Freakout in the Bonus Bubble

Did you hear the one about the hedge fund employee complaining that he’s got to scrape by on $350,000 this year because of his lower bonus?

This is not an anti-banker joke, it’s a Bloomberg News story.

In the story, reporter Max Abelson gets finance industry workers to open up about their feelings about their financial sacrifices in the wake of a reduction in bonuses this year.

One hedge fund marketing director acknowledges that he is “freaking out, like a rat in trap on a highway with no way out” because he will be unable to keep up with his kids’ private school tuition, summer rental and the upgrade to his Brooklyn duplex.

Bonuses were down about 14 percent across the financial industry last year in the wake of a second annual plunge in profits of more than 50 percent.

Noting that profits plunged a lot more steeply that the bonuses, the New York Times Dealbook column, which often takes the Wall Street view, couldn’t summon much sympathy. Reporter Kevin Rose sniffed, “It is apparently going to take more than shrinking bank profits to put a big dent in Wall Street bonuses.”

Wall Street bankers remain by any measure well paid, with an average annual compensation, including bonuses, of $361,180 in 2010, the last year for which averages are available. That’s 5 ½ times the average pay for Americans.

So to help put the bankers’ problems in perspective for the rest of us who might be having a hard time working up any empathy, Bloomberg rustles up a high-priced accountant.

“People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress,” said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. “Could you imagine what it’s like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?”

What a load of malarkey.

What the Bloomberg report neglects to mention is that the financial industry actually compensated for the lower bonuses by raising bankers’ salaries.

While some bank defenders claim the brouhaha over bonuses is just envy, a report from New Bottom Line earlier this year puts the bankers’ bonuses into sharp focus. It found that bankers’ total compensation at the six biggest banks amounted to $144 billion last year – second only to the total paid out in 2007 before the meltdown.

Since the 2008 financial collapse, the banks we bailed have paid out a total of half a trillion dollars in compensation.

According to the report, if the bankers let go of just half of their compensation packages, banks could afford to underwrite principal on all the underwater mortgages in the country.

If bankers chose to forgo just 72% of their bonuses, they could fill the nearly $103 billion budget gap plaguing the nation’s city and states.

The bankers aren’t getting this money because they have contributed so much to the well being of the country. They’re getting it because they’ve captured both the political system and their regulators, who continue to do the bankers’ bidding. We can’t expect them, the bankers or the politicians or the regulators, to stop on their own.

We’re going to have to do it.

Check out our constitutional amendment to undo U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which opened the gates wide for bankers and other corporate titans to influence our government with an unlimited and anonymous tidal wave of cash.

 

Bonuses / Martin Column - 03/06/2012

The Supreme Court Shot the Sheriff

"Corporations are people." Two years ago, that's what five justices of the United States Supreme Court gaveled into our Constitution, ruling in the now-infamous Citizens United case that spending money is a form of "freedom of speech" and that when corporations put up money to elect people, they are just exercising their First Amendment rights.

Two months ago, the Montana Supreme Court said wait a minute. It upheld a state law, enacted by Montana voters through the initiative process in 1912, that bars corporations from trying to influence elections. The justices of the Montana Supreme Court argued that the Montana law is different than the federal law that the US Supreme Court threw out, relying on what they described as an especially disturbing history of corporate corruption in Montana government.

When it comes to constitutional law, you can't get closer to the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral than this, as I recently explained.

That's a better analogy than you think.

The campaign finance laws, designed over decades to slow down the accretion of political power by special interests, were like a lazy sheriff in a western gold rush town - barely able to keep up with the legal and illegal maneuverings of outlaw corporateers, while average citizens became increasingly like bystanders in their own democracy.

Then the Supreme Court rode into town and shot the sheriff.

Now we are back to the Wild West, with corporate gunslingers targeting anyone - officials and civilians – who are in the way of their profits and prerogatives. Corporate money, often disguised and hidden behind a fortress of deception, has charged through the Republican presidential primaries, not to mention an untold number of state elections throughout the country. The full fury of this greed-driven onslaught will become apparent in the fall, as Wall Street and the .01 percenters weigh in not just to defeat President Obama (who has not cooperated enough) but any number of other candidates on ballots nationwide, not to mention initiatives put on the ballot by real, live citizens detouring corrupt legislators by taking matters into their own hands.

