Category Archives: Banking/Finance

“A Republican Ruse”

The Republicans haven’t taken over yet but they’ve made their plans known and it won’t come as much of a surprise that their top priorities are tax cuts. One of the very first changes will be gaming the system that tracks whether or not tax cuts work. By every legitimate measure, including common sense, they don’t. The Pubs are going to change all that.

AS Republicans take control of Congress this month, at the top of their to-do list is changing how the government measures the impact of tax cuts on federal revenue: namely, to switch from so-called static scoring to “dynamic” scoring. While seemingly arcane, the change could have significant, negative consequences for enacting sustainable, long-term fiscal policies.

Whenever new tax legislation is proposed, the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office “scores” it, to estimate whether the bill would raise more or less revenue than existing law would.


[The] conventional estimates do not, however, include any indirect feedback effects that tax law changes might have on overall national income. In other words, they do not incorporate macroeconomic behavioral changes.

Dynamic scoring does. Proponents point out, correctly, that if a tax proposal is large enough, then those sorts of feedback effects can aim the entire economy on a slightly different path.

“Dynamic scoring” basically allows the injection of unjustified assumptions about the future performance of the economy. IOW, adding a baseline article of faith from Reaganomics that all tax cuts on the wealthy raise revenues and if they don’t, it’s because they weren’t deep enough.

Federal deficits are on an unsustainable path (as it happens, because of undertaxation, not excessive spending). Simply cutting taxes against the headwind of structural deficits leads to lower growth, as government borrowing soaks up an ever-increasing share of savings.

The most optimistic dynamic models get around this by assuming that the world today is in fiscal equilibrium, where the deficit does not grow continuously as a percentage of gross domestic product. But that’s not true. If you add the reality of spiraling deficits into those models, they don’t work.

To make these models work, scorekeepers must arbitrarily assume either that we tax more and spend less today than is really the case — which is what they did for the Camp bill — or assume that a tax cut today will be followed by a spending cut or tax increase tomorrow. Economists describe such a move as “making counterfactual assumptions”; the rest of us call it “making stuff up.”

Again IOW, they’re going to enshrine in law a faith-based assessment mechanism guaranteed in advance to justify both their rosy predictions and their brutal get-tough-on-the-poor cuts to human services along with their go-easy-on-corporations cuts to everything from the SEC to the FDA. They will now be able to point to government-authorized conclusions that everything is fine even as it collapses around ordinary folk not rich enough to protect themselves from it.

The Republicans’ interest in dynamic scoring is not the result of a million-economist march on Washington; it comes from political factions convinced that tax cuts are the panacea for all economic ills. They will use dynamic scoring to justify a tax cut that, under conventional scorekeeping, loses revenue.

When revenues do in fact decline and deficits rise, those same proponents will push for steep cuts in government insurance or investment programs, because they will claim that the models demand it. That is what lies inside the Trojan horse of dynamic scoring.

A win-win. When their tax cuts make the economy worse, their scoring model will demand more tax cuts as a fix.

Priority #2 is likewise financially related: further weakening if not killing outright Dodd-Frank, once again allowing banks to rig their own scams.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law was supposed to curb speculation in swaps. But as The Journal has reported, hedge funds are increasingly using swaps to wager on whether weak firms will live or die. RadioShack, the troubled consumer electronics retailer, is one of several prominent examples. In December, RadioShack’s total debt came to about $1.4 billion, but swaps outstanding on the performance of the debt totaled $23.5 billion. Similarly, J.C. Penney, the ailing department store chain, had total debt of some $8.7 billion, but swaps outstanding on the debt totaled $19.3 billion.

Those gaps suggest excessive speculation, though it is hard, if not impossible, to gauge the precise exposure of funds to big losses. What is known is that a hedge fund that is betting on a company’s default has an incentive to push it over the edge. Conversely, a fund that is betting a troubled company will not default has an incentive to keep it afloat, at least long enough to avoid a big payout. Either way, the company becomes a pawn in a financial game.

