Blame game won't help distressed homeowners

There’s a big pile-on, calling for President Obama to fire the housing bureaucrat who’s blocking the latest administration housing initiative to reduce principal for underwater homeowners.

Ed DeMarco, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is a Republican holdover appointed by President Bush.

Though DeMarco is supposed to be only acting head of the agency, President Obama has never replaced him.

Now DeMarco is refusing to allow Fannie and Freddie to implement a recent initiative that would offer principal reduction to homeowners who owe more or their mortgages than their homes are worth since the housing bubble burst.

DeMarco’s position is full of holes: he’s worried that if the government doles out principal reductions to some homeowners, homeowners who don’t qualify will lower their incomes and get behind on the their mortgages just to get in line for a principal reductions.  And DeMarco claims that principal reduction would be bad for taxpayers, even though his own agency’s research proves him wrong.

Lots of smart folks, including the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, are calling on the president to fire DeMarco. For Krugman and the Democrats, it’s just the latest example of Republicans blocking the President and the Democrats at every step from fixing the economy.

It’s certainly true that Republicans have done nothing themselves to get the economy going and focused solely on demonizing the president and the Democrats.

But do you remember that fiery speech the president gave blasting the presumed Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for his do-nothing approach to the foreclosure crisis?

Do you remember the president’s strong speeches blasting Republicans’ efforts to blame the foreclosure crisis on borrowers rather than the big banks?

Neither do I.

Is it the Republicans’ fault that the president and his administration have pursued one failed strategy after another that propped up too big to fail banks while not substantially helping homeowners?

Is it Republicans’ fault that the president abandoned one of his campaign promises and failed to push for what could have been one of the most effective strategies to force intransigent banks to renegotiate with strapped borrowers – so-called judicial cram-downs of mortgage debt in bankruptcy court.

That would have allowed bankruptcy judges to reduced mortgage debt as they can other kinds of debt. But it would have accomplished the larger purpose of encouraging bankers to renegotiate with borrowers before they ever got to bankruptcy court.

Only now, after more than three years, when there is a real, live Republican to blame, has Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner come out swinging – not with aggressive new policies, but against DeMarco.

Two astute observers of government response to the foreclosure crisis, David Dayen at Firedoglake and Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism have pointed out that the Obama administration has been slow to embrace principal reduction in the first place or to convince the public that it’s needed.

In addition, the administration needs to do more to overcome another huge hurdle: under the tax law, the amount of principal reduction will be taxable when a temporary exemption expires at the end of the year.

By all means, the president should fire DeMarco. He should embrace a fight with Republicans when they try to block a permanent appointment to the post. But that should only be the beginning. He should also fire Tim Geithner, who has directly overseen so many of the administration’s previous attempts to deal with housing, which range from the merely feeble to incompetent and downright disastrous. As Neil Barofsky points out, it’s Geithner himself who has stood in the way of principal reductions previously.

If the president and the Democrats are just interested in politics, using DeMarco as a scapegoat will probably help them score some points. But if they’re serious about using principal reductions, the president needs to tackle the opposition directly and convince the public that principal reduction can be a useful tool. And President Obama needs to confront the arguments against them forcefully, whether those arguments come from foot-dragging bankers and investors or dug-in Republicans.

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 08/06/2012

Geithner must go

Please, President Obama, fire Timothy Geithner today and hire a treasury secretary to fight for the U.S. economy as hard as Geithner fights to protect bankers’ profits.

I know you’re intensely loyal to Geithner and have resisted such calls in the past.

But Mr. President, times and circumstances have changed. For your own good and especially for the good of the country, you should reconsider. You’re in an especially close election and you need to cut yourself loose from the failed policies you’ve pursued for the past four years that have coddled the financial sector at the expense of the rest of the economy.

Your loyalties are with Geithner but his, Mr. President, are with the too big to fail banks, not with the public.

The most recent evidence comes from this Huffington Reports piece which details how Geithner, while president of the New York Fed responded when he heard about the big banks manipulating a key interest rate known as LIBOR when he was chair of the New York Federal Reserve in 2007.

