BONUS look back at Rep. Charlie Rangel. Remember when he called VP candidate Sara Palin “Disabled”? Nice, huh?

Back to the article. I am so disgusted, words fail me. “DISCLOSURE PROBLEMS”?? That’s how our Congress refers to powerful members cheating on their taxes?? Now I know how Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat, was confirmed to head up the Treasury Department, and thus the IRS. Check this out:

Many members” of Congress suffer from the same disclosure issues as Rep. Charles Rangel (D.N.Y.), one of his allies said Wednesday.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) downplayed the seriousness of allegations against Rangel that he failed to disclose sources of income and pay taxes on some properties, saying that many lawmakers suffer from innocent lapses in judgment when filing mandatory financial disclosure forms.

“I want to tell you, there are many members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years, you’re going to find that there were disclosures that were not made,” Waters said during an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning.

Republicans are seeking to force Rangel from his position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee by offering a privileged resolution from Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) to mandate Rangel step aside.

If it is truly only Republicans, that does not speak well for Democrats, in my opinion. Why wouldn’t they be concerned that the most powerful member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the very committee that set tax law, did not pay his taxes?? Is it just me? At least as far as Rep. Waters is concerned, it appears so:

Waters defended Rangel, saying the Harlem congressman is making an effort to correct the records and pay his debts.

“What happens is, unfortunately with the requirements for disclosure that we all have, mistakes are made,” she said. “And you do get a chance to correct them. And so it looks as if he is correcting those mistakes.”

Waters said that Rangel should not step down from his chairmanship, but should continue working until ethics investigations into his finances have concluded.

Only after he was CAUGHT. It isn’t like he just failed to adequately report taxes one time. No, it was under-reporting some years, and failure to report at all other years. It is behavior that, if perpetrated by someone NOT in Congress (or the Secretary of the Treasury) would land them with a ton of fines at the LEAST. But when it’s the person actually writing the tax laws, the message is clear: “These laws apply to thee, not to me.” Evidently. And, with the perk of getting backup from the very people who SHOULD be holding them accountable. All I can say is, there oughta be a law. Oh, wait…

And what is this BS about “the rules for disclosure”?? How about having a CPA do your taxes, or use TurboTax or something! It isn’t like Rangel, and most of these Congresspeople can’t afford to have someone do their taxes for them. Sheesh.

Can you imagine using that excuse with the IRS? Yeah, they’d be laughing at you all the way to your jail cell.

Have the Democrats always this corrupt, or have they ratcheted that up recently? Maybe they always were, and they are just being more blatant about it now? I don’t see how anyone could listen to Rep. Waters “everybody’s doing it!” defense as anything else but corrupt when talking about the most powerful person setting tax law repeatedly cheating on his taxes. But that could just be me…

And while he is only ruling on these seven companies, his determination is binding and will no doubt cause ripple across the financial world.

So the question now becomes, how big of a wave is this administration willing to make?

Robert Reich, for one, does not have high hopes of being impressed. And finds it a troubling indicator of other reform measures for both Wall Street and health care by the Obama administration. There are “Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform: The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration may not be willing or able to stare them down.”

Second only to healthcare reform as a test of Obama’s toughness and resolve is reform of Wall Street. And like the healthcare industry, Wall Street has platoons of lobbyists and an almost unlimited war chest to protect its interests and prevent change. So what can we learn by what’s going on now, regarding pay for the top brass at big “too big to fail” banks?

…Tragically, Treasury has already given in on this one.

Somehow, I thinking Main Street might find stronger adjective to express their disappointment/anger/frustration then does Mr. Reich.

But beyond the lack of emotion he gives sound reasoning for why these pay decisions are wrong. And also why they really matter for both their political and financial ramifications.

… In judging whether a proposed pay package is appropriate, Treasury has decided to be guided by “comparable” pay packages in the industry. This means Ken Feinberg, appointed as special master to decide on a case-by-case basis, will be the flak-catcher. …

“Comparable” pay is a ridiculous standard to begin with, and the argument that $10 million, or even $7 million, is necessary to keep talent is absurd on its face. …Wall Street has exhibited a truly astonishing lack of talent. … Without these [taxpayer] bailouts, there’d be no “talent” because there’d be no Goldman, no Citi, no Street.

…The whole system of “comparable” pay is propped up by a zero-sum self-perpetuating competition in which the price of so-called “talent” is determined by how much every other bank is willing to pay for “talent.” If every bank decided to pay $1 million, that would be the “comparable” price of talent on the Street. I mean, it’s not as if this economy has so many other $1 million-a-year positions begging for Wall Street executives and traders.

Personally, I think the taxpayers should vote on pay since we were forced into becoming shareholders. And I’m thinking the taxpayers might find $1 million far too expensive.

