Elizabeth Warren

Truth, transparency, and integrity!

If our nation is to have any chance to recover from the throes of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, it had better start elevating and embracing these aforementioned virtues. Time and time again, when we review business practices and political decisions at the center of our crisis, we have seen a glaring lack of these prized virtues. Why and how were these principles compromised? The pursuit of short term profit. Regrettably, this pursuit came at the expense — if not total violation — of these principles. The ultimate long term costs are now being borne by the nation as a whole.

Sense on Cents abhors those who would compromise these core values. Similarly, Sense on Cents embraces those who cherish these values. To that end, I strongly endorse Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Make no mistake, the pursuit of truth, transparency, and integrity in the course of business is not always an easy proposition. People and institutions who believe they benefit by compromising these principles and accompanying practices will fight hard and spend big money to protect their turf and short term profits. America badly needs an individual who will stand firm and fight hard in return. There is no doubt that Elizabeth Warren is the right person at this point in our nation’s history to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

While Elizabeth is the strongest candidate to head this agency, we learn a lot about our current economic crisis and the Wall Street-Washington incest that lies at its core by witnessing who is working behind the scenes to keep Warren from this post. Who is representing those who would seemingly benefit by a continued blurring if not blinding of our prized virtues in pursuit of short term profits? Reports indicate that none other than Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is working to block Warren from this critically important post at this critically important time. The Huffington Post reports, Tim Geithner Opposes Nominating Elizabeth Warren to Lead New Consumer Agency:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner’s views.

The financial reform bill passed by the Senate on Thursday mandates the creation of a new federal entity charged with protecting consumers from predatory lenders.

But if Geithner has his way, the most prominent advocate for creating the agency may not be picked to lead it.

Warren has been aggressive in putting Geithner and other members of the Obama administration and Congress on the spot in her attempt to generate the transparency needed to understand and expose the practices that caused our economic crisis. She has shown no allegiances other than to our prized virtues and in turn our nation as a whole. Clearly, Geithner has conflicting interests.

We will learn a LOT about President Obama at this point in time. If he chooses not to appoint Elizabeth Warren in the face of the pressure applied by Geithner and in turn the Wall Street banks, we will know for sure that Wall Street still owns Washington.

We have ample evidence that Treasury Secretary Geithner is a compromised individual who is largely beholden to the large Wall Street banks. His attempts to sabotage Ms. Warren’s elevation to head the CFPA confirms that.

President Obama, what’s it going to be?

Will you choose the ‘tough as nails’ Elizabeth Warren, who has shown she will work doggedly for the nation? Or, will you placate Secretary Geithner, pay lip service to the American public, and confirm Wall Street’s continued ownership of Washington by not appointing Ms. Warren?

LD

The most famous of these delinquent tax payers (otherwise known as “tax cheats”) is now the head of the IRS, Timmy Geithner, who “forgot” to pay a boatload of taxes. I know, I know, the irony is just too rich. But the damn Congress passed him anyway – even knowing he owed $26 thousand dollars in back taxes. Wow. I cannot dwell on this too long, or else my head will explode.

Well, now another member of Obama’s Administration has been identified by Rep. Darrell Issa as not paying his taxes and reporting earned income. Presumably, Patrick Gaspard may have continued to “forget” that he received $37,000 in funds from SEIU last year had Issa not made the discovery. And, yes, that SEIU of the purple shirts union which utilizes scare tactics, intimidates people at their homes, and demands the US Government bend to its will, which Obama seems all too willing to do.

Remember, the now-retired director, Andrew Stern, of the SEIU was a frequent visitor to the White House, and may have even violated lobbying rules. I wouldn’t look for any investigation into that at any time soon, though. Not with this crowd anyway. Bear in mind the Department of Justice dismissed out of hand a clear case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers. So, don’t look for them to do anything about Andy hanging out with Barry in the White House.

Anyway, I don’t know how one forgets that kind of money, but that’s just me. Here are the particulars:

The discrepancy was caught by California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In a letter to the White House, he told Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina of the unstated income.