Recently disclosed emails show that while Geithner expressed concerns over the integrity of the LIBOR, or London Interbank Offered Rate, he did little to investigate or stop the manipulation.

What he did to was cut and paste the bankers’ own proposals into his own proposal to the Bank of England about how to address the LIBOR concerns. It should have been an early warning sign of how Geithner and his big bank cronies spoke with one voice – theirs.

The public may not understand just how critical the integrity of LIBOR is, but you do, Mr. President. You know that it’s how it’s used as a benchmark for trillions worth of transactions every day, on everything from complex credit default swaps to credit cards.

You also shouldn’t underestimate the public’s ability to grasp what’s at the root of this LIBOR scandal, which is the same theme that’s underlying JP Morgan London Whale trading losses – that bankers have been manipulating the financial system for their own interests, with your administration either fully cooperating or looking the other way.

Don’t underestimate the ability of the ruthless and hypocritical Republican attack machine to clobber you with those policies even as the Republicans embrace more banker-friendly policies than you are.

They’ll get a good shot this week when Geithner testifies before the House Banking Committee over what he knew and what he did about banks.

The public may not be focused on the LIBOR in the middle of a hot summer, Mr. President, But the scandal is just beginning to wash up on the our shores after causing tremendous damage after it erupted in England, after Barclays Bank acknowledged its own LIBOR manipulation and cut a deal with regulators. Meanwhile the investigation into 16 U.S. banks and their LIBOR shenanigans is just getting cooking.  It could be heating up at the same time as the presidential race.

Mr. President, you have another opportunity to do something that is good politics and good for the country too, and will distinguish your policy on the banks from your opponent’s do-nothing approach.

Get rid of Geithner and begin to chart a new course toward a system not rigged in favor of big bankers and their fat bonuses. We need a treasury secretary who doesn’t measure prosperity solely by the size of bankers’ wealth.

LIBOR / Martin Column - 07/16/2012

Bankers' gambles – now with a bailout guaranteed

After the 2008 banks bailout, we were promised that financial reform was going to prevent future bailouts.

Never again.

But as we approach the fourth anniversary of the financial collapse, we’re learning just how hollow those promises were.

The most recent example stems from reports that regulators have secretly designated derivatives clearinghouses too big to fail in a financial emergency.

That means that in a crisis, such clearinghouses, in which risky credit default swaps are traded, would be bailed out at taxpayer expense through secret access to cheap money at the Federal Reserve’s credit window.

That’s where the big banks and the rest of corporate America lined after the 2008 to borrow trillions at low interest – with no strings attached.

The Fed didn’t require the banks to share that low interest with consumers or homeowners. The Fed didn’t require that banks make some attempt to fix the foreclosure mess. The Fed didn’t require corporations hire the unemployed or lower outrageous CEO pay.

The Fed just shoveled out the cheap loans.

Now the Fed is planning to extend that generosity, as a matter of policy, to derivative clearinghouses – which puts taxpayers directly on the hook for Wall Street’s risky gambles, like the ones that recently cost J.P. Morgan Chase $2 billion.

While those trades didn’t threaten to sink the economy, it was the unraveling of those kinds of complex gambles that tanked the economy in 2008.

Nobody knows for sure how large the derivatives market is, but the estimates are truly mind-boggling. One derivatives expert estimates that there were $1.2 quadrillion in derivatives last year – 20 times the size of the world’s economy.

While requiring these derivatives to be traded on clearinghouses is supposed to increase transparency, that assumes regulators are aggressive, diligent and understand the trades.

But signaling that these derivatives should be eligible for a bailout is nothing short of insane, at least from the taxpayers’ perspective. From the bankers’ perspective, it’s a pretty good deal, and a reassuring indication that nothing much has changed since the financial crisis: the regulators are still deep in the bankers’ pocket.