And then there is moral hazard of pay for the “too big to fail.” Which only reinforces the non-reforming reform strategy of this administration. One would think that eliminating “too big to fail” would have been the first reform. But back to Reich:

The fact that these big banks have been judged “too big to fail” means their top executives and traders know they can take even bigger risks now, because we taxpayers will bail them out. So inevitably part of their firm’s earnings, based on such risk-taking, now come as a result of this public insurance policy. When risks pay off, as many are doing now that the stock market is showing signs of life, they reap large rewards. When the risks turn really bad, you and I and other taxpayers will pick up the pieces.

The insurance these “too big to fail” banks are receiving makes them more like public utilities than private firms. As such, not only is it entirely appropriate for government to review their pay but also to make sure pay is kept within strict bounds … earning just about what the top brass of any public utility earns (which, when I last looked, ranged from $100,000 to $600,000).

The big banks have a choice, of course. They could opt out of the “too big to fail” system. They could break themselves apart (or invite antitrust agencies to do the breaking for them) so they were no longer too big to fail and won’t be bailed out the next time they make hugely stupid mistakes. Then they could award their executives and traders as much money as they wanted and as the market would bear — because then they’d be part of the free market instead of wards of the state.

I thinking Main Street is learning that “free market” is an oxymoron for taxpayers. Nothing is “free”. It’s only a matter of who is pays. And we the people are paying, and paying, and paying.

As usual, Dylan Ratigan and his Morning Meeting group have some interesting things to say about Wall Street compensation.

________

_____________

Well, Obama has figured out a way to deal with the massive debt under which we are staggering. And no, not another “czar,” though that would not be a surprise at this point. Not this time, but this may be one of the best plans he has ever had. And it comes to you via The Onion:

U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt

Can’t you just see it now? I wonder what roll Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, et al, will play in that “coup”?? I welcome your suggestions.

Well, welcome to the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam Economy where there is none other than President Obama working the budgetball around in true four corners fashion. The Associated Press reports White House Putting Off Budget Update:

The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today’s bleak landscape.

The administration’s annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama’s budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.

The release of the update – usually scheduled for mid-July – has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town Aug. 7 on its summer recess.

Who is playing ball with Barack? Tim Geithner, Peter Orszag, Larry Summers, and Austan Goolsbee, along with every other member of his administration. No surprise. The question begs, though, who is playing defense to expose this purely partisan political stall tactic?

Why is Obama “dribbling around” and dishing the budgetball into the corners? Little doubt he is concerned that public opinion will continue to turn against his increased deficit spending across the entire spectrum of his programs, primarily health care.

Obama is obviously hoping he can score a backdoor layup on healthcare shortly before Congress goes out for their August recess and without having to explain to the public just how bleak the economic landscape appears.

The AP reports:

The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.5 percent in June and appears headed for double digits.

Obama’s current forecast anticipates 3.2 percent growth next year, then 4 percent or higher growth from 2011 to 2013. Private forecasts are less optimistic, especially for next year.

Any downward revision in growth or revenue projections would mean that budget deficits would be far higher than the administration is now suggesting.

Recall that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently projected a less than robust .8 reading for the United States GDP in 2010. I highlighted the disparities in economic projections from the IMF, CBO, and OMB in writing “GDP Projections from IMF, CBO, OMB.”

With a figure anywhere close to the IMF projection, the federal deficit will soar and the ‘tax train’ will be coming ’round the bend!!

Obama is certainly not the first President to try a ‘four corners’ approach in delivering bad news. That said, our economy is screaming for transparency at this time.

A four corners approach to budgetball is not only boring, but also economically unhealthy. Let’s start with truth, transparency, and integrity and go from there.

LD

The average Goldman worker could end up taking home more than 10 times the typical American family’s income.

Woohoo – aren’t you SO proud that your money has helped to buoy up this company? Let’s just make clear what that means with the whole salary thing:

Were the firm to set aside bonuses at the same rate in the second half, the compensation pool would hit a record $22.8 billion — and the average Goldman worker would stand to make $773,000 for 2009, more than doubling their 2008 take.

That would eclipse the $662,000 Goldman spent on its average worker in 2007, according to the firm’s regulatory filings. Median household income was $50,233 in 2007, according to the most recent Census Bureau data, while mean income — the apples-to-apples comparison — was $67,608.

And there ya have it. Doesn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? The AVERAGE worker made close to $700,000!!!! Gee – I wonder how that compares to MOST people in this country? And how many of US got bailouts??

Hmmm, I wonder just what they are going to do with all of that money? One of my favorite satirists, Andy Borowitz, had an idea in this post:

Goldman Sachs in Talks to Acquire Treasury Department: Sister Entities to Share Employees, Money

In what some on Wall Street are calling the biggest blockbuster deal in the history of the financial sector, Goldman Sachs confirmed today that it was in talks to acquire the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

According to Goldman spokesperson Jonathan Hestron, the merger between Goldman and the Treasury Department is “a good fit” because “they’re in the business of printing money and so are we.”

The Goldman spokesman said that the merger would create efficiencies for both entities: “We already have so many employees and so much money flowing back and forth, this would just streamline things.”