“As I am sure you are aware, there are very specific limitations on the outside earned income of presidential appointees,” Issa wrote.

The administration downplayed Gaspard’s failure to include the income on this and last year’s disclosure forms. White House spokesman Bill Burton told Politico that the political director was in the process of correcting the forms to reflect that he did have an agreement for severance.

“We have made the small administrative change to this year’s and last year’s forms to indicate that part of the final payout to Patrick reflected in their typical severance of one week of pay for each of his nine years of service at Local 1199,” Burton said.

So for two years he “forgot” that he had to pay taxes on this income? Seriously – have NONE of these people heard of TurboTax? It is not that hard. And he should have gotten a slip of paper indicating that he received these funds that the IRS woulds have gotten, too.

I’m just curious. How is it that these people in government never have the IRS come after them? They don’t sound hard to find, do they? I mean, gee willikers – they are right there in DC. I just don’t get it. And this cavalier attitude just irritates me.

Oh, one last quote from this article, which you can finish reading here:

Gaspard is a key player in the Obama White House, which maintains deep ties to labor unions, especially the service-industries’ union. He worked for nearly a decade for SEIU 1199 before joining Obama’s campaign

.
In other words, he can’t be dismissed as some flunky in the Administration who slipped through the cracks. Huh uh. He is a close aide to the president. And he’s a tax cheat along with Tim Geithner. What stand up people Obama hangs with, am I right?

And isn’t it a comfort that the SEIU has someone right there in the White House who worked for them for 10 years? That’s just perfect.

Hey, here’s a thought. Instead of hiring over ten thousand new IRS agents for $1 billion a year to harass business owners to cough up big bucks for Obamacare, maybe they can just enforce the laws as they stand now to make federal employees, including those in the White House, pay their due. Shoot, they probably wouldn’t even need a thousand new agents to do that, and they would bring in several billion bucks easy. I realize that getting federal employees and White House aides to pay their taxes like the rest of us do is a stretch, but hey – it would sure help offset the costs of programs like Obamacare, wouldn’t it?

Maybe this is just too much of a common sense solution – hire fewer people to enforce current IRS laws for federal employees to reap bigger benefits. But it’s worth a shot, right?

One last thought – maybe instead of these people in government only ponying up their fair share when they get caught (Geithner, Rangel, and this Gaspard guy come to mind), maybe they can just do the right thing and obey the LAW. What a concept.

Any other suggestions for people like Gaspard? I’m sure can think of a few…

**I will be on vacation for a week. My partner and I are taking our godson to Aruba to celebrate his high school graduation. He is joining the Marine Corps upon his return. We have had him for at least a week each year since he was 8, but we may not have too many more opportunities for that now…We are so proud of the young man he has become – very smart, great grades, star athlete in at least two sports, and a lifeguard to boot. He’s a wonderful young man, and will make a fine Marine, no doubt. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I’ll be away for a few days.

Oh, yeah – Freddie Mac is asking for TEN Billion Dollars. I reckon they just want to add it to their tab:

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports:

Government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac today asked for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after reporting a loss of $8 billion in the first three months of this year.

To date Freddie Mac has been provided with around $51 billion in government funds. The new aid would bring the total assistance to the lender to over $61 billion.

Late last year the Treasury Department essentially agreed to provide a blank check to Freddie Mac and fellow government-backed lender Fannie Mae when the agency controversially removed the cap on federal support for the lenders.

A “blank check”? That is what Geithner wants to give Freddie and Fannie? I reckon that’s what happens when you have someone in charge who can’t even fill out his own tax forms properly (or, as I like to say, a Tax cheat). Some folks aren’t happy about it, though:

Republicans have blasted the administration for that move, as well as for not putting forth a plan to overhaul the government-sponsored enterprises. Thus far the administration’s only action has been the April 14 release of a series of questions for public comment on what to do with the mortgage giants.

In addition, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has acknowledged that the government expects to suffer “very substantial losses” on its investments in the lenders, with recent estimates ranging around a minimum of $85 billion.

