Published: Tuesday 15 January 2013
In a pinch, the Treasury could issue IOUs to the nation’s creditors — guarantees they’ll be paid eventually. But there’s no indication that’s Obama’s game plan, either.

 

A week before his inaugural, President Obama says he won’t negotiate with Republicans over raising the debt limit. 

At an unexpected news conference on Monday he said he won’t trade cuts in government spending in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. 

“If the goal is to make sure that we are being responsible about our debt and our deficit - if that’s the conversation we’re having, I’m happy to have that conversation,” Obama said. “What I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people.”

Well and good. But what, exactly, is the President’s strategy when the debt ceiling has to be raised, if the GOP hasn’t relented?

READ FULL POST 7 COMMENTS

Published: Saturday 1 December 2012
When the Treasury Department issues new debt, it’s merely carrying out the mechanical necessities of Congress’ decisions — because carrying out the law as passed by the legislative branch is the constitutionally mandated job of the executive branch.

 

One of the key pieces of the package President Obama put forward yesterday to deal with the so-called “fiscal cliff” is a permanent end to the debt ceiling. It would make increases in the ceiling effectively automatic, subject to a veto by two-thirds of Congress.

This proposal did not just prompt howls of protestations from conservatives — it also produced a remarkable failure amongst politicians and journalists alike to understand the basics of government financing and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

In the Washington Post yesterday, Lori Montgomery called the idea “an effective end to congressional control over the size of the national debt.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) railed against it as “a blank check.” Timothy Carney, a journalist for The Washington Examiner, lamented the legislature ceding power to the executive, effectively “castrating” Congress.

But the worst example of the theme arrived this afternoon, when Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) ...

Published: Tuesday 23 October 2012
Banks trump citizens, and absent severe reconstruction of the banking system, the cycle will absolutely, unequivocally continue.

 

Before the campaign contributors lavished billions of dollars on their favorite candidate; and long after they toast their winner or drink to forget their loser, Wall Street was already primed to continue its reign over the economy.

For, after three debates (well, four), when it comes to banking, finance, and the ongoing subsidization of Wall Street, both presidential candidates and their parties’ attitudes toward the banking sector is similar  – i.e. it must be preserved – as is – at all costs, rhetoric to the contrary, aside.

Obama hasn’t brought ‘sweeping reform’ upon the Establishment Banks, nor does Romney need to exude deregulatory babble, because nothing structurally substantive has been done to harness the biggest banks of the financial sector, enabled, as they are, by entities from the SEC to the Fed to the Treasury Department to the White House.

In addition, though much is made of each candidates' tax plans, and the related math that doesn’t add up (for both presidential candidates), the bottom line is, Obama hasn’t explained exactly WHY there’s $5 trillion more in debt during his presidency, nor has Romney explained HOW to get a ...

Published: Friday 21 September 2012
“Romney’s lack of transparency on his tax returns is especially troubling given that he is similarly evasive on the details of his tax policies.”

On Friday afternoon, the Romney campaign released the candidate’s 2011 tax return, which showed that he paid a tax rate of approximately 14 percent on more than $13 million of reported income. The campaign also disclosed that Romney voluntarily forfeited about $1.8 million in charitable deductions to inflate the tax rate he would have to disclose to the public. The campaign continues to refuse to release returns prior to 2010, flunking an accepted standard of transparency, first established by Mitt’s father George Romney, of releasing multiple years’ returns.

In a blog post, Romney’s lawyer and the trustee of his “blind trust” said, “After you have reviewed all of the newly-posted documents, you may have further questions.” Yes, we do. Lots.

Here are 10 unanswered questions about Romney’s taxes:

1. After the election, when the subject of your tax returns is outside of the public glare, will you file an amended tax return to claim your full deduction of charitable contributions? Was the tax rate you reported for other years similarly manipulated?

2. Why was your 2011 income $7 million lower than you estimated it to be in January? How does someone overestimate their income by $7 million?