Mr. Hestron said the only challenge facing Goldman in completing the merger “is trying to figure out which parts of the Treasury Dept. we don’t already own.”

Goldman recently celebrated record earnings by roasting a suckling pig over a bonfire of hundred-dollar bills.

Well, that’s a bit mixed – on the one hand, they cannot do a worse job than Timmy Geithner, right? So yeah – taking over the Treasury Department might not be all that bad.

On the other hand, well, just more of our tax dollars going to roast those suckling pigs, and I don’t even EAT pork! Sheesh.

Oh, Borowitz finishes out his column with these two tidbits:

Elsewhere, conspiracy theorists celebrated the 40th anniversary of NASA faking the moon landing.

And in South Carolina, Gov. Mark Sanford gave his wife a new diamond ring, while his wife gave him an electronic ankle bracelet.

Now, I can SURE see that happening with Mark and Jenny, can’t you?? Uh, yeah…Too bad she didn’t think of that before! Live and learn, I reckon…

Don’t you just LOVE our new government?? It hands out money like candy to all the wrong people, and then wants more sacrifices from US. It’s gonna be a long 3 1/2 years, isn’t it?

Wow. This is but one of the profound statements made by Dr. Jones throughout the course of Bill Moyers’ “Journal: Faith and Social Justice,” which also included Dr. Cornel West, formerly of Union, now at Princeton University, and Dr. Gary Dorrien, from Union. There is a video of the show, which can be seen HERE, and is from which all further quotes are taken (thanks, SusanUnPC, for the link).

Back to President Jones for a moment, though. In Union Theological Seminary’s 172 year history, she is the FIRST woman to hold this post. I wrote about her way back in April, 2008, “Is This A Sign Of Things To Come??” Of course, now we know that the Powers-That-Be made sure it wasn’t, but a girl has to have her dreams, and that was mine at the time. (Now, it is that Secretary Clinton can get out before her ability to affect change has been marginalized beyond recognition. As in, she should be in Russia right now – just sayin’.) President Jones has a distinguished resume, including teaching at Yale for the past 17 years, at the university as well as the law school. She is an impressive woman, brilliant mind, yet the kindness and warmth exude from her like, well, like it does from Hillary. Or as one might expect from someone who is the head of, and teaches at, a seminary preparing students for ministry.

Union has long had a history of social justice in the world. One might say that is its calling, or the calling of the students who attend it. During my time there, we were able to get the Board of Trustees to divest assets in South Africa, still in the throes of apartheid at that time. Many of the students worked in soup kitchens, engaged in protests on a variety of issues, and dealt with the AIDS crisis as it first erupted in New York City. In addition to that, because it was understood that language shapes reality, all classroom discussion, all papers, and all worship services HAD to be in inclusive language. It was an amazing environment in which to learn, though it made it rather difficult in the world at large in which language was certainly not all inclusive, or in which women did not hold prominent positions Even then, though, we had a number of outstanding professors in women’s theology, ethics, and Hebrew Scriptures. Thankfully, those numbers continue to increase among the faculty. (Photo by wallyg)

So, it is in that environment that this discussion took place with Bill Moyers moderating. Bear in mind, these are Christians, and that is the place from which they move in the world. BUT – that being said, they may not be the kinds of Christians you are used to hearing from, thus why I encourage you to listen to the whole video, if you have the time and inclination.

This is what followed the statements made by Dr. Jones above:

BILL MOYERS: And that’s the trade union movement you talked about.

SERENE JONES: That’s what love is.

CORNEL WEST: That’s the woman’s movement. That’s the gay and lesbian movement.

SERENE JONES: You put it in policy forms.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the love that, that’s what holds you in the struggle, you know. Even if you’re not succeeding, you know.

CORNEL WEST: Allowing you to sustain and do.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the energy. It propels you into a struggle in which you might not be succeeding.

BILL MOYERS: You remind me that all three of you come out of what, once upon a time, was called the Social Gospel movement. The movement to apply Christian ethical principles to society. And wasn’t that a response to the first round of economic collapse in the early part of the last century?

GARY DORRIEN: There is something new that started in the 1880s with the Social Gospel. You have a sociological consciousness itself that there’s such a thing as social structure. And so, well, if there’s such a thing as social structure then now there’s something that’s just different.

That makes the equation different. That it’s not just a question of bringing people to Jesus who will then transform society. But rather salvation itself has to be conceived, not just in personal, but social-structural terms. So, with the Social Gospel movement in the 1880s, you do, for the first time, see preaching and theology in which Christian salvation is being talked about as including making movements toward the change of social structures themselves in the direction of something that’s now being called social justice.

CORNEL WEST: There’s a sense of-

GARY DORRIEN: Because even the term social justice is only coined during that very same period.

BILL MOYERS: But the Social Gospel tradition was, in itself, overwhelmed by the materialism of the last part of the 20th century and by the turbo capitalism that you were talking about enshrined in Thomas Freidman’s icon. I mean, the Social Gospel was not sufficient to sustain itself against the power of economics and, in fact, structural wealth. Right?