Meanwhile, the real reforms that might have a shot at actually fixing the problems and protecting our economy from the big bankers’ addiction to risk get little or no consideration in what passes for political debate.

The best step we could take is to re-impose the Depression-era   Glass-Steagall Act, which creates walls between safe, vanilla, and consumer banking (which have traditionally been federally guaranteed, and riskier investment banking and derivatives trading But the bankers oppose Glass-Steagall, and for the present, they remain in control of both political parties and the regulators’ financial policies.

Federal Reserve / Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 06/26/2012

How Mitt Could Win

Why doesn’t Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s free-market gospel include a ringing call to break up the too big to fail banks?

Over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute blog, James Pethokoukis suggests Romney could benefit if he did just that.

After all, this is no longer a position favored only by Occupy Wall Street.

All kinds of establishment figures now acknowledge that breaking up the big banks is needed to heal our financial system, and that as long as we don’t, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout.

The most recent public official to reach this conclusion is none other than Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve, who last week issued a report in which he concluded: “The too big to fail institutions that amplified and prolonged the recent financial crisis remain a hindrance to full economic recovery and to the very ideal of American capitalism.”

This should be catnip for Romney, who professes to be all about ending government interference in the free market.

What the Dallas Fed’s report makes clear is that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and the policies of the Obama administration haven’t lessened the power of the too big to fail banks, or made them healthier – it’s helped them gain market share while doing little to force them to reduce the same risky business practices that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

While Dodd-Frank theoretically sets up a process to deal with too big to fail institutions when they get in trouble, our politicians and regulators by their actions have signaled to the big banks that they don’t have the guts to break them up or get them to change how they do business.

For a politician in Romney’s position, staking out a position against the big banks would give him the high ground against the president, who claims to be reining in the banks’ bad behavior but isn’t.

It would help him with the Tea Party activists, who rail against the bank bailouts and crony capitalism. Promising tough action on the banks would also help him with independents who understandably don’t trust all the political double-talk they hear.

But Romney doesn’t have the  guts to do it. His free market rhetoric stops right at the bankers’ door, where he must appear meekly with hat in hand, asking for donations, just like the president of the United States, from bankers who continue to prosper only because of the trillions of dollars worth of favors done for them by politicians using taxpayers’ money.

The top 5 donors to Romney’s campaign are people associated with bailed out banks, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. The president raised an unprecedented $15.8 million from the financial sector in 2008, while his administration was in the midst of bailing them out. Though Romney has the edge in Wall Street fundraising now, the president has vowed to fight back ­– including a pledge not to demonize Wall Street.

The big media and the politicians all talk about these policies as though they’re great intellectual debates about clashing views of the role of government. But when it comes to the too big to fail banks, all Romney’s free market preaching is just so much hot air.

This is the dishonest heart of our politics. What neither Romney nor the president, nor apparently the American Enterprise Institute, can acknowledge is that it’s all about the money.

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 03/30/2012

There Oughta Be A Law…. But There Won’t Be Unless We Change the Constitution

Are you one of those people who are constantly saying “there oughta be a law”? I am - which is probably why I ended up a consumer advocate.

Some pretty lofty assumptions about democracy are built into that quaint phrase, if you think about it. For one, it assumes that law is a good way to resolve disputes (as compared, say, to fists or guns). Also, that everybody will obey the law. Perhaps most obvious, when someone says, “there oughta be a law,” they’re asserting our right as Americans to make things better for ourselves by getting the legislative branch to address an issue of public importance.

Indeed, the "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is built into the First Amendment - the same amendment that five members of the United States Supreme Court pretty much erased from the Constitution in the Citizens United case two years ago.

By now, everyone understands that by giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as humans, and then ruling that spending money to influence elections is a form of “free speech,” the Supreme Court in Citizens United unleashed a tsunami of corporate money that will drown out the voices of 99% percent of Americans in favor of the 1% who have the wealth to determine who wins elections. “Free” speech can’t compete with hundreds of millions of dollars of paid propaganda.