You can already sense defeat among government officials trying to figure out what defenses, if any, are left against the corporate hordes - the CEOs in their sky-high boardrooms quietly counting dollars and deciding which politicians have earned their financial support (or can be bought); the lobbyists with unlimited expense accounts to wine, dine and drive the quid pro quo; the vast underground of consulting firms and PR flacks that follow corporate orders.

No one could have imagined that Montana, with a population barely larger than a big city, would rise to challenge the United States Supreme Court. The Montana court ruling is an inspiring attempt to evade the deathly embrace of Citizens United and, at the same time, inescapably a courageous challenge to the ideologues now re-writing the nation's laws. It can be found here (PDF).

"Western Tradition Partnership" – the shadowy entity that was caught violating Montana's anti-corrupt practices act – immediately challenged the Montana decision, and last Friday, United States Supreme Court Justice William Kennedy (chief author of the Citizens United decision) issued an order blocking the Montana court ruling from taking effect until the court decides what to do with the appeal.

At least two of the Supreme Court justices who disagreed with their colleagues in Citizens United are hoping the Court will reconsider that ruling. In Friday's order, Justices Ginsberg and Breyer stated:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” .... [The appeal] will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

Observers of the Court think that's a lost cause. Renowned constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky believes that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the Montana Supreme Court by the same five to four majority in Citizens United. Still, Citizens United's impact on America's democracy has already been catastrophic, and support for proposals like ours to amend the Constitution has spread across the United States and transcends partisan labels. At the same time, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are under fire for their close ties to conservative pro-business organizations, further undermining confidence in the impartiality of the nation's highest court. I would not underestimate the power of public opinion to affect the outcome of this showdown – if not now, then in the not too distant future of our country.

 

 

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 02/21/2012

“There Oughta Be A Law” – Want to Play?

I wrote last week that until we change the Constitution to permanently kick corporate money out of politics, we can forget about Congress protecting us from cell phone company contracts that strip consumers of their right to go to court.

I got a lot of interesting email on that post, because most people who read “Where’s Our Money” and other blogs think there “oughta be a law” of some kind. But no matter what you believe in or where you stand on the ideological spectrum, anybody who is trying to make America a better place for human beings is going to have a hard time overcoming the corrupting effect of corporate money on public officials and the democratic process.

Think I’m wrong? Here’s my challenge:

Name a policy issue that involves our power as voters, consumers, workers, taxpayers or even shareholders and I will show you how corporate money has derailed any serious progress on the matter.

If you don’t want to post it publicly, just ask that your comment remain private, or send me an email.

The same day I mused on our new status as second-class citizens courtesy of the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, President Obama’s re-election campaign endorsed a constitutional amendment to reverse that ruling. "The President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending," the Obama campaign said. This came in the context of a another controversial move: the President had decided to encourage supporters to donate to one of the Super PACs supporting him. “Super PACs” are the shadowy groups that the Supreme Court freed of restraints on political spending in Citizens United. Tens of millions of dollars, most of it from unidentified corporations and wealthy donors, have poured into the Republican primaries. But that’s just a fraction of what Super PACs are expected to spend to unelect Barack Obama in November.

In a stark example of biting the hand that has fed it, Wall Street has made it clear that it is offended even by the timid financial reforms mustered by the Obama Administration over the last few years. Now that the taxpayers have resuscitated the Money Industry, it wants to go all the way back to the insane deregulatory policies that pushed the nation into a depression in 2008.

There was a lot of critical commentary about the announcement, not just by hypocrite Republicans like John Beohner, but also by commentators on the left who feel Obama betrayed his commitment to campaign finance reform.

I for one can’t see how any candidate from either party can afford not to play by the deregulated rules of legalized bribery blessed by the Supreme Court. Like Obama’s campaign manager said, “unilateral disarmament” in the face of a massive attack of big money makes no sense. Our electoral system now assures the survival only of the financially fattest.

But will Obama really fight for the 28th Amendment? It’s one thing to endorse the concept and quite another to press for a change in the Constitution that would strip the corporate establishment of its power to elect candidates and dictate laws. The President has the bully pulpit and phenomenal power, but like the rest of us, he can't hope to pass any laws if corporations maintain a hammerlock over the legislative branch. No one knows better than he how the powerful insurance lobby turned health care reform into a corporate boondoggle. If President Obama thinks there oughta be a law, any meaningful law, in his second term, he's going to have confront Citizens United.

 

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court / Uncategorized - 02/13/2012

Stop Forecclosuregate Bailout

Is President Obama going to try to sell us another bank bailout in his State of the Union address tonight?