Well, that’s just jake – “a minimum of $85 billion.” That’s our money, folks.

And let’s not leave Fannie Mae out of this mix. Oh, no – now Fannie is asking for some more cash, too, a cool for $8.4 Billion more?:

Fannie Mae requested another $8.4 billion from the federal government on Monday, saying that it expects its deficits to continue due to trends in the housing and financial markets.

The government-controlled mortgage giant said it lost $13.1 billion applicable to common shareholders in the first quarter of 2010. In the year-earlier quarter, Fannie suffered a $23.2 billion loss, but an accounting change makes comparing the year-over-year losses difficult.

Fannie’s request for more federal funds comes just four days after Fannie’s twin Freddie Mac also asked for a handout – to the tune of $10.6 billion – after posting an $8 billion quarterly loss.

In using Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) to prop up the mortgage market, the government in December lifted a $200 billion limit on their bailouts, essentially giving the twin housing lenders a blank check. Fannie Mae has already received $76.2 billion from the federal government and Freddie has gotten $50.7 billion.

“In the first quarter, we continued to serve as a leading source of liquidity to the mortgage market, and we made solid progress in our ongoing efforts to keep people in their homes,” Fannie Mae President and CEO Mike Williams, said in a press release.

Just to recap, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely responsible for bringing down the housing market (click HERE to read the rest of the article).

Yes, indeedy, so no doubt the new Finance Reform Bill begins with Fannie and Freddie, right? Oh, so wrong. Chris Dodd, who benefited mightily from Fannie Mae and Countrywide says, “Nooooooooo.” Dodd thinks it should wait:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said Friday that legislation to address troubled mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to come after the current financial-reform effort.

Fannie and Freddie, which are known as “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), have been a lightning rod for criticism of Democrats during the financial reform debate.

Dodd, who is chairman of the Banking Committee and has led the effort to craft a financial regulatory reform bill, said that there was not enough room in the legislation for rules covering Fannie and Freddie.

“Fannie and Freddie and the whole GSE system and it’s a great question and a legitimate one in desperate need of reform,” he said on CNBC. “But candidly there’s only so much I could only take on with this bill, and so that comes up. But not in this round. It’s in the next wave here we have to deal with GSEs.”

Well, sure, that makes sense, right? If you live in Upside-Down World, anyway (click HERE to read the rest). What a glaring, blatant, prop-up for those two entities that have done SO much to destroy the housing market. Unbelievable.

Frankly, I think this is a dereliction of duty on behalf of our Congress people. They refuse to hold accountable the very companies who wreaked havoc with our economy. They are in collusion with them. Even worse, they continue to throw money down the money hole.

I have used this video before, but it seems mighty timely given the requests of Fannie and Freddie (Onion video alert):

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

If only this were a joke…

Regrettably, America deals with this pandering and posturing from our political leaders and regulators all too often. While Americans are being told one thing, what are the regulators telling the banks? Hold cash.

I am not shocked, but certainly disappointed, that American financial periodicals failed to run this story detailing these recommendations from our bank regulators. The London based Financial Times highlights this bombshell in writing, Regulators Tell U.S. Banks to Hold Funds: >>>>

US regulators have told banks not to increase dividends or buy back shares until political and economic uncertainty surrounding the industry dissipates, in a move that will delay by months the return of capital to shareholders.

Some investors in financial stocks argue that winners of the credit crisis, such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, have profitable businesses and strong balance sheets and should consider raising dividends or buying back stocks.

Executives at the two companies have talked in public and with regulators about the possibility of returning cash to investors after taking action to conserve resources during the turmoil. But they say they are not in a rush to go ahead, especially if their watchdogs oppose such moves. “Regulators are gun-shy at this stage, partly because they fear that giving the green light to healthier banks to return cash to investors would prompt demands from more troubled institutions to do the same,” one senior Wall Street executive said.

People close to the situation said government agencies, led by the New York Federal Reserve and the Treasury, told banks they would have to wait until the economic and legislative picture became clearer before returning funds to investors.