CORNEL WEST: Right. That’s true.

SERENE JONES: But I think we can never underestimate the crisis of desire. That it wasn’t just that there was – it didn’t have enough social strength, or a good enough analysis. That what turbo capitalism does, is it – the biggest, sort of, war zone is interior to us – where it takes over your desire. It makes you into a creature who wants to buy the commodities. So you could have a great political analysis. But what you’re doing, on the ground every day, is you’re fueling this turbo capitalism. And it’s in the churches that another kind of desire should have been being crafted. That’s where you can get people in their bones and really begin to force the question of, what is it that you want? What makes you happy? What makes your life mean? What, you know, it’s those deep questions of want.

“Turbo capitalism” – what a concept that is. I think we have seen that operating on Wall Street and in our banks (which was the discussion preceding this one). Here is a good bit of the discussion on Obama. Now, I should say that early on, as I understand it, West was a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s. Clearly, he has moved to back Obama, but critically so, as he points out in this discussion. There is more about Obama, but for space reasons, I am limiting that part of the discussion to this:

BILL MOYERS: You said the age of Obama is about everyday people. And you asked the question: how do we unleash their power? What’s the evidence that that’s happening?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think it’s a very complicated situation. Because, of course, the age of Obama actually emerges with a discredited Republican party in disarray. With a mediocre Democratic party that only had the Clinton machine at the center. And if this charismatic, brilliant, young, black brother can somehow get over the Clinton machine, he can become president.

That’s why I supported him. Critically! A Socratic, prophetic, orientation toward the brother, right? Because he becomes the initiator of a new age. We had to bring the age of Reagan to a close. The era of conservatism had to be brought to a close. Thank God it was. But then the question will be, well, is he going to focus on the poor and working people? Will he recycle neo-liberal elites from the old establishment of Wall Street – which the economic team is?

BILL MOYERS: We know the answer to that.

CORNEL WEST: We know the answer to that.

BILL MOYERS: Right after the election, you were-

CORNEL WEST: Will he recycle the same neo-imperial elites when it comes to foreign policy. I know he’s dealing with tremendous power. Wall Street. Congress. And so forth, and so on. I understand the political considerations. People have the right to organize. Lobbies have a right to bring power and pressure to bear. That’s what American democracy’s about.

But that’s not truth. That’s not the same as prophetic witness to truth. Especially as Christians, you see. So that the critique launched against Barack Obama, be it Gaza, be it Darfur, be it in Ethiopia, be it wherever. It has to be put forward. That is the calling of prophetic Christians.

GARY DORRIEN: Well, I wouldn’t even give him the out that Cornel just gave him. Because I think, in fact, he could stay in his lane and do way better than he has on the economy, and also on scaling back the military empire.

So, on those two things, to be so solicitous of Wall Street, to have treatment of the banks that’s just absurdly favorable to their interests, and refusing to clear out shareholders, and refusing to get to the bottom of it.

And also in his just utter refusal to really face up to the cost and extent of the military empire that, even though he notes in this book, “The Audacity of Hope,” is outspending the next 25 nations combined in the military. He says in the next paragraph, and he has continued on this line, that we need to expand it further. So we’ve got nothing coming on sort of pulling back on that issue as well. On the other hand, you can’t say that this has been a cautious president overall.

I mean, it’s quite amazing that he is taking on virtually everything one way or another at the same time. So he has – there’s been a fair amount of audacity in deciding that this is his moment. There’s not going to be a better moment to come along anyway.

If he’s going to do something about health care, or a number of issues. Dealing with Iran, maybe make a breakthrough with Cuba. That he’s got to put his cards on the table now and get what he can.

BILL MOYERS: You said, after the election, “We want to give him time. We want to give him room.” And my question to you is: how much room and how much time?

CORNEL WEST: Well, the first thing we want to do, we want to protect him, and he and his precious family. Second thing we want to do, we want to make sure all the criticism is fair, so it’s not ad hominids, it’s not personal. It’s not racist. It’s not whatever, you see.

At the same time, he is subject to all the same requirements of truth and justice as any other president, any color. So my criticism out of love for, not just the people, but Barack Obama himself. How my criticism help him? Give him strength? He plans to be progressive Lincoln. Fine. That’s difficult. He will be helped by more progressive Frederick Douglasses. That’s what I aspire to.

BILL MOYERS: Do you see the-

CORNEL WEST: To help him push him in a progressive direction.

BILL MOYERS: Do you hear those voices coming from his left? We know about them from the right. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh. We all know them.

CORNEL WEST: Well, the voices are there! Paul Krugman, and Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Ben Barber and William Greider and Ron Walters. The voices are there. He’s not yet listening. That’s the difference. Lincoln listened to Douglass, Garrison. Brother Barack Obama, he is listening too much to Summers, Thurman, Geithner. We can go right down the neo liberal list. That’s dangerous if he wants to be a progressive president.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you think that is?