Speculative activity is likely to increase. Last month, Congress repealed an anti-speculation provision of Dodd-Frank that would have prevented federally insured banks from conducting several types of swap transactions. In addition, the Federal Reserve recently gave the banks two extra years to meet a Dodd-Frank provision requiring them to sell their investments in private equity funds and hedge funds.

And when the 2 yrs are up, the Fed will extend the deadline for 2 more yrs and then 2 more after that and so on and so on.

The Democrat minority will, of course, “compromise” by unconditionally surrendering when their corporate sponsors tell them to.

And so it goes.

New Democrats = Old Republicans: Corporate Welfare in the Spending Bill

Democrat support for the Keystone pipeline – a favor to our domestic energy corporations and an outright give-away to a foreign energy company for which Americans will assume all the risks, financial and environmental, while reaping zero benefits for themselves – has become a flashpoint for liberal dissension from the party line, and rightfully so. Support for this pipeline as a “keystone” of US energy policy is inexcusable on every level. Even politically, it makes little sense. There is no constituency in America that’s going to benefit from this project.

Except the oil companies.

If you still doubt that the Dems have deliberately made themselves over as “the other corporate party”, you need to look at the spending bill they’re about to vote on, a bill that has active, arm-twisting support from Obama and his admin. In it are massive govt handouts, and not just to the energy industry. Continue reading

Obama Lets Corporate Predators Buy His “Trade Policy”

Barack Obama’s support for corporate trade goals, no matter how unethical and/or borderline illegal, is nothing new. His early and lasting backing of the Panama trade deal – a stellar performance wherein he convinced Democrats to vote for a bill which made it legal for US corporations to violate US law – was a brilliant part of his strategy to move the Democrat party onto Wall Street.

So it was no surprise to anyone familiar with his history that he has been appointing hired Wall Street guns – or goons – to write his TransPacific Trade Policy. Nor is it surprising that he has had nothing to say against their “former” companies paying them for writing and negotiating the deal.

Stefan Selig

Officials tapped by the Obama administration to lead the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations have received multimillion dollar bonuses from CitiGroup and Bank of America, financial disclosures obtained by Republic Report show.

Stefan Selig, a Bank of America investment banker nominated to become the Under Secretary for International Trade at the Department of Commerce, received more than $9 million in bonus pay as he was nominated to join the administration in November. The bonus pay came in addition to the $5.1 million in incentive pay awarded to Selig last year.

Michael Froman, the current U.S. Trade Representative, received over $4 million as part of multiple exit payments when he left CitiGroup to join the Obama administration. Froman told Senate Finance Committee members last summer that he donated approximately 75 percent of the $2.25 million bonus he received for his work in 2008 to charity. CitiGroup also gave Froman a $2 million payment in connection to his holdings in two investment funds, which was awarded “in recognition of [Froman’s] service to Citi in various capacities since 1999.”

Do I have to explain what this means? How their companies are basically paying these guys in advance to continue promoting their interests even as they pretend to work for the govt? Or that Obama just about had to be working hand-in-glove with these corporations to come up with these guys’ names in the first place? Or that these payments are a measure of how deeply corrupt our system is now?

That’s what I thought.

The Liberal Game Goes On

For a long time I have been listening to liberals and progs talk as if something has gone wrong with the system and if we could just adjust this or tweak that, everything would be hunky-dory. They understand that the Republicans are out of control, the corporations are in control, and the financial sector calls the shots. What they consistently refuse to do is admit that those three sectors are and have been working together for 30 years or that the fourth of the united sectors consists of Third Way Democrats. Here’s a recent Krugman.

[W]e had our own version of the sorta-kinda left utterly failing to take on austerian macroeconomics in the United States – President Obama’s “pivot” from jobs to deficits, which actually began in 2009, back when Democrats still controlled both houses of Congress.