What’s not been much discussed is how the Supreme Court decision actually conflicts with the rest of the First Amendment: it has negated our right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

Consider another Supreme Court-imposed debacle: in 2011, the high court ruled that consumers who sue big companies in class actions can be thrown out of court and forced to go into “arbitration” – a system in which the company hires private “judges” to determine whether the company broke the law. The Federal Arbitration Act specifically says that arbitration doesn’t apply if the arbitration clause violates a state’s consumer protection law. But the Supreme Court refused to recognize that exception. The case is Concepcion v AT&T Mobility. In that lawsuit, consumers challenged AT&T for adding extra charges to the purchase of a cell phone that the company had advertised as “free.” The decision – another enormous victory for big corporations – strips American consumers of their right to hold a company accountable for rip-offs big or small.

Unlike the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, which interpreted the US Constitution, Congress could easily amend the Federal Arbitration Act to reverse the Concepcion decision. But will it? Forget about the House of Representatives: it’s controlled by corporate Republicans who are owned by the cell phone companies. (The House was close to passing a bill that would have allowed  telemarketers and debt collectors to call consumers’ cell phones with recorded messages. A huge public outcry delayed the legislation.)

But in the Democrat controlled US Senate, a bill to override the Supreme Court’s arbitration ruling has only fifteen cosponsors.

In California, we are lucky to have the ballot initiative, which allows us to take matters into our own hands when state legislators are too beholden to special interests to deal with important issues. Using the initiative process, California voters passed Proposition 103 to restrain price gouging by auto, home and business insurance companies. My colleagues at Consumer Watchdog are now proposing an initiative to put health insurance premiums under Proposition 103’s controls. But even the people’s initiative process has been corrupted by corporate money. And attempts to ban corporate interference in ballot initiative campaigns ran smack into, once again, a decision by the United States Supreme Court.

Indeed, you don’t have to be an astute observer of politics to know that corporate money has long corrupted politics. Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (PDF), published in March 2009, got right to the bottom line in its title. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the financial industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation came to a halt in 2008 when the financial industry threatened to shut down the system unless they got trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer bailouts.

Laws regulating corporate spending in elections and lobbying were intended to limit the damage to democracy. Some, including me, would argue that they didn’t work anyhow. But Citizens United has eliminated any chance of righting the imbalance of political power between corporations and human beings short of changing the United States Constitution itself. We’re proposing exactly that: a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that reads “The protections of the First Amendment that apply to the spending of money on lobbying and elections, whether by contributions, expenditures or otherwise, shall extend only to human beings.” Join us right now.

Citizens United / Harvey Column - 02/06/2012

We the Fee

I couldn’t find any comment from the Republican presidential candidates on one of the most compelling financial events of the last week: Verizon’s virtually instant reversal of its $2 fee on people who pay their wireless bills over the phone or online.

Nor apparently did the White House have anything to say, even though the Federal Communication Commission’s announcement that it was “concerned” about the fee no doubt factored into Verizon’s decision. The FCC, once the cell phone industry’s best friend in Washington, D.C., has morphed into something actually looking like a consumer protection agency under Obama. It also killed the AT&T – T-Mobil merger that would have destroyed competition in the wireless marketplace and led to vastly higher prices and much worse service. The President certainly deserves a victory lap – and could use one – but remained incommunicado during his vacation in Hawaii.

Nothing from the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street either.

Fees have become the bane of the American consumer. Airlines make more money from fees than from air fares. Banks replaced tellers with machines and now force their customers to pay $3-$5 for the privilege of accessing their own money. Hotels apply “resort fees” for using the typically impoverished gym. And then there is the coup de grace: the fee you have to pay for getting a bill in the mail – a favorite of the cell phone and health insurance companies.

Undisclosed, or at best hidden in the fine print, these fees cripple consumers’ ability to compare prices. Which becomes a nightmare if you realize you are paying too much and decide to take your business elsewhere: many of these companies require you to stay with them for two years or pay an early termination fee in the hundreds of dollars.