3. Financial disclosures show that you have as much as $82 million ...

Published: Thursday 13 September 2012
Obama has followed the examples of Summers and Geithner instead of those of Warren and Harris, and that is what has made the election a tossup as voters continue to suffer in an economy that Democrats as well as Republicans wrecked.

 

Bill Clinton bears as much responsibility as any politician for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the wild applause for his disingenuous speech at the Democratic National Convention last week is a sure sign of the poverty of what passes for progressive politics.

Do those convention delegates, and the fawning media that were wowed by the former president’s rhetorical seductions, not recall that just before he left office Clinton signed off on the game-changing legislation that ended the sensible rules imposed on Wall Street during the Great Depression? It was Clinton who cooperated with the Republicans in reversing the legacy of FDR’s New Deal, opening the floodgates of unfettered avarice that almost drowned the world’s economy during the reign of George W. Bush. 

How convenient to ignore the Financial Services Modernization Act, which Clinton signed into law to summarily end the Glass-Steagall barrier against the commingling of investment and commercial banking. Do the Democrats not remember that Citigroup, the first too-big-to-fail bank made legal by the law Clinton signed, became the $15 million employer of Robert Rubin, the Clinton treasury secretary who led the fight for the law that legalized the creation of Citigroup? Or that Citigroup—led by Sanford Weill, to whom Clinton gave one of the souvenir pens he used to approve that onerous legislation—went on to be a major player in the subprime mortgage swindles and had to be bailed out with more than $50 billion of taxpayer funds?

READ FULL POST 7 COMMENTS

Published: Thursday 6 September 2012
“The fate of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts is even harder to figure, although the Treasury recently announced that all of the companies’ profits from now on will be handed over to Uncle Sam each quarter.”

Quick, how many billions in the red are taxpayers on the bailout of GM? AIG? Fannie and Freddie? Is it true that the government has reaped a profit from bailing out the banks?

It should be easy to find answers to such questions. But while it's a snap to find rosy administration claims about the bailout, finding hard numbers is much more difficult. That's why, since the bailouts began in 2008, we've maintained a frequently updated site to provide them. Now we've retooled our database to make it even easier to find these sorts of answers.

 

So you can effortlessly discover that it's $27 billion for GM

Published: Saturday 1 September 2012
“The suspects targeted include Sajid Mir, who was indicted by U.S. prosecutors last year for allegedly working with Pakistan's spy agency to direct the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai that killed 166 people, including six Americans.”

 

The Obama administration's decision to designate the leadership of Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Taiba group as terrorists this week sends a pointed, if largely symbolic, message to a Pakistani government that remains unable or unwilling to crack down on the extremist organization.

On Thursday, the Treasury Department issued an order against eight Lashkar leaders that prohibits Americans from doing business with them and freezes any of their assets under U.S. jurisdiction. The suspects targeted include Sajid Mir, who was indicted by U.S. prosecutors last year for allegedly working with Pakistan's spy agency to direct the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai that killed 166 people, including six Americans.

ProPublica has reported extensively on the attacks and the ties between Lashkar and Pakistani intelligence. The other Laskhar chiefs named Thursday by Treasury are accused of running finances, propaganda and military operations against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where Lashkar cooperates with the Taliban and al Qaeda.

"Today's action against LET (Lashkar-e-Taiba) is Treasury's most comprehensive to date against this group and includes individuals participating in all aspects of Lashkar's operations,” David S. Cohen, the undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said in a statement. "Attacking LET's facilitation networks is particularly important, since charitable donations LET raises in Pakistan — its primary revenue source — are used to fuel LET's military operations.”

The financial impact on Lashkar will be less than devastating, however. Although donations are a significant source of income, the militant group is also a longtime recipient of funds, arms, training and protection from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence ...