Sounds like a policy switch on Obama’s part, doesn’t it? Only it isn’t. In his famous keynote speech at the ’04 Dem convention, Obama was careful to eschew any too left-leaning rhetoric that might dismay corporate backers; just before the ’08 election, Obama met secretly with some of the most powerful financiers on Wall Street; and one of his early acts as president was to name an anti-deficit commission to which he appointed a number of powerful and long-term opponents of Social Security including Pete Peterson.

Seen from that angle, not so much a pivot as a straight line. Krugman seems to think the Dems are just listening to the wrong people because they lack “moral courage”.

[T]he nature of our current economic situation is that smart policy requires that you ignore what supposedly responsible people, who sound as if they know what they’re talking about – and hey, they’re rich, so they must know something – have to say.

And no government of the moderate left has had the intellectual and moral courage to do that.

Fraid not. An objective analysis of Democratic actions over the past two decades leaves little room for doubt: in virtually every instance when the Dems had to choose a path, they chose the one that was corporate-contributor friendly. Maybe we should stop pretending that the Dems are liberal, hm? They’re just slightly less obsequious than Pubs when it comes to kissing 1% ass. Get used to it.

Thanks to the SEC

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which is the govt “watchdog” that’s supposed to bark at corporate wrong-doing, has a gift for us this Thanksgiving. Well, that is, not us exactly. More like for lobbyists.

As the Project on Government Oversight reports, the SEC is postponing a new ethics rule. That’s no big deal, right? Wrong.

As POGO notes, the move deliberately allows an untold number of senior SEC employees to evade standard employment regulations – more specifically, it allows them to leave the agency and immediately begin lobbying their old government colleagues on behalf of corporate clients.

Continue reading

Succeeding in the New American Oligarchy 1

Of course survival isn’t the only goal, just the first one, and I guess we ought from time to time to be more positive and look at ways of making the New American Oligarchy work for you. It’s not impossible. In fact it’s relatively easy once you can wrap your head around what the New Rules mean. That meaning can be put very simply:

Money is all that matters.

Continue reading

Low Taxes and Privatization: Failure Squared

Molly used to tell the story of her first day covering the Texas legislature for the Observer. She sat in the press box that morning watching the most powerful men in the state (they were all men in those days) enter the chamber, slap each other on the butt, and commence talking about what “a fine piece o’ tail” they had last night, you shoulda seen ‘er, some of them packing guns under their suit coats, and she thought, “This is going to be fun.” It was due to her reporting, at least in part, that the Texas legislature became a national joke.

It isn’t all that funny now. As one of the posters on a BBS forum I used to inhabit liked to point out, the agenda Bush brought with him to Washington originally was less a neocon agenda than the agenda of the Texas Republican Party, lifted from that quirky, ignorant, arrogant collection of blockheads, blind ideologues, batshit whackos, and corrupt “bidnissmen” to be transferred whole and unedited to the national stage like a small town minstrel show suddenly invading Broadway. That it has been an embarrassment to anyone who doesn’t piss in a box and a disgrace to what America used to stand for was, in hindsight, entirely predictable.

The two dumbest ideas Bush brought with him from Texas have to be a) the belief that you can slash taxes to the bone – especially corporate taxes – without hurting core social services like education and maintenance of the infrastructure, and b) the conviction that privatization of core govt responsibilities – like education and maintaining the infrastructure – would somehow be cheaper and more efficient despite the abysmal record of the corporatocracy in both areas, and despite the need to show massive profits to investors, a need the govt doesn’t have.

After nearly 7 years of untrammeled experimentation in both areas, what should have been clear from the beginning has now been proven beyond doubt: both these “policies” are dismal failures.

A. The Low-Tax Experiment

Mark Gisleson at Norwegianity links to a piece by Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Dave Hage titled “The damage done” in which Hage examines the effect of Minnesota’s experiment with a low-tax fiscal structure. It isn’t, as they say, a pretty picture.