In a letter sent in December, officials reminded financial groups they would have to meet criteria, such as “stress-testing” their balance sheets and achieving sustainable profitability, before releasing funds to shareholders. The New York Fed and Treasury declined to comment.

Mike Mayo, an analyst at CLSA, said: “The word banks have used the most … is ‘fragile’.

Economic growth is predicated on the flow of money, otherwise known as the velocity of money. With news like this, we should expect that velocity to remain at a trickle.

The burden will remain on the Fed to keep its Fed Funds rate low so these banks can continue to recover. The burden should also remain on the regulators and bank executives to not allow the Fed liquidity to walk right out the front door of these banks in the form of big fat bonuses.

LD

What rock did Herb just crawl out from?

The Wall Street Journal addresses Herb’s ridiculous comment in writing, Treasury Official: ‘No Too Big to Fail Guarantee’ for Big Financial Firms:

There is no U.S. government guarantee to protect the largest financial firms, a Treasury Department official said Thursday, as a congressional watchdog criticized the $45 billion in government aid provided to Citigroup Inc.

Herbert Allison, who oversees the Treasury’s $700 billion financial rescue plan, disagreed with members of a congressional oversight panel that some financial firms benefit from the assumption that the government would step in to prevent their failure.

“There is no too big to fail guarantee on the part of the U.S. government,” Mr. Allison said.

How often did we hear similar drivel about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

What happens to people when they get inside the Beltway? Do they instinctively become serial panderers, if not outright liars?

Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel, said it was clear that financial markets do assume the guarantee exists, pointing to a recent ratings agency report that specifically noted the government’s role in backing Citigroup.

“The market clearly perceives that there is a too big to fail guarantee,” Ms. Warren said. “That gives Citi an advantage in raising capital. … That is very valuable to Citi.”

Panel members locked horns with Mr. Allison over his reluctance to answer some questions, primarily regarding the health of Citigroup when the government injected capital into the bank in late 2008. Panel member Damon Silvers, pressing Mr. Allison on whether the bank was at risk of failure at the height of the financial crisis, said it was “extraordinary that it is not possible to have a straightforward conversation.”

The fact that America can not get straightforward and honest answers from our government officials plays right into my commentary the other day, Harry Markopolos: “Don’t Trust Your Government”.

Bend over, Herb.

LD

As with any test, the results are only meaningful if the process and proctor have unquestioned integrity. The proctors for the Bank Stress Test are none other than Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed chair Ben Bernanke. Why is a testing authority of the magnitude of FDIC, led by Sheila Bair, not more involved in the process? Ms. Bair is the one individual in our country with the greatest level of interaction with and understanding of the student body, that being the banking industry as a whole and individual banks specifically.

What does the FDIC, led by Ms. Bair, have to say about the upcoming Bank Stress Tests? The New York Post provides a CHILLING perspective:

The stress tests the government are about to conduct on some of the nation’s largest banks is being blasted by insiders at Sheila Bair’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., who say it’s a pointless exercise that’s more sizzle than steak.The FDIC’s basic beef with the stress test is that it is not a credible way to assess how much additional cash beaten-down banks will need to weather what many Wall Street experts predict will be more losses in the coming months.

The tests are conducted by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve on the nation’s 19 biggest banks, including behemoths Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.It’s a sham,” one source told The Post, describing the test as an “open-book, take-home exam” that doesn’t actually work.

While Geithner, Bernanke, Obama et al have openly declared victory in saving the banking system, there is a very credible voice in Washington calling for a new round of Bank Stress Tests. Who has the gall to make such a demand?

Elizabeth Warren.

Warren stated as much in a Bloomberg interview I watched this morning. She is calling for new tests, not only for the 19 large money center banks but also the regional and community banks, as well. Why is Warren calling for this reexamination? Her primary concern currently centers on the pending and expected losses within the commercial real estate space through 2013.

When asked how her call for new tests has been received by Tim Geithner and team at Treasury, Warren succinctly used the term, “resistance.”