SERENE JONES: I think one of the reasons that it happens is that we are living in a very overwhelming time. And it’s always going to be the case that a conservative familiar neo liberal agenda sounds safer.

Because it’s what we know. But the truth of the matter is what we know is what got us in trouble in the first place. So it’s one of those moments that everybody faces in their own life. We happen to be facing it structurally right now. Is everything collapses, what do we do? In the midst of that fear, do we grasp for what’s most familiar? That’s what’s happening. But the very thing you’re grasping for is the thing that got you there in the first place.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

SERENE JONES: It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

There is so much more to this discussion. But for me, it is heartening to know that these kinds of discussions are taking place at all. I hope that their being Christians didn’t put you off, because what they say really transcends what their particular faith system is (and I say that as someone who is not Christian, myself). I am glad that people like this are keeping a watchful eye on Obama, and I think they make good partners with us as we try to reclaim our country from where Obama and his Wall Street cronies are trying to take us.

I began with the words of President Jones, and now I’d like to conclude with them as well. I think these are good words to live by in general, and especially in these days:

It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

How interesting that on the day of a $19 billion 10yr Treasury auction, Uncle Sam’s fifth largest foreign creditor has indicated it will reduce its holdings of U.S. Treasurys.

Who might this investor be? Why would they make this assertion? Let’s navigate.

The investor is Russia. As reported by the WSJ, Russia, Supply Fears Gang Up on Treasurys:

The Interfax news agency reported that Russian central bank Deputy Chairman Alexei Ulyukayev said Russia plans to reduce the proportion of foreign exchange reserves it invests in U.S. Treasury bonds. Mr. Ulyukayev said reserves are just over 30% invested in U.S. Treasurys at present, but didn’t specify by how much that figure would fall.

Russia is the fifth-largest foreign owner of Treasurys, according to data from the U.S. Treasury Department. In March, Russia lifted its holdings in Treasurys to $138.4 billion from $130.1 billion in February.

What is going on here? I find this development interesting from a number of angles, including:

1. The fact that Ulyukayev made this statement mere hours before Uncle Sam is selling $19 billion 10yr notes, followed tomorrow by a sale of $11 billion 30yr bonds is the height of “financial aggression.” In layman’s terms, Ulyukayev just spit in Secretary Geithner’s face. What’s up with that? Brinksmanship!!

2. Russia’s equity markets have rallied tremendously this year. Why? Russia is predominantly an oil-based economy. Oil has effectively doubled in price (now approximately $70/barrel from $38/barrel in mid-February) over the last 5 months. Oil transactions are made in U.S. dollars. Thus, Russia is VERY HEAVILY exposed to the U.S. dollar already.

Disciplined and prudent investment management dictates that Russia should diversify their exposures.

3. Political winds are shifting the global balance of power ever eastward. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Russian President Medvedev have both called for a shift in the global reserve currency from the dollar to an IMF issued currency. This statement by Ulyukayev is in sync with Jiabao and Medvedev.

What does it mean for Uncle Sam? All other things being equal, the price to finance our operations here in the United States is going higher.

LD

Basically, the Germans wanted an adult in the room as opposed to the adolescent they got:

Hillary Clinton has intervened in talks over the future of Opel and Vauxhall at the request of German ministers as the American Government unveiled plans to sink more taxpayers’ funds into the European carmakers’ US parent, General Motors (GM).

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Finance Minister, spoke by telephone today with Mrs Clinton to seek “support in the search for a solution,” his spokesman said. Mrs Clinton pledged to intervene to demand “the greatest possible American support” from Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, the spokesman added.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the Economics Minister, also denounced the US Treasury for dispatching a junior official who had to consult Washington through a video link at regular intervals during the night.

Mr Guttenberg said the talks had been “absurd in parts” and demanded “more seriousness and a greater willingness to compromise on the part of the US.”

It is also hoped that developments today in the US could pave the way for smoother negotiations with the two preferred bidders – Fiat, the Italian car group, and Magna, the Canadian components maker.

Nothing like insulting one of our big allies and business partners by sending some flunky to do a woman’s job. Ahem.

As for the rest of the article, some of this may have changed – who knows? I guess it depends on whatever mood Obama is in today and just how much control he is handing over to the union that bought him, but here it is:

GM’s biggest bondholders have agreed to a new offer to wipe out the automaker’s debt, raising hopes that the carmaker will make a quick exit from the now inevitable move into bankruptcy.

Bondholders that own about 20 per cent of GM’s $27.2 billion of unsecured debt agreed to wipe out the borrowings in return for a 10 per cent stake in the company and warrants to buy a further 15 per cent of the equity in the new business.

They had previously rejected an offer of a flat 10 per cent because the United Auto Workers (UAW) union had been promised more equity – 17.5 per cent – for a smaller $20 billion debt.