Between 1997 and 2001, the Legislature passed five major tax cuts — not just temporary rebates but permanent rate reductions that reduced the state’s revenue stream by $1 billion annually and left state government, measured against the Minnesota economy, 10 percent smaller than it was in the mid-1990s.


Now an outside study has put Minnesota in a national context and confirmed those doubts about the low-tax experiment. Two analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington identified 16 states that passed major tax cuts during the late 1990s, then studied their economic performance in the 2001-2006 recovery.

The results? On key measures such as job creation and unemployment, virtually all of the 16 lagged behind the 34 states that didn’t pass major tax cuts. Minnesota, though its economy picked up steam in 2006, still posted weaker job creation and income growth than the U.S. average over the five-year span.

“There’s just no evidence that moving to lower tax levels boosts your economic performance,” says Nicholas Johnson, one of the study’s authors.

But that isn’t all. Hage goes on to say that the price paid by citizens for a state run on the cheap extends way beyond the fact that it drains the economy of its potential vibrancy.

“While a low tax rate can be important, other things such as investment in education and health care also matter for the long run,” says James Nguyen of the Corporation for Enterprise Development, a business-sponsored research group that publishes a respected annual report card on the states. Minnesota routinely wound up on the group’s “honor roll,” even during its high-tax years.

This is precisely where Minnesota has paid a high price for the low-tax experiment. One reason Minnesota produced a surplus last year is simple austerity: General fund outlays are actually lower today than they were seven years ago, when adjusted for population growth and inflation. State aid to the public schools, adjusted for inflation, has gone down four years in a row. Thousands of families have lost eligibility for subsidized health insurance, and major transportation projects have been put on hold indefinitely.

No tax money invested in a state means less healthy citizens, more hungry ones, an education system that can’t afford to be much more than a baby-sitting service at the primary and secondary levels and a corporate job-training seminar at the college level, and an infrastructure that is falling apart due a lack of maintenance.

And all of those lacks have huge if invisible price tags attached to them: higher medical costs from the uninsured or underinsured being forced to wait until an illness reaches its critical stage to seek health care at an emergency room – the most outrageously expensive of all options; primary schools without nurses or arts programs and short on basic supplies (in the poorer communities in Massachusetts it has become fairly common for teachers to buy things like paper and pencils out of their own pockets because their schools can’t squeeze any more money past the 2 1/2% cap anti-taxers put into law 25 years ago); high schools with outdated textbooks, outdated lab equipment, outdated and inadequate computer resources, no arts programs, no elective courses, band and sports programs where parents have to pay for their kids’ uniforms and protective equipment; bridges collapsing, roads untravelable, local hospitals and clinics closing down, sewer leaks, water mains busting, and on and on and on.

This squeeze goes on even in smaller areas. The last time we had a bad winter, for example, the skimpy appropriations for road salt and plowing that are all the tax cap would allow in most communities ran out right after the first of the year. Towns and cities all over the state had to pay premium, height-of-the-season prices for salt and sand, as well as being forced to hire private construction companies at sky-high prices to clear the roads because so many municipal workers had been laid off that there weren’t enough available to do the job.

The only reason right-wing tax radicals have gotten away with this short-sighted and selfish insistence on putting their own pocketbooks ahead of the public good is that for years liberals consistently put tax money into improving education, health care, the infrastructure, etc. When the virulent anti-taxers came along, all those things were in pretty good shape and the amount of money it took to keep them up to spec was falling, allowing more investment in growth and improvements at all sectors of the economy. Instead of improving, though, we have suffered a long-term deterioration in the public sphere that is going to wind up costing us 20 times as much as maintaining what we had would have. Mark notes the sheer childishness of this approach to public un-spending:

Constructive conservatives have always known better, but the head in the sand CUT TAXES NOW! folks can’t see anything past their own bottom line, and they don’t even see that very clearly. Like children allowed to pick their own food, they can’t seem to understand that a diet of candy and cake washed down with soda pop will exact a price down the road.