Of course, he won't call it a bailout. He'll tout it as “the largest multi-state settlement of charges of wrongdoing against corporate malefactors in history;” something that sounds important and unprecedented.

But don’t be fooled, a bailout is exactly what Obama administration officials are scheming, under the guise of settling foreclosure fraud charges against the big banks.

The fraud stems from widespread robo-signing in which banks used forged documents or had employees sign off on documents they hadn’t read.

The Obama administration has been pressuring state attorneys general to end a joint federal-state investigation with a sweetheart deal that would amount to another bailout for the banks – rewarding them again for their bad behavior, this time with a light slap on the wrist.

Unlike in 2008, we know a lot more about how government officials under the influence of Wall Street misbehave. When administration officials met privately with state AGs Monday in Chicago, they were met with protestors, and a number of groups have been mobilizing phone calls to the White House and state AGs.

Let me give you some perspective: Banks have made hundreds of billions off the adjustable, high-interest loans they pawned off on borrowers, then sliced and diced and resold to investors until the bankers’ shenanigans sank our economy. Now the Obama administration wants to settle with them for between $19 and $25 billion in fines. Some of that money could be sent directly to 750,000 borrowers who were found to be victims of robo-signing. But there haven’t any thorough investigations to determine the full scope of that scandal or how many people were actually effected.  Part of the money could be used to reduce principal (by a piddling $20,000) for a small number of homeowners, and some could be used to pay housing counselors, who provide advice for people facing foreclosure.

But as in previous foreclosure reduction efforts and previous settlements with the banks, enforcement and accountability are completely lacking.

And while $19 to $25 billion may sound like a lot of money to us, to the bankers, it’s pocket change: It’s neither punitive nor a deterrent.

This foreclosure deal is so bad that Kamala Harris, the California AG who is a close ally of the president’s, walked away from it, promising instead to join with Nevada’s AG to scrutinize the bankers’ foreclosure practices more closely.

In doing so, Harris is behaving like real law enforcement official, not a bank apologist. Like any prosecutor, she knows she has to have solid evidence in hand before she talks about a plea bargain.

A  handful of other state AGs are expressing skepticism about the proposed settlement, but the Obama administration continues to pressure the AGs to settle before the banks’ behavior is fully investigated and understood.

As MIT economist and Baseline Scenario blogger Simon Johnson told Dave Dayen at Firedoglake, “Why go small when you have a strong case for fraud?”

Harris isn’t the only one who walked away from what she saw as a shabby deal for her constituents. The New York AG, Eric Schneiderman also balked, and when he started to question the deal, he was booted off the negotiating committee.  What particularly disturbed Schneiderman was the notion that as part of a proposed settlement, banks would get immunity from lawsuits, not only relating to robo-signing, but for other mortgage-related fraud as well.

“I wasn't willing to provide a release that ... released conduct that hadn't been investigated, essentially,” Schneiderman told National Public Radio. Schneiderman has started his own investigation.

Initially the joint state-federal investigation looked like it had teeth. Back in 2010 when the process began, Tom Miller, the Iowa AG who headed the multi-state task force, stated bluntly: “We will put people in jail.”

What happened?

Remember what Deep Throat told investigative reporters Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate: Follow the money.

After Miller launched that initial investigation of the banks’ foreclosure practices, he raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate interests – more than 88 times as much as he’d raised before the investigation. Not all that much money in the scheme of things, but apparently enough to inspire him to back off. Now Miller is leading the settlement juggernaut.

Where we see fraud, our leaders see financial opportunity.

We can’t let Miller and the Obama administration let the banks off the hook again at our expense. We want thorough, transparent investigations and indictments where appropriate.

Please call the White House today and tell them that if it walks like a bailout and quacks like a bailout, we’ll know it’s a bailout, no matter how administration officials try to dress it up.

 

And we don't want any more bailouts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/24/2012

Court vs. Court

I’ve been a lawyer for thirty-two years, and I’ve never read a judicial decision like the one that the Montana Supreme Court issued last December 30.

While every court in this country – from the lowest state court to the federal tribunals – sees its job as obeying the dictates of the United States Supreme Court, the Montana Supreme Court chose to obey the U.S. Constitution instead.

The bottom line: the Montana court refused to comply with the US Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down legal limits on how much corporations could spend on electing politicians or passing ballot measures. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to intervene and influence our democracy with cash. Spending money is a form of free speech, said five of the nine justices. And by that one vote majority, the United States Supreme Court made corporations more powerful than government, more powerful than human beings. The second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling sparked a day of national protest, as my colleague Marty Berg reports.

