SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (34212)3/18/2009 6:59:42 PM
From: Jim S  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
I'm slowly learning something. When the administration and Dems in Congress wave their right hands in indignation, carefully watch their left hands.

The AIG bonuses are peanuts. What's important is that about 60% of the money given to AIG went to overseas banks. Even while US banks were folding.

The things to watch are those things that aren't being reported, or only getting minimal attention, such as shortages of firearm ammunition and components. Such as where the money is going for the massive spending that's flooding through Congress. And such as what regulatory changes are being quietly made in various Federal agencies.



To: longnshort who wrote (34212)3/19/2009 1:10:24 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
GOP wary of plan to tax AIG bonuses

By: Manu Raju
March 19, 2009 04:25 AM EST
dyn.politico.com

A plan to recoup millions of dollars of American International Group bonuses by taxing them into oblivion has put top Republicans on opposite sides of a riddle: When is a tax hike not a tax hike?

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said that he hasn’t made up his mind about the plan — first proposed Tuesday by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee and given a full-throated endorsement by Democratic House leaders Wednesday evening — but that he’s sure that raising taxes on AIG’s bonus recipients isn’t, you know, a tax hike.

“I don’t know [that] anybody would look at that as a tax increase,” Boehner told POLITICO Wednesday.

But Jeb Hensarling would.

The Texas Republican — who until recently was the chairman of the Republican Study Committee — said a tax hike is a tax hike, even if the taxes being hiked are on somebody you don’t like.

“You know, this is the wrong instrument to go around and say [about] people that do things that are reprehensible, ‘I’m just going to tax them,’” Hensarling said. “Who’s up tomorrow? You know, a lot of my colleagues vote on reprehensible legislation — when I’m in power, should I vote to increase their taxes 100 percent?”

Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee are putting together a bill that would impose a 35 percent excise tax on AIG on bonuses greater than $50,000, force the company to be responsible for paying taxes for foreign employees who received the bonuses, and tax by 20 percent any deferred compensation that exceeds $1 million. House leaders are moving forward with similar legislation, which could hit the floor this week.

Although the plan has the support of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, other Republicans were slow to embrace it Wednesday. They wouldn’t mind letting the bonus issue linger for a while, and they’re wary of either signing on to the plan — and with it, a tax increase — or resisting it, and thereby risking being seen as insufficiently tough on AIG and its employees.

“First thing we have to understand is what happened,” Boehner said. “Who knew about this? What did they try to do to stop it? And I’m still trying to get the answers to the questions.”

Asked if it would be tough to vote against an AIG tax increase, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a member of the GOP leadership, said: “It might be, yeah.” Like other Republicans, he said he had concerns about the constitutionality of going after a private company’s bonuses but added: “They ought to give them back. Absent them doing that, there are a lot of people who I think will probably be very inclined [to support it] ... Americans at least will want see some retribution for this and see them have to pay something.

“I’m not sure where I come down on that,” Thune said.

Asked repeatedly about his position on an AIG tax increase, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the current chairman of the Republican Study Committee, wouldn’t say one way or the other.

“I think the Democrats are driving the economy into the ground, and I oppose that,” Price said. Asked if he meant that he opposed the bonus-tax plan, Price said, “I haven’t said that.”

He later added, “I’ll see what the bill looks like. What they want to do is find bogeymen so they don’t have to fix the problem.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also repeatedly dodged questions about taxing AIG bonuses, choosing instead to raise his own about why the Treasury Department gave AIG $30 billion on March 2 without spelling out conditions on compensation.

House Republicans say they have no plans for now to whip a vote against the bill. “Why would we fall on our swords for this one?” asked Rep. Kevin O. McCarthy (R-Calif.), the chief deputy whip.

But several conservative groups off Capitol Hill would like to see them do so. The National Taxpayers Union, which generally opposes tax increases, plans to record the vote in its score card of how lawmakers vote on issues it finds important. “This is precisely the kind of micromanagement from Washington we warned Congress about in approving bailouts in the first place,” said Pete Sepp, vice president for policy and communications for the National Taxpayers Union.

The American Conservative Union said it does not plan to mention this in its score card, but a spokesman said that could always change.