The remainder of GM’s debt investors, which include individuals and pension funds, have until Saturday afternoon to agree to the new offer.

If they do not support the offer, forcing GM into a contentious bankruptcy, the Government has warned that bondholders will be all but wiped out.

In exchange for the improved payout, creditors must agree not to oppose a move to sell GM’s profitable assets to a new company funded by the Government in a fast-track bankruptcy process.

Just a teensy weensy little reminder – when they talk about wiping out GM’s debt, that’s all the money WE paid to bail them out because they were “to big to fail.” So, all those BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money that Obama was handing out like candy to them? Poof – GONE!!!!

And then, add to that, the government going into the automobile business – as if it knows ANYTHING about it:

GM’s filing also revealed that the Government’s stake in the restructured company would be 72.5 per cent, much larger than the 50 per cent it was expected to be handed in return for forgiving some of the bailout cash it has provided the company.

The bigger stake is likely to increase the cost of GM’s bankruptcy to taxpayers, which is estimated to reach as high as $50 billion.

Overnight negotiations over the future of the US carmaker’s European operation broke down when GM sought more funding for Opel despite Germany’s pledge to provide billions of euros in state guarantees as well as a €1.5 billion bridging loan.

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary today reiterated the British government’s support for Vauxhall but said it was too early to comment on what funding the UK may provide since talks over Opel needed to be resolved first.

He also said that unlike Opel, Vauxhall was not in desperate need of funding.

Lord Mandelson has extracted promises from both Fiat and Opel over the future of Vauxhall and British jobs.

Although the Business Secretary has conceded that GM Europe suffers from excess costs and is selling vehicles into a depressed market, he has made clear that the amount of money that Britain will commit will depend on the level of job guarantees in the medium term and the long term.

“Each of the bids envisages government support, but we are some way off from a discussion about government’s role in any commercial outcome to these discussions,” he said.

The assurances represent a significant victory for Lord Mandelson, who has been desperate to make sure that the German Government does not give in to election-year pressure with a pledge to protect domestic jobs at the expense of those in the UK. Berlin’s view is crucial because it is being asked to stump up billions of euros in loan guarantees as part of any deal.

Magna calculates job losses of 9,000 across Europe – 2,500 of them in Germany. However, before a Chancellery meeting last night, Magna hinted that it could shift the production of the Opel Astra from Antwerp, Belgium, to Bochum, Germany. Under that scenario, job losses in Germany would total only 300.

Fiat has promised to cut fewer than 10,000 jobs in GM Europe. That could entail closing an engine factory in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Unions fear that overlapping of Fiat’s products with those of Opel and Vauxhall will mean that redundancies could be much higher than promised.

Whew. This is really a pickle, isn’t it? We have taken over, no – check that – OBAMA and the UAW have taken over a private business in this country, about which Obama, anyway, knows NOTHING. He is not a businessman, you know. The UAW is certainly a business – some might say a racket – which has ensured ITS pensions at the expense of ours. How is it that some Americans deserve to have one and others don’t?

That’s just one of those pesky little questions I am certain Obama would label as “Un-American,” just like he did the secured creditors to GM – you know, the Teachers Retirement Fund and State Police of Indiana, for example:

Maybe Obama should follow Germany’s example, and ask Secretary Clinton to figure this out for everyone – GM, the taxpayers, the UAW, everyone. Heck, she could probably design a more aerodynamic, fuel efficient vehicle, change the oil in everyone’s car, AND not rip off the taxpayers for billions of dollars all at the same time! Oh c’mon, you know she could!! In any event, it is sure worth a try.

I mean, really, if it is good enough for Germany to have her step in, it is surely good enough for us! No doubt she would do far better at this than Obama and the UAW are doing now. I say, bring her on!!

Someone PLEASE tell me how, in just FOUR SHORT MONTHS, Obama has managed to take over the banks, kick out the CEO of a private company, hand over a private company, financed with OUR money, to a union? Oh, and let’s not forget his handing over CA to another union, SEIU? How?? How has this happened???

Oh, wait – and how about those of us who pay back our credit card bills regularly now being saddled with having to support the losers who act in bad faith? Why do we have to constantly bail out, and ENABLE, those people who go over their means, be it credit cards or mortgages or car loans? And the Senate can stop acting like they give a crap about this issue – Obama VOTED to enable the credit card companies while a senator, along with many other Democrats. So just stop the charade – and stop laying the burden of irresponsible behavior on those of us who have good credit, or else WE might not have that any longer, either.

If you have not already read it, I recommend to you the following post by my good friend, SusanUnPC, “A Personal Note Only For Those Who Voted For Obama.” And I would add, not only “ditto,” but in the most pastoral way possible to those who did vote for Obama, you can just bite me for what you have unleashed on this country. If only there was a way to make only those people support the UAW/GM, pay the ne’er-do-wells’ credit card bills, etc.