No surprise there . . . but also no transparency there, either.

LD

Geithner and his cronies in Washington have misrepresented–if not outright lied–about the payments to both domestic and foreign banks in settling exposures to then failing AIG. While politicians and pundits alike will reference the precarious nature of the time and heat of the moment to defend Geithner and his cronies, the simple fact is the settlement of the AIG swaps at 100 cents on the dollar was nothing short of one of the greatest heists in our country’s history.

This heist transferred multiple billions of dollars from the American taxpayer to the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Societe Generale, and many more domestic and foreign banks as well.

At that very point, Wall Street knew it had Tim Geithner over a barrel and has owned him ever since. As much as Geithner may try to play the populist card, the power brokers on Wall Street know all too well that at the point of the gun, Geithner blinked.

Who deserves credit for exposing this corner of the Wall Street-Washington incest? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). As Bloomberg highlights this morning, Geithner’s New York Fed told AIG to Limit Swaps Disclosure:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis, e-mails between the company and its regulator show.

AIG said in a draft of a regulatory filing that the insurer paid banks, which included Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA, 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the firm. The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to the e-mails, and AIG excluded the language when the filing was made public on Dec. 24, 2008. The e-mails were obtained by Representative Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Why couldn’t Geithner demand that Goldman take 60 cents on the dollar? Geithner admittedly knew the system needed funds and expediently transferred these funds at 100 cents on the dollar. That said, the precedent Geithner set proves that Wall Street has always and still now owns Washington. Lloyd Blankfein, who was in the room with Geithner and Paulson at the time, is a much better poker player and trader than Tim Geithner. Blankfein trumped Geithner at that point and at each and every hand since then.

America deserves so much better.

LD

America can not allow the passage of time to lessen the outrage over the Obama administration’s Christmas Eve bonus to the financial sinkholes known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Platitudes and posturing aside, the American taxpayer is being set up as never before.

A blank check may serve to cover a host of past financial and legislative failures promoted by the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Kerry et al, but who is monitoring and verifying the legitimate and proper use of these funds? Are we to blindly trust Treasury Secretary Geithner, White House economic adviser Larry Summers, and their respective staffs in this process? Are you kidding me? America needs to voice its outrage long and hard. In that spirit, I called yesterday to Audit Freddie and Fannie.

In the same vein, I am heartened by initiatives launched this week by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Reps. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) to pursue an investigation of this blank check.

The Wall Street Journal reports, Lawmakers Want Probe Into Treasury Aid for Fannie, Freddie:

The Treasury Department’s surprise Christmas Eve move to uncap the potential aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be investigated, lawmakers from both political parties said Wednesday.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) said his congressional subcommittee plans to investigate Treasury’s decision to lift the existing $400 billion cap on government cash available to the two firms. Separately, Reps. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) and Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.) called for the House Financial Services Committee to hold a hearing on the matter.

Mr. Kucinich, who chairs the domestic policy subcommittee on the House Oversight and Government Reform panel, said he is concerned about how the two government-controlled firms will use their new flexibility.

“This cannot be used simply to purchase toxic assets at inflated prices, thus transferring the losses to the U.S. taxpayers and acting as a back door [Troubled Asset Relief Program],” Mr. Kucinich said in a statement released by his office.

Messrs. Garrett and Bachus raised similar concerns in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who chairs the Financial Services panel. The two GOP panel members decried what they called a “transparent attempt to hide the news from the American people” by announcing the news the day before a major holiday.

I am not only concerned about Geithner’s and Summer’s influence over the allocation of the funds behind this blank check, but I am equally concerned because of the influence of that individual to whom Garrett and Bachus directed their letter. Barney Frank (D-MA), Chair of the House Financial Services committee, has always been in bed with Freddie and Fannie. I do not doubt for a second that Frank would use this blank check to cover his misguided policies and misappropriated funds supporting Freddie and Fannie over the years.

Need I remind you of Frank’s “I want to roll the dice…” comment in regard to Freddie and Fannie’s support of sub-prime lending in 2003?