Thirty-four senators and 172 House members signed a pledge with the Americans for Tax Reform saying they would not vote to raise taxes. The group is still evaluating the legislation and has not determined yet whether a vote for the plan would violate the pledge.

But Grover Norquist, the conservative anti-tax activist who heads the group, suggested the plan was simply a fig leaf for “a bad decision on spending.”

For his part, Grassley said he “wished” Congress didn’t have to take such action, but it is what it is.

“I don’t want to dictate how business should operate, but these companies have accepted massive infusions of public dollars, and the outrage against the bonuses is justified,” he said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said he’s not persuaded.

“I’m disappointed,” he said of Grassley’s position. “I just don’t want the government in a position where they’re going to be able to come in and selectively pass taxes that target one individual because of something the government thinks that person shouldn’t have done.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC



To: longnshort who wrote (34212)3/23/2009 11:16:11 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
A Smoot-Hawley Moment?
Congress on AIG and banks: 'Oppressive, unjust and tyrannical.'
MARCH 23, 2009

When does a single policy blunder herald much larger economic damage? Sometimes it's hard to know ahead of time. Few in Congress thought the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a disaster in 1930, but it led to retaliation and a collapse of world trade. The question amid Washington's AIG bonus panic is whether Congress's war on private contracts and the financial system is a similarly destructive moment.

It is certainly one of the more amazing and senseless acts of political retribution in American history. In its bipartisan rage, the House saw fit last week not merely to punish the employees of AIG's Financial Products unit that the company still needs to safely unwind credit default swaps. The Members voted, 328-93, to slap a 90% tax on the bonuses of anyone at every bank receiving $5 billion in TARP money who earns more than $250,000 a year. A draft Senate version is even broader. Never mind if the bonus was earned last year or earlier, or under a legally binding employment contract. The confiscatory tax will apply ex post facto.

Never mind, too, that such punitive laws were expressly deplored by America's Founders. In Federalist 44, James Madison warned that "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation."

In 1827 in Ogden v. Saunders, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar warning about legislative limits under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution: "The states are forbidden to pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law, by which a man shall be punished criminally or penally by loss of life of his liberty, property, or reputation for an act which, at the time of its commission, violated no existing law of the land," wrote Justice Bushrod Washington.

"Why did the authors of the Constitution turn their attention to this subject, which, at the first blush, would appear to be peculiarly fit to be left to the discretion of those who have the police and good government of the state under their management and control? The only answer to be given is because laws of this character are oppressive, unjust, and tyrannical, and as such are condemned by the universal sentence of civilized man."

Yes, Article I, Section 10 applies to the states, and this is a federal law. Congress may also figure it avoids the "bill of attainder" objection by applying the law to individuals at several companies receiving TARP money. But Congress's willingness to wreak such vengeance against a specific class of Americans is still as offensive as a matter of principle as Justice Washington and the Federalist Papers noted. The Founders feared the punitive whim of the legislative mob as much as they did the tyranny of a King.

The House legislation may also be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds given that it treats a homogeneous group of individuals differently depending on which companies they work for. It is one thing to treat the companies that receive federal funds differently from those that don't. But the individuals receiving bonuses may have nothing to do with the decision to receive TARP money. The House's 90% tax on some bankers but not others is only a step away from deciding to impose a higher tax rate on employees of any company out of political favor -- say, tobacco companies, or in the next Republican Congress, the New York Times Co.

Which brings us to the Smoot-Hawley analogy. With such a sweeping assault on contracts and punitive taxation, Congress is introducing an element of political risk to economic decisions that is typical of Argentina or Russia. The sanctity of U.S. contracts has long been one of America's competitive advantages in luring capital, a counterpoint to our lottery tort system and costly regulation. Meanwhile, the 90% tax rate marks a return to the pre-Reagan era when Congress and the political class behaved as if taxes didn't matter to growth or incentives. It is a revival of the philosophy of redistributionist "justice" of the 1930s, when capital went on strike for an entire decade.

The financial system will suffer in particular, just when the Obama Administration is desperately seeking more private capital to ride out future losses. Facing such limits on the ability to reward talent, every bank CEO will try to pay off the TARP as soon as possible, whether or not this leaves the bank with a weaker capital base. Hedge funds and other investors that Treasury needs for its new Public-Private Investment Program, or for the Federal Reserve's TALF, will also be warier, if they'll play at all. Treasury may promise nothing punitive for these programs, but that's also what it said about the TARP.