Verizon’s retreat from the fee was a major victory for consumers, who organized a massive internet/Twitter/Facebook protest worthy of Zuccotti Park or Tahrir Square. In November, Bank of America tried to institute a $5 fee for using a debit card – it too was forced to back down in the face of national outrage.

How then to explain the silence of political candidates and public officials? The simple answer harkens back to the Occupy metaphor. The political class doesn’t sweat the small stuff like a $2 fee – they can afford not to. But most Americans can’t afford to throw away two bucks.

Harvey Column / Occupy / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Tea Party - 01/03/2012

Bottom Line on Fed Bailout is No Secret

Were the bankers and Federal Reserve trying to hide something in particular? Or were they just fighting Bloomberg’s lawsuit to reveal the details of the Fed’s sweetheart bailout loans out of habitual arrogance?

I’ve been wondering about this as I make my way through Bloomberg’s expose based on the data the news service forced the Fed to turn over after several years of litigation.

The Fed and the banks tried to scare the courts into keeping the data secret, warning that disclosure would stigmatize those who received the low interest loans and cause them irreparable harm.

Finally, the courts saw through all the Fed’s and the bank’s bogus arguments and ordered the data made public.

The numbers are all so mind-bogglingly huge that it’s easy to be overwhelmed, for the information to lose it’s meaning. But as Columbia Journalism Review’s The Audit pointed out, Bloomberg went straight to the heart of the issue, reminding us what kind of a bailout our politicians delivered, in which banks and other corporations got access to $1.2 trillion in low-interest loans – about the same amount U.S. homeowners are struggling with on 6.5 million delinquent or foreclosed mortgages.

But as RJ Eskow reminds us, we knew a lot of the grisly details before the latest data dump – like that the 10 largest banks got $667 billion in low-interest loans from the Fed.

What we didn’t know until now is how much of that money was an outright gift from taxpayers; Eskow estimates that it amounts to about $27 million on each $1 billion worth of loan, based on the difference between the usual 3.8 percent interest rate and the 1.1 sweetheart rate the Fed charged as part of its bailout. Because the Fed attached no strings to its generosity to the banks, the bankers never paid it forward to the rest of us, who saw our access to credit shrink. And it never occurred to the Fed that it might have stimulated the economy with a few well-placed low-interest loans to the rest of us.

The bottom line is that the Fed shouldn’t be handing out trillions of dollars without any accountability or transparency. Most Americans are not going to have wade through the details to confirm their gut feeling – we’re getting screwed.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 08/26/2011

D.C. Disconnect: Beltway Media Edition

The historic first ever Federal Reserve press conference delivered even less than the little that was expected.

That was in part because Fed chair Bernanke is good at making economic policy boring and opaque.

After all, that is his job.

But the reporters who cover the Fed have no such excuse.

At the press conference, they shared none of the outrage that continues to be expressed by the rabble outside Washington who are upset by the Fed’s bailout of big banks, and who fought to make the agency more transparent.

The whole thing had the flavor of a rote exercise, featuring people who appeared to be sleepwalking rather than covering the secretive agency that handed out trillions to the financial industry with no questions asked.

There was no skepticism, no appearance that the reporters had done their homework to challenge the Fed’s behavior in boosting banks while abandoning working people. There was none of the excitement that reporters worked up for the non-story of Obama’s birth certificate.

The press conference confirmed what we already knew: federal authorities, including Bernanke have abandoned the unemployed. They’ve moved on. Although employment is one of two of Bernanke’s mandates, he insists his hands are tied.

The reporters participating in this historic occasion treated the bailout as old news. Somehow they managed to miss that every time the Fed provides information about its actions in the bailout, it raises more questions than it answers.

Thankfully, not everybody in Washington shares this view. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, has been doing his best to dog the Fed.

A day before Bernanke held his press conference; Sanders released the results of a study he ordered from the Congressional Research Service of the Fed’s secret lending program. That study showed how the big banks gamed the bailout, profiting from investing the low interest loans the Fed gave them rather than loaning the money to businesses to get the economy going.

