Your tax dollars at work fighting unemployment – in the Philippines

If you’re among the millions in the U.S. who are unemployed and need retraining for new work, you are, increasingly, out of luck.

But if you’re a major financial institution that wants to outsource jobs to the Philippines, until a couple of days ago, the Obama administration was spending about $36 million a year to improve the English language skills of your future workers.

Among those taking advantage of outsourced labor in the Philippines, in call centers and IT, are  a couple too-big-to-fail, bailed-out financial institutions, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase.

Last week, after a couple of congressmen got riled up about the outsourcing training, the U.S. Agency for International Development said it would “suspend” the program “pending further review of the facts.”

The program was set to expire at the end of the year in any case.

But the fact is that USAID has been offering training for future outsourcing workers for several years, from South Asia to Armenia, Information Week reported. In the Philippines, the U.S. contended it wasn’t just spending the money to subsidize Citibank and other would-be outsourcers; the government said it was actually using your tax dollars as part of an antiterrorism effort in a section of the country with a Muslim minority unhappy with its treatment by the central government.

According to the USAID scheme,  the would-be terrorists would be a lot happier once they learned a little English and were able to land a job in a Citibank call center.

Meanwhile the U.S. has been suffering through a staggering economic downturn and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, as President Obama and other politicians promise to stem outsourcing and bring jobs back to this country.

Since 2007, 500,000 call center jobs have been outsourced from the United States, according to Rep. Tim Bishop, a New York Democrat, and Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, the congressmen who demanded a halt to the program. In 2010, USAID had suspended a similar $10 million initiative to train Sri Lankan workers after Bishop and Jones complained about it.

Despite high unemployment, job training programs and community colleges in the U.S., which also offer the opportunity for workers to learn new skills, have had to go begging. As the New York Times reported last week, “work force centers that assist the unemployed are being asked to do more with less as federal funds dwindle for job training and related services.”

Federal money available for retraining workers is 18 percent lower, in today’s dollars, than it was in 2006, even though there are 6 million more people unemployed, the Times reported.

While the debate over cuts to unemployment benefits has received wide attention, the cuts to the retraining programs have gone largely unnoticed.

While the president has proposed a $2.8 billion increase for job training over the next 10 years, Republicans’ budget proposals have suggested that federal funds for job training should be cut even further.

The USAID program is obviously at odds with the Obama administration’s stated intent to discourage outsourcing. Given all the other benefits  and bailouts that this administration has already showered on Citibank and AIG, would it be too much to demand that the administration stop using our tax dollars to pay for these companies’ job training when they want to move more employment from the U.S.?

 

AIG / Citibank / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / Outsourcing - 04/25/2012

Occupy the New Year

Watch live streaming video from califather at livestream.com

Where’s Our Money greeted the New Year in church – All Saints Church in Pasadena.I moderated a panel on the foreclosure crisis, with three people who have been on the front line of trying to find solutions, help people save their homes and hold bankers for their continuing fraud.

I met Walter Hackett when I first began writing about foreclosures in early 2009. He’s a former banker who became a homeowner’s advocate, as well as a leader in training other lawyers in one of the most complex areas of law. Jono Shaffer and Carlos Marroquin were two of the great people I met through Occupy. Jono, a veteran labor organizer who spearheaded the Justice for Janitors campaign, now works with ReFund California, a coalition that is fighting the austerity agenda across a range of issues, including education, housing and making Wall Street and the 1 percent pay its fair share, rather than making the middle-class bear all the costs of the economic collapse.

Carlos is one of the great spirits of Occupy LA, who through his advocacy and blog, No2HousingCrime.com has helped individual homeowners and put the spotlight on the foreclosure crisis.

The panel was part of stellar afternoon teach-in sponsored by Occupy’s Interfaith Sanctuary as part of the run-up to the Occupy the Rose Bowl Parade the following day.