Hmm – that’s a thought – let’s figure out how to do just that – let them pay for Obama’s taking over private companies, banks, and kowtowing to the unions (again – I am not anti-union in general, just when they try to take over states or private companies). A pipe dream, I know, but for this moment, it helps to keep my head from exploding…

Humpty’s most severe injury is the breakdown of the securitization process in which Wall Street promoted a pure “originate to distribute” model. Obama himself offered in the May 3rd Sunday New York Times Magazine:

. . . we’re going to have to figure out what we do with the nonbanking sector that was providing almost half of our credit out there. And we’re going to have to determine whether or not as a consequence of some of the steps that the Fed has been taking, the Treasury has been taking, that we see the market for securitized products restored.

I’m optimistic that ultimately we’re going to be able to get that part of the financial sector going again, but it could take some time to regain confidence and trust.

Time for the cement to harden and for Humpty to get back on his feet. Why will it take so much time? Very simply, Humpty was not an honest broker in the process of originating, securitizing, and distributing poorly written – if not fraudulently written – loans over the last 5 to 7 years. The Financial Times highlights this fact this morning in “Securitization Is Crucial for Revitalizing Lending.” The FT reports:

Securitisation is a way to raise money by repackaging securities based upon underlying assets such as mortgages.

The US government is seeking to restart this market with up to $1,000bn of funding for purchases of securitised debt. But the complexity and risks involved mean it remains difficult to replicate the scale of the market that collapsed under the weight of losses and the departure of leveraged investors.

Meredith Whitney, of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, says about $2,200bn less in funds has been raised by means of the US capital markets since the start of the credit crunch in July 2007, with $2,700bn less money raised globally.

She said: “With debt issuance to date seeing year-on-year gains, it is suggestive to say that things aren’t getting much worse. They just aren’t getting any better.”

The US government’s programme to revive securitisation – the Term asset-backed securities loan facility (Talf) – has made some funds available and it has also led spreads on some asset classes to narrow, reducing the potential funding costs. The programme works by lending money to hedge funds, which can increase the returns on triple A rated securities by means of the cheap loans.

In a sign of a big pick-up in demand, the Federal Reserve said late yesterday that investors requested $10.6bn worth of loans in its most recent round of the programme. This included $2.2bn worth of requests for auto loan bonds and $5.5bn for bonds backed by credit card loans.

If we review those statistics, the government’s TALF (Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility) has facilitated $18.5 billion in sales since its launch in March. While the Fed views the demand as picking up, be mindful that the $18.5 billion figure represents approximately .008 of the total credit that has evaporated from the economy via the shadow banking system. In layman’s terms, we just gave Humpty a swab with a warm cloth while his limb is holding on by a thread.

My concern with the TALF is that the buyers will cherry pick bank assets and simply purchase those which have the most rigorous underwriting. The dregs will be left for the banks and taxpayers to absorb.

If Uncle Sam does get Humpty somewhat propped back up against the wall (note that I’m not even hinting at Humpty getting “on the wall”), how do we make sure Humpty does not once again fall down and take us all with him?

We need to make sure Humpty plays by strict rules and regulations, both in terms of underwriting and business engagement. The FT addresses proposed underwriting rules in “Watchdog Proposes Strict Rules.” The FT reports,

Yesterday’s Iosco (International Organization of Securities Commissions) report called for minimum levels of due diligence by the originators and suggested mandating far greater disclosure to investors of what checks had been carried out. It also called for ongoing disclosure to investors of the performance of the underlying assets and for originators to be forced to hold on to some tranches of each deal.

Other proposals included imposing standards forcing originators to check that products were suitable for each investor and looking into developing alternative measures of assessing risk other than the credit ratings agencies that were relied on by investors previously.

Wow, you mean Humpty actually has to display a measure of integrity in his operations? What a novel idea! Who may be keeping an eye on Humpty to make sure he plays by the rules going forward? The SEC and FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority).

Hey, wait a second. When Humpty fell off the wall, we have very credible evidence that FINRA was actually one of his playmates. None other than Harry Markopolos said that FINRA was on the wall (”in bed”) with Humpty. I have highlighted issues within FINRA that still need to be addressed: FINRA Is Supposed To Police The Market.

President Obama, what do you prescribe for Humpty given his relationship with FINRA? Obama told the Times,

. . . the fact that we had such poor regulation means — in some of these markets, particularly around the securitized mortgages — means that the pain has been democratized as well. And that’s a problem. But I think that overall there are ways in which people have been able to participate in our stock markets and our financial markets that are potentially healthy. Again, what you have to have, though, is an updating of the regulatory regimes comparable to what we did in the 1930s, when there were rules that were put in place that gave investors a little more assurance that they knew what they were buying.

Putting Humpty back together is going to be very challenging. Sense on Cents will be monitoring the operation very closely.

LD

For newer readers who may want to more fully understand how Humpty “had a great fall,” I strongly recommend The Wall Street Model Is Broken….and Won’t Soon Be Fixed.

One of my favorite scenes in the movie occurs after the boys make the big heist. Immediately, the word is put out to keep your mouths shut and no indications of newfound wealth.