Sanders put out a press release with a catchy headline –  “Banks Play Shell Game With Taxpayer Dollars.” This wasn’t enough to rouse the reporters who cover the Fed; nobody could be bothered to ask Bernanke about it as his press conference. According to the research service, the banks pocketed interest rates 12 percent greater than the low-interest emergency loans the Fed was giving them. The purpose of this emergency loan program had nothing to do with enriching bankers; it was justified only because we were told it was the only thing that would get the economy going.

It’s worth remembering that Bernanke and the Fed fought a losing battle against the release of any details about its secret lending program. You would have thought the reporters would have welcomed the opportunity to subject Bernanke’s decision-making to public scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / Outrage - 04/28/2011

What Have You Done For General Electric Lately?

With your help, the company founded by Thomas Edison, the genius inventor, survived the nation’s worst recession in 80 years.

But billions in taxpayer-funded bailout relief and subsidies and paying zero federal taxes was not enough for General Electric.

The company wants more from you.

They want more subsidies, more dubious government contracts and more political power.

Business was terrible for a while, and GE’s credit division dragged the whole company down.

As result, 19,000 of the GE employees who had a job at the beginning of 2009 didn’t have one when the year ended. They joined the 4,000 GE employees who lost jobs the year before. For workers that still had jobs, the average salary was about $32,000 a year.

Things were tough at the top too.

CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to give up his bonus for the second year in a row, and was forced to limp along just on his annual compensation of nearly $10 million.

In 2008, Forbes magazine named Immelt one the U.S.’ 5 most overpaid bosses. For the past 6 years he’d been averaging $15 million a year.

Of course, before the economy crashed, CEO pay was through the roof in general. Getting on that most overpaid list wasn’t easy. Competition was stiff. Two of the other guys on the Forbes list made millions running their financial firms, Countrywide and Indymac, into the ground.

Taxpayers’ generosity helped ease the GE titans’ pain, allowing the company to take advantage of billions in subsidized loans and loan guarantees at such favorable interest rates that they amount to a massive government subsidy.

The company managed to eke out $11 billion in profits on $157 billion in revenue.

That’s when the Internal Revenue Service stepped in to ease GE’s burden. By the time the lawyers and accountants were done, you probably paid more taxes than GE did – unless you also happen to be Exxon.

GE didn’t issue a press release about most of those subsidies. Neither did the federal government. In fact, the Federal Reserve has fought to keep its subsidies of GE and other major corporations confidential. But they were forced to disclose the subsidies under the terms of the financial reform passed earlier this year.

It might have been made the Federal Reserve and GE uncomfortable if the public had known that GE’s CEO was sitting on the Fed’s board of governors while they were doling out low-interest loans to his company, an apparent and outrageous conflict of interest.

But your generosity to GE doesn’t stop with bailout and tax giveaways. As part of the 2009 stimulus package, the company got $24.9 million toward retooling an appliance factory in Kentucky, one of four plants GE is retooling in the government’s green technology initiative.

Like Immelt, the workers will have to adjust to lower pay. They’ll no longer make $20 an hour. Now they’ll be paid $13 an hour.

The company is returning to its roots in making appliances.

But the retooling comes too late for GE’s light bulb business, which was once a source of good jobs in Ohio. While it was borrowing taxpayers’ money in 2009, it was closing one such plant in Niles, Ohio – the fifteenth to close in the state since 1980. The new more energy efficient bulbs will be made in China.

As GE and others American firms were busy chasing short-term profits from the fancy financial products that eventually blew up the economy, they neglected the kinds of innovation that might have saved those jobs.

But General Electric has moved on, staking a big chunk of its future on a costly jet engine that the Defense Department says is wasteful and that it doesn’t want. So General Electric has been lobbying Congress to override the Defense Department. Maybe those that worked in the light bulb factories of Ohio could move to Washington and get jobs as lobbyists.  GE’s spending on lobbying has skyrocketed: from $4.54 million in the first quarter a year ago to $7.14 million in the first quarter of this year.