The other Smoot-Hawley comparison relates to our new President. Herbert Hoover sent mixed signals about the tariff until he finally bent to a panicked GOP Congress. President Obama has behaved in the past week as if he can appease and "channel" Congressional anger without being run over himself. So not only did he incite the Members last Monday, he welcomed the House bill on Thursday. By the weekend, cooler White House heads were whispering that the mob had gone too far, but it will take more than words to kill this terrible legislation. Mr. Obama will have to fire a gun in the air -- which means threatening a veto.

On Inauguration Day, we wrote that our young President has a first-class intellect and temperament. Our question was whether he is tough enough. So far the answer is no. He has failed to stand up to a Congress of his own party on anything difficult -- from stimulus priorities, to earmarks, to protectionism against Mexican trucks. Mr. Obama needs to face down the AIG mob, or his Presidency may be its next victim.

online.wsj.com



To: longnshort who wrote (34212)3/23/2009 11:23:17 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Treasury Plan to Deal With Toxic Assets Banks on Private Cash
MARCH 23, 2009, 11:11 A.M. ET

By DEBORAH SOLOMON and MAYA JACKSON RANDALL
WASHINGTON -- Noting that the U.S. financial system "is still working against economic recovery," the Treasury Department Monday revealed details of its plan to address toxic assets weighing on banks' balance sheets.


Treasury said one major reason the financial system is still facing challenges is because of "legacy assets" and securities that are compromising banks' ability to raise capital and their willingness to boost lending. Under the new program -- the Public-Private Investment Program -- the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. plan to work with private investors to try to restart a market for these troubled assets.

The federal government will use as much as $100 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and capital from private investors in order to generate $500 billion in purchasing power to buy legacy assets, Treasury said in documents Monday. The department noted that the program could potentially expand to $1 trillion over time.

The program would address both the legacy loans banks are holding on their balance sheets and the legacy securities backed by mortgage-related debt that is clogging the balance sheets of financial firms. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the only way to remove troubled assets from banks' balance sheets is to work with the private sector, even at a time when Wall Street moneymakers are being vilified by the public and politicians.

"Our judgment is that the best way to get through this is if we can work with the markets," he said. "We don't want the government to assume all the risk. We want the private sector to work with us."

Under the legacy-loan program, investment funds will be created to purchase pools of assets. Treasury will provide 50% of the equity capital for each fund while private managers retain control of asset management subject to FDIC oversight. Treasury said it will approve as many as five asset managers "with a demonstrated track record of purchasing legacy assets," but it might consider adding more managers depending on the quality of applications received. To be pre-qualifed as a fund manager, the manager must submit an application to Treasury by April 10.

Banks will identify the assets they wish to sell. The FDIC will conduct an analysis to determine the amount of funding it is willing to guarantee. Leverage won't exceed a 6-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio, said the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, the highest bidder will have access to the Public-Private Investment Program to fund 50% of the equity requirement of their purchase.

Eligible assets will be determined by banks, regulators, the FDIC and the Treasury Department.

"A broad array of investors are expected to participate in the Legacy Loans Program," Treasury said in a fact sheet. "The participation of individual investors, pension plans, insurance companies and other long-term investors is particularly encouraged."

Under the legacy-securities program, non-recourse loans will be made available to investors to fund purchases of legacy securitization assets. Eligible assets are expected to include certain non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities that were originally rated triple-A and outstanding commercial mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities that are rated triple-A.

Taxpayers stand to reap gains -- alongside investors such as hedge funds and private-equity firms -- if the investments ultimately prove profitable.

The effort is part of Mr. Geithner's broader plan to stabilize the financial system and builds on earlier programs to pump capital into banks, restart consumer and small-business lending, and help some homeowners pay their mortgages. Many economists argue that financial firms need to purge troubled loans and securities clogging their balance sheets if they are to regain the confidence to resume lending.

Mr. Geithner outlined the latest effort in general terms last month, and Wall Street has been eagerly awaiting details. But the rollout comes at an inopportune time, with bailout fatigue turning to rage amid a furor over bonus payments to employees of American International Group Inc.