I thought Walter, Jono and Carlos each made strong presentations and I recommend that you catch up with them in the video shot by my friend Vincent Precht, a stalwart Occupier, special education teacher who also has a terrific blog, California Father, where he writes about education issues, among other things.

It was a great way to start the new year, joining with people who have been doing good strong work for a long time, realizing how much resources we have, along with all the people who are finding their own way into the Occupy movement.

 

 

Foreclosures / Occupy - 01/08/2012

The American Flag Deficit Reduction Program

The US deficit is estimated at $1.5 trillion. In Washington, the debate is between raising taxes or cutting spending. Neither is necessary, if we take advantage of America’s greatest asset, the Star Spangled Banner.

In dire straits after the Wall Street debacle, many governments across the United States and throughout the world are being pressed to sell public assets – buildings, utilities, trains, even highways. Just last year, Governor Action Hero tried to sell off California courthouses and other historical landmarks to a private consortium for $2.33 billion. Naming rights on sports stadiums and convention centers have always been a revenue strategy for municipalities and closely associated private firms like Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build a football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. In addition to seeking tax breaks from the city, the firm has already sold the stadium's naming rights to Farmers Insurance for $700 million.

Why not rent some or all of Old Glory on a daily basis to pay off the debt we have racked up to bail out Wall Street?

Here’s the math.

There are fifty stars on the flag (each one added when a state entered the Union). So if those stars were to be made “available” on a daily basis, there would be at least 18,250 “opportunities” every year (50 x 365).

Divide the deficit by 18,250, and we could eliminate the federal debt in one year if each star were offered up at the price of $82 million ($82,191,780.08, to be exact).

Sure, that’s hefty price, you might say. Who would pay it?

Answer: the folks who got America into this mess in the first place.

So let’s say J.P. Morgan Chase wanted the highly prestigious opportunity to occupy the entire flag for one day each year. Here’s what that might look like:

As a special inducement to pay $4 billion, companies that agreed to take the entire flag for a day could also be given the right to put some text on one of the stripes. It could be the company's most important message:

Or anything its CEO might desire:

Some may object that it is inappropriate to put the American Flag in the hands of big corporations.  First of all, like the United States Supreme Court said in its Citizens United decision applying freedom of expression to corporations, all Americans will have equal freedom to buy access to the flag for $82 million per star. Corporations are Americans, too. Second, these companies own the United States anyhow, so what’s the biggie?

What about foreign countries? Should we rent the Stars and Stripes to our trading partners, the Chinese? If so, should we require them to write in English, or should we allow them to use Chinese characters?

That’s a tough question, and like all decisions concerning the American Flag Deficit Reduction Program, should be decided by the United States Congress.

Which, by the way, has a spectacular building in a prime location that would be highly attractive to certain firms. Consider this on the East Face of the Capitol Building:

"Congress. Brought to you today by Goldman Sachs."

Just think about it.

Financial Crisis / Harvey Column / Privatization - 07/07/2011

Missing the Message

It’s absolutely clear that the Republicans mean to work with the big banks to block any financial reform, no matter how watered down, by any political means necessary.

The Republicans have opposed the president’s nominees in committee. As far as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, they oppose not only the popular consumer champion Elizabeth Warren to be its chief, they will oppose anyone President Obama nominates. The Republicans have made their intentions clear – they want to gut the agency before it’s born.

Meanwhile the bank lobbyists have gone to work on the regulators who are writing the actual rules to implement last year’s financial reforms, and have effectively stalled the process in its tracks.

To make sure that no one is missing the message, J.P. Morgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon went on the offensive this week, publicly stating that excessive financial regulation was weakening the economic recovery. Without offering specifics, Dimon told Fed chair Ben Bernanke at a bankers’ conference, “I have a great fear someone’s going to try to write a book in 20 years, and the book is going to talk about all the things that we did in the middle of the crisis to actually slow down recovery.”