Published: Tuesday 21 August 2012
“More homeowners have received assistance through reforms and changes made to the private modification and refinancing process, and even more are sure to benefit from the $25-billion mortgage settlement between large banks and the federal government and state attorneys generals reached this year.”

It is hardly a secret that the Obama administration’s programs to bolster the housing market and help struggling homeowners have failed to meet expectations — Obama admitted so himself last year, when he said his administration was “going back to the drawing board” to expand those programs. The slow progress in housing, as the New York Times detailed today, has “remained a millstone” around the economy’s neck, even though the programs have helped millions of homeowners: the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) and Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) have helped more than 3.6 million people refinance or  READ FULL POST 5 COMMENTS

Published: Tuesday 21 August 2012
Did Romney use a 2009 IRS tax amnesty to escape being caught in a giant multi-year tax fraud? The 2009 tax return he won't release has the answer.

 

A lot of theories have been put forward to try and explain why Romney has allowed his campaign to become bedeviled by charges of tax dodging, but what if what he is hiding is felonious tax fraud?

Okay, so he's taken the legal option of delaying filing his 2011 taxes, which every taxpayer is entitled to do without penalty and without having to give any explanation until October 15 this year (I agree it's a little weird when a super-rich guy who pays accountants by the dozen does this, but hey). The nagging question though is why he hasn't just responded to the demand that he release two years of tax returns like John McCain did in 2008 by simply releasing his 2009 tax filing, along with the 2010 return he already released?

The answer may well be that 2009 was the year that the Treasury Department decided to offer an amnesty from prosecution for tax fraud to any of the tens of thousands of millionaires who were known or suspected to have illegally hidden income abroad in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss banks -- a felony, but one that people thought they'd never be caught at.

That year alone, some nearly 30,000 people, many of them no doubt prominent in society, politics and business, and customers of the finest accounting firms, reportedly voluntarily came forward to the IRS to admit that they had hidden some of the estimated $100 billion in income that crooked rich Americans have for years been secreting away in banks overseas. Under the terms of the program, they were able to just report their fraud, pay the taxes, penalties and interest on the money and then walk away scott free, with no charges and with their returns kept confidential by the agency.

That is, ...

Published: Friday 3 August 2012
“Solyndra, a California-based renewable energy firm and favorite of the Obama White House, received the administration’s first loan guarantee in 2009 and was held out as an example of the ‘promise of clean energy’ by the president.”

 

The Department of Energy knew its $535 million loan guarantee to solar-panel maker Solyndra Inc. was “a bad bet from the beginning” but was “determined to make Solyndra a stimulus success story at any cost,” the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee concluded in a report released Thursday.

Solyndra failed last year. The committee’s 154-page report follows its approval Wednesday of the No More Solyndras Act, which would disband the DOE loan guarantee program. The bill would also bar any guarantees for applications received after 2011 and require additional reviews by the Treasury Department and Congress for pending and existing loans.

Solyndra, a California-based renewable energy firm and favorite of the Obama White House, received the administration's first loan guarantee in 2009 and was held out as an example of the “promise of clean energy” by the president. Within two years, the company had filed for bankruptcy, firing 1,100 employees in the process.

The Center for Public Integrity and ABC News first reported on the Solyndra loan guarantee in May 2011, revealing that the DOE had rushed to back the firm without fully vetting its economic prospects. The investigation also noted that billionaire George Kaiser, one of Obama’s principal backers in the 2008 elections, was a major Solyndra shareholder.

The Energy and Commerce Committee report reflects an 18-month investigation into the DOE-Solyndra affair, presenting what it calls “a complete picture of the facts and circumstances” surrounding the White House, DOE, Solyndra, and investors like Kaiser.

“Solyndra will be ...

Published: Monday 16 April 2012
Published: Monday 12 March 2012
“Organized by CODEPINK, Women Occupy and Occupy Wall Street, the protests were meant to highlight the effects of the financial crisis on women and the fact that, four years into this crisis, the same problems exist.”