Like many states, Montana had strong campaign spending laws, including disclosure of campaign contributors and one that prohibits corporations from giving money directly to candidates for public office out of the company treasury. Instead, corporations that want to get involved in elections are required to set up a special fund that can receive donations from individual corporate employees or shareholders and use that money for gifts to politicians or political causes.

As the Montana opinion explains, a Colorado-based organization known as “Western Tradition Partnership” sued to invalidate Montana’s corporate campaign controls, saying they were unconstitutional under Citizens United. Now known as “American Tradition Partnership,” the organization’s supporters and funding are murky, but it’s views are clear: it is extremely anti-environment. The Montana Supreme Court described its purpose as “to act as a conduit of funds for persons and entities including corporations who want to spend money anonymously to influence Montana elections. WTP seeks to make unlimited expenditures in Montana elections from these anonymous funding sources. WTP’s operation is premised on the fact, or at least the assumption, that its independent expenditures have a determinative influence on the outcome of elections in Montana.”

Lots of states have dealt with Citizens United by repealing or rewriting their campaign spending laws. Not Montana.

The Montana Supreme Court decision begins by discussing how in the late 1800s, big mining interests used money to back or bribe elected officials in Montana to take control of state government. The corruption got so bad that many citizens of the state lost their faith in government. “This naked corporate manipulation of the very government (Governor and Legislature) of the State ultimately resulted in populist reforms that are still part of Montana law,” writes Montana Chief Justice Mike McGrath. Among the reforms: the initiative process, and, in 1912, the limits on corporate spending.

“The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did,” the Chief Justice writes. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections because the shadowy backers of WTP seek to promote their interests? Does a state have to repeal or invalidate its murder prohibition if the homicide rate declines? We think not.”

While the US Supreme Court justices saw no “compelling interest” in limiting corporate contributions, the Montana Supreme Court had a different view: “Montana has a clear interest in preserving the integrity of its electoral process”;  “it also has an interest in encouraging the full participation of the Montana electorate”; and “a continuing and compelling interest in, and a constitutional right to, an independent, fair and impartial judiciary,” one that is not subject to being bought by corporations who elect friendly judges.

Concluding that “the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens,” the Montana Supreme Court refused to apply Citizens United and upheld the state’s campaign 100 year old reform law.

But that was only the majority opinion. Wait till you hear what the two dissenting justices had to say:

The first, Justice Beth Baker: “The value of disclosure in preventing corruption cannot be understated.” But, she continues, “I believe it is our unflagging obligation, in keeping with the courts’ duty to safeguard the rule of law, to honor the decisions of our nation’s highest Court.”

Justice James Nelson gets the last word, and it’s a doozy.

He writes:

“I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United…. I am deeply frustrated, as are many Americans, with the reach of Citizens United. The First Amendment has now been elevated to a vaunted and isolated position so as to endow corporations with extravagant rights of political speech and, with those rights, the exaggerated power to influence voters and elections….. In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s 'open marketplace' of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.”

“It defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads—put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate.”

“I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors.”

“Citizens United distorts the right to speech beyond recognition. Indeed, I am shocked that the Supreme Court did not balance the right to speech with the government’s compelling interest in preserving the fundamental right to vote in elections.”

“I am compelled to say something about corporate ‘personhood.’ While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law… I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”

Having explained, in the most vivid terms, why Citizens United was decided wrongly, Justice Nelson concludes: “I must return to the central point of this Dissent. Regardless of my disagreement with the views of the Citizens United majority, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has spoken. It has interpreted the protections of the First Amendment vis-à-vis corporate political speech. Agree with its decision or not, Montana’s judiciary and elected officers are bound to accept and enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling….Citizens United is the law of the land, and this Court is duty-bound to follow it.”

Students of the law know that courts are always disagreeing with each other. Like the majority of the Montana Supreme Court, judges seek to “distinguish” the circumstances of one case from the facts in another in order to rule a different way. But rarely do the cases involve issues so fundamentally important to the nation; rarely are the stakes so great and rarely are the differences so stark. My guess is we're going to be seeing more of this gentle judicial civil disobedience as the present US Supreme Court ventures ever farther into the realm of re-writing the Constitution.

All the Montana justices seemed to agree that the United States Supreme Court had made a terrible decision in Citizens United. It’s most vehement critic on the Montana court, certain of that as he was, nevertheless felt bound to obey a higher principle – to obey the law of the land. If only the five justices in Washington had felt the same way.