Meanwhile, while GE dukes it out in D.C., the company has informed the state of Massachusetts that if it  expects GE to limit layoffs of those working at an aircraft factory there, the state’s taxpayers are going to pay.

At the same time the state is facing a series of devastating budget cuts, GE is seeking a $25 million tax credit to help with the retooling of it plant in Lynn, which employs 3,000 people. The company’s already cut 600 jobs at the plant, without the tax credit, GE says, it will cut more. Usually states give tax credits for companies to create new jobs, not as a payoff to keep them from cutting existing jobs.

So here’s the latest innovation from GE. It has nothing to do with creating better, more energy-efficient products. GE has come up with a new way to put the squeeze on taxpayers.

Executive Pay / Federal Reserve / Martin Column / Outrage - 12/19/2010

Bailout Fuels Bitter Race to the Bottom

Maybe I just missed Harley Davidson’s thank you note to me and other taxpayers for bailing them out during the height of the financial crisis.

Perhaps the iconic motorcycle maker  didn’t think it would have to send a thank you note.

After all, they had every reason to think that the Federal Reserve’s emergency, low interest, $2.3 billion loans in the wake of the financial crisis would remain their little secret.

But the financial reform legislation spoiled all that, forcing the Fed to disclose details of  trillions of dollars worth of confidential loans they made, which amounted to a giant subsidy because of the low interest charged.

Beneficiaries included not just the country’s largest banks and foreign banks, but corporate giants such as General Electric, Verizon, Toyota and Harley Davidson.

It turns out that these companies borrow millions every day to pay their expenses. When the credit market froze up in the meltdown, Harley Davidson and the others turned to the Fed, which stepped in with loans at low rates and no questions asked.

Maybe the thank you note is still on Harley Davidson’s to-do list.

The company has been awfully busy, what with opening a new plant – in India, closing plants in this country and bullying its remaining U.S. workers to give back wages and benefits or face more plant closures.

It’s not that the company is incapable of showing gratitude. In 2009, a year in which the company suffered steep sales declines and more than 2,000 workers had been laid off, they paid their CEO $6.3 million – including a $780,000 bonus. Since January, 2009, the company has laid off more than a fifth of its work force, and closed two factories. By the end of next year, another 1,400 to 1,600 face layoffs.

In 2009, the average Harley Davidson worker who still had a job  was paid $32,000.

After threatening to close its York, Pa. plant and move production to Shelbyville, Ky., the company and the workers reached an agreement to keep the plant open – with 600 fewer employees and wage concessions. But not before the Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, offered $15 million in tax incentives to the company.

All the cuts are paying off – at least for the company’s shareholders. In July, the company reported a $71 million profit, more than triple what it earned a year ago.

Maybe sending taxpayers thank you notes slipped their minds while company officials were busy hiring lobbyists to fight financial reform last year, to the tune of $115,000 – about $100,000 less than they spent the year before.

Harley Davidson is using the lift it got from its bailout subsidy to join the latest trend – companies make more profit with fewer workers, and wringing concessions from those that remain. As if the bailout wasn’t enough of a gift, the company squeezes even more from state taxpayers just for the privilege of keeping their plants open. For the company’s executives, the bailout fueled their escape from financial ruin and their race to the top. But workers and taxpayers are left standing on the sidelines.

Imagine if Harley Davidson had just split its $2.3 billion low-interest loans with its individual workers. Imagine if the taxpayers, who actually funded corporate America’s bailout, were  the recipients of anywhere near that kind of generosity. Imagine if we had a government with  as ferocious a commitment to shovel trillions into taxpayers and workers'  hands with no conditions of any kind.

We’ll never know what kind of creative energy, not to mention how much economic stimulus, would have been unleashed.

But that’s not the kind of bailout we got.

Harley Davidson, you're welcome.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / Outrage - 12/11/2010