While the bankers have been working feverishly behind the scenes to further water down the weak Dodd-Frank version of financial reform, Dimon’s statements are the most aggressive public challenge yet to any attempts to rein in the big banks.

What’s unclear is why the president is not meeting this assault on one of his proudest achievements (Wall Street reform) head on, despite the Republicans’ and bankers’ clear signals that they have no intention to compromise. Rather than mounting a strong public case for Warren, for example, the White House continues to float alternative, less qualified, nominees. Obama seems to be laboring under the illusion that there is somebody else who satisfy the Republicans. What’s baffling is that he has no reason to think so: the Republicans haven’t exactly been ambiguous. The bankers are also taking off the gloves, with only a few lonely voices in Washington to make the case for stronger reform.

When will our president get the message?

 

 

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 06/10/2011

D.C. Disconnect: Revolving Door Edition

When it comes to shaping the Obama administration’s economic policies, only those with tight connections to the nation’s too big to fail banks need apply.

The latest example is the new director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew.

He spent most of his career working in government and academia, with one significant exception – a stint as chief operating officer of Citibank’s Alternative Investments Division, which manages about $7 billion in investments in developing countries. Lew was one of those banking executives whose huge post-bailout bonus enraged the public.

In Washington, the issue barely surfaced in Lew’s confirmation hearings. Lew suggested he was too busy running Citibank to notice that the place was drowning in toxic collateralized debt obligations that nobody even understood.

Meanwhile, the guy Lew replaced, Peter Orzag, is headed for a high-paying banking post of his own – at Citibank.

Lew and Orzag were among the large, bipartisan banking-friendly crowd who apparently failed to comprehend or question what was going on around and beneath them in the years immediately preceding the financial crisis.

During that time, one of the places where Orzag and Lew would gather was the Hamilton Project, a high-powered D.C.-based think tank within the Brookings Institute where Democratic Party politicians and bankers could get together to drink in the wisdom of the project’s founder, Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, a major proponent of banking deregulation, mentor to current top Obama financial advisers Tim Geithner and Larry Summers – and then, the president of Citibank.

The Hamilton Project has been described as a “bastion of the fiscally moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” But it would be more precisely described as the home of the increasingly influential too big to fail bank wing of the Democratic Party.

And who showed up to welcome the launch of the project in 2006?

None other than then-Sen. Barack Obama, who told the assembled crowd, “I would love just to sit here with these folks and listen because you have on this panel and in this room some of the most innovative, thoughtful policymakers, people who have both ideas but also ways of implementing them into action. Our country owes a great debt to a number of people who are in this room because they helped put us on a pathway of prosperity that we are still enjoying, despite the best efforts of some.” (Watch it here.)

This door swinging jovially back and forth between Wall Street and Washington is so common that it registers as a non-event, and makes a mockery of the Kabuki theater of the supposed hostility between Obama and the financial titans.

Ira Stoll at The Future of Capitalism reminds us, in case we forgot, of other members of the Obama economic team who cashed in on Wall Street before it melted down and they joined the administration, like top economic adviser Laurence Summers and $5.2 million a year, one day a week job at the D.E. Shaw hedge fund, and former chief of staff and Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, who got paid $16.2 million for working for a year and a half at the investment banking firm Wasserstein Perella.

As for Orzag, his departure for Citibank created a faint stir in the mainstream media, where Ezra Klein of the Washington Post notes that Orzag doesn’t appear to be in it for the money, since he’s “fairly wealthy” already, and “his lifetime of public service positions does not suggest a man particularly motivated by income.”

But at the Atlantic’s blog, James Fallow viewed Orzag’s move as an example of Washington’s structural corruption. His comments strike me as stating what is blindingly obvious to anyone who lives and works outside the opaque world of Washington. “The idea that someone would help plan, advocate, and carry out an economic policy that played such a crucial role in the survival of a financial institution – and then, less than two years after his administration took office, would take a job that (a) exemplifies the growing disparities the administration says it's trying to correct and (b) unavoidably will call on knowledge and contacts Orszag developed while in recent public service – this says something bad about what is taken for granted in American public life.