“Stripping Protestors In Pink Bras Crashed Bank Of America CEO Brian Moynihan's Speech,” declared Business Insider on March 8, showing Moynihan’s stern photo with a pink bra playfully dangling in the air beside him.

It’s true, things did get a bit wild at Citi's Financial Services conference at New York’s Waldorf Astoria when Brian Moynihan got on stage and began flipping through his tedious powerpoint.

While the hotel security was busy watching anti-bank protesters rallying outside, CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans, dressed in a hot pink bustier, burst into the conference room. “Bust up Bank of America before it busts up America”, she shouted, before being hauled out by security guards. “As I was saying,” continued a deadpan Moynihan to the laughter of the crowd, returning to the dreary slides that tried to put a rosy spin on this dinosaur of a company whose share price has plummeted while it continues to foreclose on families’ ...

Published: Friday 10 February 2012
“Housing experts doubted, however, that the settlement the president described as a ‘landmark’ will have a broader impact on the struggling housing sector.”

State and federal regulators announced on Thursday a settlement worth at least $25 billion with Bank of America and four other large banks, ending several years of litigation over alleged foreclosure abuses. The deal offers some help to struggling homeowners, but experts view it more as a moral victory with limited impact on the broader housing market.

The announcement capped months of intense negotiations that involved federal regulators, state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups and big players on Wall Street and in finance. It was the largest government-industry settlement involving states since the $200 billion-plus tobacco industry settlement in 1998.

The settlement effectively punishes the banks for alleged abuses in the foreclosure process, including robo-signing, which involves providing fraudulent documents in court proceedings when trying to take back properties from homeowners who are delinquent on their mortgages.

"Under the terms of this settlement, America's biggest banks, banks that were rescued by taxpayer dollars, will be required to right these wrongs. And that means more than just paying a fee," President Barack Obama said in a statement Thursday before the cameras.

The banks are required to dedicate $20 billion in relief to homeowners, including $10 billion toward reducing principal for struggling borrowers. The banks also must provide $5 billion in cash to federal and state governments to assist their foreclosure relief programs.

About 1 million households at risk of foreclosure should be able to reduce their loans. Another 750,000 Americans who lost their homes to foreclosures will receive about $2,000 each. The banks have three years to distribute the assistance, and the deal will be monitored for compliance.

The five banks that agreed to settle federal and state probes are Bank of America, which is on the hook for the biggest payout, as well as JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells ...

Published: Tuesday 7 February 2012
“The sanctions, part of a years-long effort to force Iran to comply with global nuclear-weapons rules, were issued in a White House executive order.”

The Obama administration announced tough new targeted sanctions Monday against the Central Bank of Iran, ratcheting up economic pain on Tehran in a move intended to drive it into new international negotiations over its nuclear program, but one that could prove a trigger point for conflict.

The sanctions, part of a years-long effort to force Iran to comply with global nuclear-weapons rules, were issued in a White House executive order. They comply with amendments to a sweeping defense bill that Congress passed late last year.

The sanctions require any U.S. person or corporation to freeze property or interests that belong to the government of Iran, its Central Bank or any other Iranian financial institution. Most of these sanctions already had been in place on all major Iranian banks, but targeting Iran's Central Bank is unusual.

The action attempts to disrupt operations in which a third-country bank is acting on behalf of Iran's Central Bank or other Iranian banks. This is happening in Afghanistan and possibly other Iranian neighbors.

In a letter to lawmakers, President Barack Obama said additional sanctions were necessary "in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system "

To reinforce the measures, the Treasury Department announced that Daniel Glaser, the assistant secretary for terrorist financing, was being dispatched to Oman, Qatar and Russia this week for high-level meetings on Iran.

This happens amid mounting concerns that Israel soon might launch a pre-emptive attack on presumed Iranian nuclear weapons-development sites. That would inflame tensions across the Middle East, a region in turmoil over the past year that analysts view as ...