 

 

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Outrage / Supreme Court - 01/23/2012

Where’s Our Bailout? (Redux)

Between August 2007 and April 2010, the U.S. Federal Reserve handed out up to $1.2 trillion in public money to banks and other companies in the form of short-term loans to help them cope with cash flow problems, according to a recent report by the Bloomberg news service. In addition to U.S. banks and speculators, big bucks went to financial institutions owned by foreign governments; domestic firms like Ford and G.E. as well as Toyota and Mitsui and a German real estate investment firm.

While American taxpayers kept big businesses all over the planet alive, no such loans are available to taxpayers to cover their own personal cash-flow problems, including not being able to pay their mortgages, monthly bills, put food on their tables or a few holiday presents under the tree.

New figures, ironically also issued by the Federal Reserve, show how much help $1.2 trillion could be – if put in the hands of Americans. According to the Fed, the total amount of all money Americans owed on their credit cards as of last September was $693 billion. All of that could be paid off – in full – leaving another $500 billion, say, to help people avoid foreclosures or give every consumer in the United States a hefty tax cut.

Imagine the “stimulus effect” on our economy of paying off every credit card in the nation.

Although the Fed has portrayed the bailouts as the only way to keep money flowing in the economy, the Money Industry has yet to open its spigot and expand lending. Instead, they’ve used our dollars mostly to inflate CEOs’ executive salaries and pay themselves even more ridiculous bonuses.

Zeroing out America’s credit cards would solve that problem instantly. The credit card companies would get the money, of course, but Americans could start fresh and begin investing in their families, their businesses and their local economies.

Unfortunately, our country’s leadership owes its allegiance to the multi-national mega-corporations that grease the system with billions of dollars in campaign contributions. Wall Street’s “investment” in Washington caused the financial depression we are in today, and its no wonder that Washington’s attention is focused so narrowly on the welfare of the wealthy and large corporations. In fact, with its infamous decision equating corporations to human beings, the United States Supreme Court has turned the corruption of our democracy by money into a principle of our Constitution. Until we change that, Americans will be second class citizens in a country controlled by wealth and power.

 

Citizens United / Foreclosure / Harvey Column / Outrage / Supreme Court / TARP - 01/11/2012

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

The Overdogs Bite Back

Our corporate lords are a sensitive lot. They want it all. They want total control of the government and they want love and appreciation.

Who can blame them for being upset? They spend all that money to buy the government, hire all those lobbyists, all those PR people.

It’s true the politicians help them out when business is bad, but do they everything just the way the corporate overlords want? Apparently not.

Who knew?

And we don’t express enough love for them, or appreciate them enough for all the good things they say they do.

Instead, we brats just want them to pay more taxes, or put another way, the same rate of taxes they used to.

Even one of their own, Warren Buffet, tries to make them look bad by suggesting maybe they could afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Now the CEOs are mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more.

And they've created a new more loveable name for themselves:  job creators? Who wouldn’t love a job creator?

They want to make sure they’re getting their message across about how swell they are. It’s called, wonderfully enough, the Job Creators Alliance.

In an odd coincidence, their message bears a striking resemblance to pure Republican propaganda. Even the tiniest speck of regulation appearing on the horizon, for example Dodd-Frank financial regulation, causes the job creators to tremble and quake, and stop doing the only thing they really care about – creating jobs.

The Job Creators Alliance doesn’t blame the deep recession or the lack of demand for unemployment. They blame Dodd-Frank. This mild bit of financial regulation is blasted while the CEOs tote out one of the Republicans’ favorite phony themes – the financial collapse wasn’t caused by Wall Street greed, fraud and carelessness, but by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And the other big problem? You guessed it. Mandated health insurance.

Because both Dodd-Frank and mandated health insurance tamper with one of the job creators’ real sacred cows – the free market system.

As staunch defenders of the free market system, the CEO’s web site ought to be aflame with their righteous anger at the bailout and the Federal Reserve’s secret trillions in loans that propped up so many businesses in the wake of the economic collapse. But in what I’m sure is just an oversight, the job creators’ haven’t gotten around to posting about it yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Outrage - 12/29/2011

9 For the 99 – Restoring the Real Economy

Remember how aggressively our leaders have talked about tackling unemployment and the housing crisis?

Remember all the strong action to make good on their promises?

Me neither.

Remember how all our leaders criticized each other for taking money from Wall Street and other powerful corporate interests?

Remember all the potent steps they took to rid our democracy of corporate money?

Me neither.