For Baseline Scenario’s James Kwak, it’s also more than a straightforward conflict of interest. Why does a young, highly educated energetic member of the elite, who presumably doesn’t need a Wall Street paycheck, want to work at Citibank?

“Orszag wanting to work at a megabank — instead of starting a new company, or joining a foundation, or joining an NGO, or becoming an executive at a struggling manufacturing company that makes things, or even being a consultant to countries with sovereign debt problems — is the same as an engineer from a top school going to Goldman instead of a real company. It’s not his fault, but it’s a symptom of something that’s bad for our country.”

Around the Web / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2010

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

Around the Web: Volcker Rules - Not!

Until the morning of January 21, 82-year-old former Federal Reserve president Paul Volcker had been a lonely and largely ignored figure among President Obama’s economic advisers.

Volcker seemed to be the only one of Obama’s advisers not under the spell of the “too big to fail banks” and their highly touted innovations.

Volcker was especially vocal about protecting the public from the financial world’s riskier innovations. As he told a financial conference last year, “Riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: ‘If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected.’ ”

It was Volcker who had said that the only financial innovation to benefit consumers in the last 20 years was the ATM card.

But he wasn’t getting much traction with the president and his advisers.

Then the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

In a lurch back toward the populism he had embraced during his campaign, President Obama hastily reached out for Volcker.

During a press conference, the president endorsed something he called the Volcker rule as an essential plank of his financial reform plan. That rule would restrict banks from risky proprietary trades with their own (borrowed) money.

Here’s what the president said:

“Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers.  If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do.  Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy.  But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

For more on proprietary trading and the Volcker rule, read this from Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal and the NYT. For more about why the Volcker rule was a good idea, see this from WSJ’s Dealbreaker.

Obama mentioned the Volcker Rule a couple more times, as did the man who was marshaling financial reform through the House, Rep. Barney Frank.

But neither the president nor anybody else in the Democratic leadership ever mounted a public campaign to make it an essential part of reform. In fact, within a month, the president was already backing off his support of the Volcker rule.

And now, like many other parts of the reform that would have protected consumers and inconvenienced banks, it has been largely gutted.

Bloomberg reports “lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal.”

The weaker provisions won’t even go into effect for as many as 12 years.

It would have been one thing for Obama and the Democrats to go down swinging on the Volcker Rule. But they didn’t even put up much of a fight.

If you’re as disappointed as I am with the president’s lack of leadership on this, after he made such a big deal about it, why not let him know?

Around the Web / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 06/30/2010

Loopholes and Lumps of Coal

While the financial industry got a stocking stuffer, we got stiffed.

House Democrats passed something they called reform and handed  it over to the Senate.

But the bill is laden with loopholes, put there by Blue Dogs and New Democrats doing the bidding of the financial institutions.

Democratic leaders, from President Obama to Rep. Barney Frank have demonstrated that they are at best ineffectual in spearheading efforts to win real reform that puts consumers and taxpayers’ interests first. At worst, they're undermining those efforts.

The resilience shown by the financial industry in blunting efforts at sensible regulation has been nothing short of breathtaking.

Despite these setbacks, the battle may not be lost.

Glass-Steagel / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/15/2009

Wall Street Gives Thanks

(Translated into English by Harvey Rosenfield)

November 22, 2009

Dear People of the Rest of the Country:

The holidays are here. Like you, we have all worked very hard during this difficult and trying year.  Now it’s time for all Americans to take a well-deserved few days off, chill out at your favorite Caribbean getaway, crack open a bottle (we like the 2006 Antinori Cab), gather around family and friends and yachts, and recognize how blessed we are for getting to “do God’s work,” as Master Blankfein says.

Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 11/23/2009