Published: Monday 30 January 2012
Executives received large payouts despite regulations intended to cap their salary.

New York Daily News columnist and Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez reports the Treasury Department has approved payouts exceeding $5 million for 49 executives at firms that most benefited from the Wall Street bailout. The executives’ pay came despite the $500,000 salary cap established under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Juan, before we move on with our first segment, you have an interesting column in the New York Daily ...

Published: Monday 9 January 2012
“Imagine what will happen if a settlement deal is announced in the next few weeks or months, and that deal allows bankers to walk away scott-free while homeowners suffer.”

Congratulations, Mr. President. This week you followed your increasingly populist rhetoric with some decisive action on behalf of the middle class.

Republicans have been waging a sabotage campaign against the lawful functions of government. With these recess appointments you've shown that you'll use your Presidential authority to stop them. Unfortunately, your Treasury and Justice Departments are still running interference for the big banks.

Your officials are pushing a foreclosure settlement that thwarts justice and potentially leaves criminals in positions of wealth and power. If this settlement is finalized it would undo all your recent efforts, leaving the distinct impression that your Administration works for bankers and not the public.

It's time to call off these officials and instruct your Administration to pursue wrongdoing wherever it may be found.

READ FULL POST 10 COMMENTS

Published: Friday 30 December 2011
“This is happening because certain powerful interests are benefiting tremendously and using their wealth and power to keep things from changing.”

In November President Obama said, "enough is enough" to China's currency manipulations. Today the Treasury Department said it hasn't seen enough to call China a currency manipulator. This is happening because certain powerful interests are benefiting tremendously and using their wealth and power to keep things from changing.

China's Currency Manipulation

China manipulates its currency to keep it "undervalued." This means that things made there cost less in world markets than things made in other countries. The result is that manufacturing moves there, bringing them entire industries, supply chains, and the "industrial commons" of expertise, suppliers and culture that brings with it new businesses and industries. Many economists say that China's currency is undervalued by 25 to 40% meaning products made there have a 25-40% pricing advantage before any other advantages, subsidies, manipulations, etc. are considered. The currency does not rise to market levels because China takes steps like preventing open trading and buying other currencies -- most of us would call this manipulation -- to keep this from happening.

Instead of competing fairly China uses this manipulation and others, throwing world trade completely out of balance. Countries "make their living" by producing things and selling them to the rest of the world. This imbalance is costing our country jobs, factories, industries and trillions of dollars but we can't seem to get our government to do anything about it.

"Enough Is Enough"

In a November 14 press conference at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Hawaii,

Published: Saturday 5 November 2011
All five financial institutions named were profitable, but still received funds in the form of stock purchases from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Five banks that received federal bailout funds during the financial crisis didn't pay income taxes for one or more years between 2008 and 2010, according to an iWatch News analysis of a new study  of tax dodgers.

Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group, PNC Financial Services Group, Capital One Financial Inc. and State Street Corp. were among 78 of America’s largest and most profitable corporations that managed to avoid paying income tax in at least one of those years.

Researchers looked at 280 corporations that reported total pretax U.S. profits of $1.4 trillion. The federal corporate tax code “ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount.”

The study was released Thursday by nonpartisan advocacy groups Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

All five financial institutions named were profitable, but still received funds in the form of stock purchases from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

READ FULL POST 5 COMMENTS

Published: Tuesday 25 October 2011
For three years the bankers benefited from government and Federal Reserve loans at fire sale prices - after they started the fire.

Imagine that a group of arsonists was terrorizing your town. First they'd buy insurance on a stranger's home, then they'd show up with a blowtorch and a tanker truck filled with gasoline and burn the place down. Imagine that they've burned down a thousand homes this way, ruining the lives of the homeowners - and everyone else's, too, as real estate values plunged and the local economy collapsed.