America can not allow time and other issues to distract us from what may very well be the single largest misallocation and misappropriation of taxpayer funds in the history of this country.

Trust Geithner? Trust Summers? Trust Frank?

Put Sense on Cents in the verify camp!!

How about you?

LD

Anyway, the performance was Monday night. Let me set the stage for you: there was a music stand, a grand piano (Yamaha, for those of you keeping score), and a piano bench. That was it. No special effects, mo microphone, nothing else. Ms. Battle came out in a beautiful spaghetti strap black dress with a small train, and a fuchsia wrap. Her pianist was Cyrus Chestnut, who is an extremely talented jazz pianist. Ms. Battle performed a range of music from classical to spirituals to traditional Christmas carols. (Okay, “Santa Baby” is not exactly traditional, but it was REALLY fun!) She sang a number of pieces A Capella. She was, simply put, mesmerizing.

Not only was she stunning in her appearance, but so were a number of audience members, dressed in tuxedos, even some men in kilts, and women dressed to the Nines. It was an event.

Ms. Battle began the evening with “Ave Maria,” though imagine it being just her and her jazz pianist, putting his unique spin on it (and if the video and the picture being out of sync makes you nuts, just close your eyes and enjoy it):

The one downside to the evening came while Ms. Battle was in the midst of singing one of my all time favorite hymns, “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel,” an ancient hymn with a stirring tune (possibly Gregorian). Even as a non-Christian, there is just something about Gregorian chant that really moves me. Anyway, again, just her and her pianist, and Ms. Battle is in almost a meditative space. Mr. Chestnut is playing an interlude, and Ms. Battle is trying desperately to get someone to stop videotaping her with their cellphone. Everyone had been warned – no photography, no cell phones, no video-taping her with cell phones, and it was written in the program as well. The person was only a couple of rows away from her, and it distracted her from the piece. It was also the only time she actually spoke the entire night, when she told them that they had been asked not to tape her. She stopped the song in the middle, and left the stage, Mr. Chestnut following her. The people around the offender, as well as the rest of us, were not amused. After a few minutes, she came back on stage, and re-did the two songs of that set.

Perhaps because of the pieces she was performing, but it seemed like prayer, thus the intrusion that much more egregious. We were not mad at HER for leaving the stage – we were mad at the person who failed to honor her performance.

One of the spirituals she did was this one, “Rise Up Shepherd”:

Another Spiritual she did was “Wade In The Water.” It was fun to see how much she got into it, especially the chorus. I couldn’t help but chuckle to myself, thinking of other concerts I attended in which the audience is encouraged to sing – this was no Indigo Girls concert, and we would NOT be joining in on the chorus. It was much more formal than that.

Another thing that amused us was her attempts, sometimes, failed, to rein in her pianist when he would go off on his interludes. She would be trying to get his attention so she could continue singing, and he’d just be playing along. I am sure she wanted to say to him, “Whose photo is on the front of the program, yours or mine? That’s right, mine – so when I’m ready to start singing again, you need to be ready!” Don’t get me wrong – he was outstanding, and she very much seemed to be enjoying his creativity and talent, but at some point, she needed to finish the piece.

And then it was over – people standing and cheering, “Brava, Brava!” until she came out for her encore. And this was it, the classic from “Porgy and Bess,” “Summertime”:

Wow. What a night. I never dreamed I’d be able to see her again on stage after leaving New York City, but indeed, I had that wonderful opportunity here. We had great seats, to, I might add – row O, dead center. I had an unobstructed view of Ms. Battle, looking at her on eye level – amazing! What an incredible gift, one I will long cherish.

So, that was my departure from all the crazy politics going on right now – Health Care, Obama’s plummeting poll numbers (47% now – the lowest of any president at this time in the first year), or the possibility of the U.S. losing its Moody’s Triple A rating for the first time in generations (and yes, that’s with an “s” at the end).

I hope this was a nice departure for you, too. You can talk about whatever is on your mind, though. This is an open thread.

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.