Street, to auto executives who flew on corporate jets to Washington for Congressional bailout hearings, and to last week’s face-off between Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” and Jim Cramer, the CNBC financial commentator, over the network’s reporting on the crisis.

“There’s unquestionably a strong populist surge out there,” said Joel Benenson, Mr. Obama’s pollster, citing his own polls and focus groups. “It’s been brewing for close to four years. For the last two years, Americans were clearly indicating that they believe that one of the biggest obstacles to progress on America’s toughest challenges — notably health care and energy independence — was the influence of special interests and corporate interests on the agenda in Washington.”

A New York Times/CBS News Poll in February found that 83 percent of respondents said the government should cap the amount of compensation earned by executives of companies that are getting federal assistance.

Mr. Obama’s advisers argued that to at least some extent, this was a sentiment they could tap to push through his measures in Congress, including raising taxes on the wealthy. They pointed out that in his speech to Congress, Mr. Obama denounced corporations that “use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet.”

“The president has been very clear about this,” Mr. Axelrod said. “There is reason for anger, but we also have to solve the problem. We need a functioning credit system. That’s our responsibility, and he intends to meet it.”

Still, aides acknowledged the risks of a backlash as Mr. Obama tries to signal that he shares American anger but pushes for more bail-out money for banks and Wall Street.

For all his political skills and his capturing of the nation’s desire for change in the 2008 election, Mr. Obama, a product of Harvard Law School who calls upscale Hyde Park in Chicago home, has shown little inclination to strike a more populist tone. The danger, aides said, is that if he were to become identified as an advocate for the banks and Wall Street, people could take out their anger on him.

“The change now is you have a free-floating economic anxiety that has expressed itself in a kind of lashing out at those being bailed out and people who are bailing out,” Michael Kazin, a professor at Georgetown University who has written extensively on populism. “There’s not really a sense of what the solution is.”

“I do think there’s a potential for a ‘damn everybody in power’ kind of sentiment,” Mr. Kazin said.
.
.
Note: Highlights and italics (the ubiquitous GEORGETOWN) added for emphasis.
,