You’ve probably heard of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9-tax plan, the scheme he says will get the economy going. Do you think it will work?

Here’s our proposal to restore the real economy. Unlike the solutions proposed by our leaders, these proposals focus on the problems faced every day by most people, not bankers.

We’ll be offering it at OccupyLA in the next couple of days to complement their work.

  1. Support 28A, constitutional amendment overturning U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling to stop the flood of toxic corporate cash poisoning our democracy
  2. Prosecute Wall Street crime, not Wall Street protestors
  3. Give citizens same right to borrow taxpayer money from the Fed at the same low interest rates that Wall Street got in the bailout
  4. Cap bank fees and interest rates
  5. Offer real foreclosure relief:  Require banks to provide principal reduction for underwater mortgages, including allowing judges to reduce home mortgage principal in bankruptcy court to encourage mortgage modifications
  6. Repeal unnecessary tax loopholes and other corporate subsidies (overseas tax breaks, local & state tax bribes for moving jobs from one community to another, make corporations pay taxes) and transfer savings to taxpayers and small businesses in the form of tax cuts.
  7. Repeal corporate-backed NAFTA-style trade deals, which export U.S. jobs overseas, reduce wages of American workers to that of laborers in foreign countries and weaken environmental regulation.
  8. Restore traditional separations between federally guaranteed consumer banking from other, riskier, financial business.
  9. Reform student debt, stop predatory practices.

 

 

For more information, check out http://www.wheresourmoney.org

On Facebook https://www.facebook.com/wheresourmoney

Twitter http://twitter.com/ - !/WheresOurMoney

Support 28A http://www.wheresourmoney.org/campaign-2011/

 

 

 

 

 

Action / Citizens United / Congress / Foreclosure / Martin Column / Supreme Court - 10/20/2011

Bold Lite

Maybe President Obama's jobs plan will succeed in making congressional Republicans look bad before the 2012 election, especially if they reject it and demonize it as another socialist plot.

But even in the unlikely event that the congressional Republicans pass it whole, would the president's $440 billion grab bag offer significant solutions to Main Street’s most pressing problems – reducing the unemployment rate and halting the foreclosure crisis?

Probably not.

It’s true that the president and his administration did not dig the deep economic hole the country is in. And the president deserves some credit for stepping out of Washington’s deficit obsession bubble just long enough to recognize that nothing the government has done so far has been enough to lift those outside Wall Street out of that hole – the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

But throughout his administration, and again last night, he has not offered big enough shovels, to dig us out of it.

As Paul Krugman [who labels the plan “a lot better than nothing”] points out, the collapse of the housing bubble blew a  $1 trillion a year hole in the economy, a hole that last night’s jobs plan won’t come close to filling.

But a comparison of the jobs plan’s $440 billion price tag with the unsuccessful $16 trillion bank bailout suggests its relative timidity. Remember that the federal government handed over that money to the bankers with no strings attached and no questions asked.

While the administration likes to tout the bank bailout’s success by bragging that most of the money has been repaid, by its most important measure – ensuring that the banking system helped restore the Main Street economy - it remains a costly failure.

Still you have to at least acknowledge that the bank bailout was a bold scheme. The same can’t be said for the American Jobs Act, which as the president stressed, was a collection of non-controversial proposals that even corporate Republicans have endorsed in the past.

Call it Obama’s “bold lite.”

Yes, it was bolder than what the president has suggested since the original $700 billion stimulus. It includes $240 billion of tax cuts and about $200 billion in infrastructure spending and aid to local governments, along with regulatory review, a vague housing scheme, plus a significant new round of budget cuts to pay for it, including unspecified threats to Medicare.

According to an estimate by Economic Policy Institute, the new plan, if passed whole, would create 2.6 million new jobs over the next several years and prevent the loss of another 1.6 million jobs.

That’s not chopped liver – but the country is still staggering under the weight of persistent 9 percent unemployment, with 14 million Americans unemployed, another 8.8 million working part-time but seeking fulltime work, and another 2.6 million who don’t show up in unemployment numbers because they’ve given up looking for work. In addition, we face a continuing foreclosure crisis and the threat of future budget cuts.

While I hope that the congressional Republicans don’t just decide to block the proposal, experience suggests that they are stuck on that strategy as a way to undermine the president. Will “a lot better than nothing” be good enough to help millions of Americans for whom the recovery has only been a mirage? Or is the president setting himself up, and the rest of us, for another round of dashed hopes and failure?

Uncategorized - 09/10/2011