And in this case, it isn’t even a price they’re paying. It’s a price they’re making us pay.

B. Privatization

A long, must-read article by Scott Shane and Ron Nixon in today’s NYT explains in exhaustive detail what outsourcing govt responsibilities to private contractors has meant.

In June, short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General Services Administration responded with what has become the government’s reflexive answer to almost every problem.

They hired another contractor.

It did not matter that the company they chose, CACI International, had itself recently avoided a suspension from federal contracting; or that the work, delving into investigative files on other contractors, appeared to pose a conflict of interest; or that each person supplied by the company would cost taxpayers $104 an hour. Six CACI workers soon joined hundreds of other private-sector workers at the G.S.A., the government’s management agency.

Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.

The results?

¶Competition, intended to produce savings, appears to have sharply eroded. An analysis by The New York Times shows that fewer than half of all “contract actions” — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition. Just 48 percent were competitive in 2005, down from 79 percent in 2001.

¶The most secret and politically delicate government jobs, like intelligence collection and budget preparation, are increasingly contracted out, despite regulations forbidding the outsourcing of “inherently governmental” work. Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said allowing CACI workers to review other contractors captured in microcosm “a government that’s run by corporations.”

¶Agencies are crippled in their ability to seek low prices, supervise contractors and intervene when work goes off course because the number of government workers overseeing contracts has remained level as spending has shot up. One federal contractor explained candidly in a conference call with industry analysts last May that “one of the side benefits of the contracting officers being so overwhelmed” was that existing contracts were extended rather than put up for new competitive bidding.

¶The most successful contractors are not necessarily those doing the best work, but those who have mastered the special skill of selling to Uncle Sam. The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political campaigns. “We’ve created huge behemoths that are doing 90 or 95 percent of their business with the government,” said Peter W. Singer, who wrote a book on military outsourcing. “They’re not really companies, they’re quasi agencies.” Indeed, the biggest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has spent $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations since 2000, gets more federal money each year than the Departments of Justice or Energy.

¶Contracting almost always leads to less public scrutiny, as government programs are hidden behind closed corporate doors. Companies, unlike agencies, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Members of Congress have sought unsuccessfully for two years to get the Army to explain the contracts for Blackwater USA security officers in Iraq, which involved several costly layers of subcontractors.

Yet in spite of abundant proof that privatization is a miserable and expensive failure, radical Republicans simply won’t learn from their mistake. They’re pushing for even more privatization.

Let’s return for a moment to Texas, the birthplace of mindless corporate control of govt. Gov Rick Perry announced last week that he wants to sell off to a private company the single most lucrative revenue stream in Texas history: the state lottery. San Antonio Express-News columnist Carlos Guerra explains why this is such a dumb notion.

[T]he idea is to sell the Texas Lottery for a huge wad of cash, all at once. Of course, the state would also relinquish Lottery revenues forever — or, at best, for a very long time.


[H]ow wise would it be to sell a lottery that has generated more than $13 billion for the state since 1992, $5 billion of which has gone to schools since 1997, when all of its revenues were earmarked for schooling Texas’ children?

That $5 billion may be only a small part of the miserly sum Texas spends on public schools.

But if we sell the lottery, how exactly will we replace that money once the big up-front payment has been blown? What will be next?

Will we then sell off future property tax or sales-tax revenues, or future revenues from hunting and fishing licenses?

That may sound silly but to Texas conservatives like Perry and Bush, nothing’s off the table. It is an article of faith with them that all privatization, no matter how idiotic or counter-productive, is ipso facto better than govt control.

Caught between these two deadly conservative illusions, we – the people, the taxpayers – are going to be stuck with the bills for boosting stratospheric corporate earnings out of our pockets that the investor class will transfer to its own already-bulging wallet while at the same time suffering a steady decline in services and programs for us and our kids. In other words, we pay a lot more and get a lot less.

That’s insane.