Back to reality. In terms of “putting the fix” into the world of our major money center banks, isn’t the relaxation of the mark-to- market the “newfound wealth”? Isn’t the “keep your mouths shut” the equivalent of the Treasury telling the banks not to comment on results of the Bank Stress Test? Speaking of the Bank Stress Tests, Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. Federal Reserve has told Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other banks to keep mum on the results of “stress tests” that will gauge their ability to weather the recession, people familiar with the matter said.

The Fed wants to ensure that the report cards don’t leak during earnings conference calls scheduled for this month. Such a scenario might push stock prices lower for banks perceived as weak and interfere with the government’s plan to release the results in an orderly fashion later this month.

Clearly the Fed and Treasury are trying to keep their “boys” quiet and lay low while the real regulators of the market, that being honest investors, are walking the beat.

If any of the boys talk, then the leaders of the family won’t be able to coordinate the stories and hoodwink the public.

Whatever happened to, “as long as you tell the truth, you don’t have to worry about having a bad memory”?

It seems we are operating much more in the realm of, “well, I can tell you but . . . ”

The Goodfellas: Henry Hill, Jimmy Conway, Paul Cicero, and Tommy DeVito

Henry . . . Jimmy . . . Paulie . . . Tommy . . .

Please let me know who in our government and world of finance are most appropriate to play each of these individuals? Let’s have some fun.

Remember when George Bush and Dick Cheney could rely on the many in the media to help them euphemize that dirty word, “torture?” It wasn’t torture, it was “enhanced interrogation.” That’s like calling the amputation of a leg, “enhanced skin removal below the waist.”

For those of you who were hoping for a new day. For those of you wanting change you could believe in. I have three words for you.

FORGET ABOUT IT!!

Today’s headline in the Washington Post, “GM Chief to Resign at White House’s Behest.” Great Marlon Brando’s ghost!! Talk about using language to cover up the truth. I guess it could have been worse. The White House could have said it made Wagoner an offer he couldn’t refuse. Did Luca Brasi pay Wagoner a visit? (If you have not seen the movie, The Godfather, you won’t have a clue what I’m talking about.)

Let’s be clear about what happened here. Barack Obama, somehow, is now in a position to fire the CEO of a publicly traded company. The phraseology employed to describe what happened to Wagoner reminds me of an observation from my friend Janet. Janet, who is from the midwest, noted that folks on the east coast frequently will complain by stating, “I have an issue.” Janet told me:

They may be issues on the east coast but in the midwest they are fucking problems.

The firing of Rick Wagoner was not made for any rational economic reason. This is pure politics, designed in part to portray Barack as a tough guy who is taking charge on the eve of his international debut at the G20 summit. Not a single person on the Obama economic team has ever run a business or met a payroll. Barack and his team of bozos could not find a Secretary of Treasury who felt it important to pay taxes and wanted to appoint Tom Daschle to run Health and Human Services even though he was a lobbyist taking freebies on the side. And these are the people who want us to believe that they know how to run a car company?

Well Barack, it is your baby now. You are in charge of GM and its fate. If it survives and prospers you will be doing the big booty shake as you celebrate your second inauguration. But if GM falters, no amount of obfuscation and murky language will be able to mask the stink of this turd.

Treasury announced last week that they would engage in buying hundreds of billions of government and mortgage securities in an attempt to move interest rates lower and spark consumer and corporate borrowing. Today, Treasury made their initial purchase under this program at mid-morning. Thanks to MB, I learned that Wall Street offered Treasury three times more bonds than Treasury actually purchased. I gather that Treasury wanted to be extremely patient and diligent in their purchases. In any event, at mid-morning the U.S. Treasury would have bought bonds near the market highs of the day.

Later in the day, Treasury issued multiple billions in 5yr notes. How did they do with this sale? Not very well. Wall Street backed up their bids an almost unheard of 5 basis points (.05%) to fully underwrite these bonds. What happened?

In talking with a few friends (thank you, gentlemen), speculation is that Wall Street backed their bids up by 5 basis points (total cost to Treasury of a not insignificant $78 million) for three reasons:

1. Concern that Treasury did not buy more bonds in the morning;

2. Concern over a failed 40 year U.K government bond auction. This failed auction highlights the overwhelming supply coming to market across global government markets, as well as the fiscal problems in the United Kingdom. (please see my earlier post/video clip today: Daniel Hannan Skewers Gordon Brown.)

3. Strong speculation that Wall Street was sending a clear signal to Treasury in response to proposed legislation taxing Wall Street executives at rates of 70% to 90%. Message delivered being that Washington needs Wall Street just as Wall Street may need Washington.

Don’t think that a situation like that could not happen. There is always pre-auction talk about potential strength or weakness of upcoming auctions. If word was getting around that an auction was expected to tail (go poorly), it often can become a self-fulfilling prophecy without it being a coordinated conspiracy.

LD