Now let's imagine that the Mayor, the DA, and the Chief of Police said they've come up with a great "settlement": The arsonists will pay a small fine, and they'll never be prosecuted for arson. Plus, if they're asked very nicely, they'll also agree to provide a little help to 27 out of the 1,000 families they made homeless - although they'd control the 'help' process and the town might wind up footing the bill anyway.

And one more thing: They get to keep the gasoline truck and the blowtorch

Substitute "country" for "town" and "banker" for "arsonist," and that pretty much sums up the mortgage fraud settlement that the Administration and some Attorneys General keep trying to impose on the nation. It's a sweetheart arrangement that asks for pennies on the dollar, would only help a tiny fraction of those harmed, and would allow the wrongdoers to keep the tools of their criminal trade - making future crimes all but irresistible to the feloniously inclined.

Here are four reasons why California Attorney General Kamala Harris and her colleagues must reject this proposal:

1. Crime must be punished

The bankers' crimes during the mortgage crisis have included perjury, forgery, and investor fraud. These aren't the baseless accusations of some wild-eyed radicals. They're well-documented in the "consent orders" that the banks signed with the Treasury Department, most of which resemble the one executed ...

Published: Thursday 15 September 2011
The Census Bureau reported that there are now 46.2 million Americans living below the official poverty line—the highest number in the 52 years since that statistic was first measured—and median household income has fallen back to the 1996 level.

It’s getting too late to give President Barack Obama a pass on the economy. Sure, he inherited an enormous mess from George W., who whistled “Dixie” while the banking system imploded. But it’s time for Democrats to admit that their guy bears considerable responsibility for not turning things around. 

He blindly followed President Bush’s would-be remedy of throwing money at the banks and getting nothing in return for beleaguered homeowners. Sadly, Obama has proved to be nothing more than a Bill Clinton clone triangulating with the Wall Street lobbyists at the expense of ordinary folks. 

That fatal arc of betrayal was captured by a headline in Tuesday’s New York Times: “Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade.’ ” The Census Bureau reported that there are now 46.2 million Americans living below the official poverty line—the highest number in the 52 years since that statistic was first measured—and median household income has fallen back to the 1996 level. As Harvard economist Lawrence Katz summarized this dreary news: “This is truly a lost decade. We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we’re looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s.”

The late 1990s, it should be noted, is when President Clinton, working with Phil Gramm, the Republican head of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed through two critical pieces of legislation ending effective regulation of the banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act smashed the wall between high-flying Wall Street investment firms and the once staid commercial banks entrusted with the deposits and mortgages of America’s innocent souls. The next year Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, banning any ...

Syndicate content
Make your voice heard.
Write for NationofChange
So far, the biggest revelation of the NSA spying story is…that anyone actually thinks this story is...
Concluding Remarks This blog has introduced the major tool that underlies all of the arguments we...
The records of our phone calls being entered into computers at the NSA is a typical Patriot Act...
Last month, I argued why "America Must Intervene In Syria, Despite Lack of National Security...
In the wake of the Skagit River bridge collapse, which thankfully did not result in any deaths,...
Blog One: TAF--The Toulmin Argumentation Framework In 1958, the distinguished historian and...
At a recent DNC fundraiser 56- year old LGBTQ advocate Ellen Sturt heckled Michelle Obama  to ask...
Neal Boortz Part I - Some Background Information My wife and I have family in Barcelona, Spain,...
We information renegades have been fighting for free information and an open net free of censorship...
Breaking the Tyranny of “Either/Or Thinking” While I certainly do not believe that all...
What our presidents tell our young people In this season of college graduations, let us pause to...
A Native American boy asked his grandfather, “What do you think about the world today?...
As a linguist studying politics, I usually refrain from sharing any of my politic views in my...
Let us look behind the curtain of war preparations for the real reasons for our potential...
Part I - Endless War There is an American tradition of frequent war. Indeed, over the course of...