As a result, whether or not the prescription is correct to fix what ails the financial sector, there is likely to be concern about an effort that appears to reward Wall Street. Some investors have already said they're leery of working with the government for fear the rules will change midstream, as is happening with Congress's moves to cap Wall Street bonuses for firms receiving financial aid.

To encourage investor participation, the Treasury believes participants in the program shouldn't be subject to executive-pay rules imposed by Congress. The law authorizing the $700 billion bailout and a provision in the $787 billion stimulus package impose tough pay restrictions on firms that receive government funds, including limits on bonuses.

The Obama administration believes those provisions shouldn't apply to such broad programs, and an exception was made last month for participants in the Federal Reserve's consumer-lending facility, which provides loans to investors who agree to buy certain asset-backed securities.

Administration officials are hoping the public will draw a distinction between financial firms that receive a government rescue, such as AIG, and those such as hedge funds and private-equity firms that participate as investors in broad government programs.

Some on Wall Street say they want to buy assets but need the government to provide financing. "No one is putting any money to work because every time you dip your toes in, they get cut off," said Blackrock Inc. CEO Lawrence Fink, who was briefed on the plan by the Treasury. He called the furor in Congress over executive compensation "very frightening" but said it wouldn't dissuade Blackrock from participating: "Our intention is to be one of the participants in the program."

Others on Wall Street, shell-shocked from the assault on their practices from Washington, are withholding judgment until they see more details. Banks still holding troubled assets at relatively high values may be reluctant to sell for fear they won't get a high enough bid to avoid having to take a huge write-down. Other firms, such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, have already written down the value of their troubled loans and may have an easier time selling assets into the public-private partnerships.

An official at one large U.S. bank said the program will be launched more smoothly if a high income tax on some bonuses, such as passed by the House last week, is watered down or tabled. In recent days, various financial-industry executives have warned against a tax that's retroactive, saying it would hurt their ability to keep valued employees.

The Treasury plans to contribute between $75 billion and $100 billion from its $700 billion bailout to the programs to remove troubled real-estate-related assets from bank balance sheets, with the possibility of additional money in the future. The Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will provide other forms of financing, including low-risk loans.

Targeting mortgages that banks no longer want to hold, the Treasury and the FDIC will provide financing to buyers. The FDIC will auction off pools of loans that a bank wants to sell and will become a co-owner by forming a partnership with the highest bidder.

The partnership will then raise FDIC-guaranteed debt to finance a portion of the purchase price, with the Treasury willing to kick in between 50% and 80% of the equity needed to buy the assets. The Treasury will be an equal investor in the partnerships.

To tackle risky securities, such as those backed by mortgages, the Treasury will create several investment funds run by private investors who meet certain criteria, such as experience managing similar assets. Treasury again will act as a co-investor, in most cases contributing $1 for every $1 contributed by the private sector and sharing equally in any gains or losses.

Lastly, the government will expand the Fed's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, to help absorb risky assets dating back several years.

In an op-ed piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Geithner wrote that the efforts will help tackle the glut of assets clogging bank balance sheets and will help provide some kind of normal price for these assets, which the Treasury believes are currently undervalued.

"Over time, by providing a market for these assets that does not now exist, this program will help improve asset values, increase lending capacity by banks, and reduce uncertainty about the scale of losses on bank balance sheets," Mr. Geithner wrote. "The ability to sell assets to this fund will make it easier for banks to raise private capital, which will accelerate their ability to replace the capital investments provided by the Treasury."

The rollout represents a test for Mr. Geithner, whose tenure has been marred by controversy over his personal taxes, criticism of the lack of detail in his February bank-bailout announcement, and his involvement in the AIG bonus furor. Some questioned why he didn't know of the AIG bonuses sooner.

President Barack Obama said on CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday that Mr. Geithner is "as sharp and as skilled a public servant as we have." The president joked that were Mr. Geithner to offer his resignation, he would say, "Sorry, buddy, you've still got the job."

Two senior Republican senators, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, offered their support. "In the area of trying to stabilize the financial sector of our economy, they're doing the right things," Sen. Judd said on CNN's "State of the Union."

—Laura Meckler, Aaron Lucchetti, Damian Paletta and Jenny Strasburg contributed to this article.
Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com and Maya Jackson Randall at Maya.Jackson-Randall@dowjones.com

PD
online.wsj.com