More insider trader indictments coming soon

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me up when they march Goldman Sachs, Citi, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch or Bank of America executives into court and have a chance to win. Maybe we will all be surprised and someone will finally decide to get serious, but it's more likely to be more small targets while the big houses that own Washington walk away. But please, surprise us.

Wall Street is bracing for another round of indictments as early as next week in a massive insider trading probe, people familiar with the matter told CNBC.

The move by Federal prosecutors may include a number of arrests, according to these people.

The indictments right at the height of the holiday season may prove a tactical advantage for prosecutors, sources in the legal community say.

On Tuesday, a Reuters report that Federal authorities were ramping up Wall Street insider trading probes helped reverse a stock rally sparked by the tax-cut agreement between President Obama and Congressional Republicans.

Meanwhile, an IT geek was just convicted of stealing software from Goldman Sachs. Once again it's interesting to see who gets jail time and who walks away without a scratch in our Wall Street world. Read the rest of this post...

Obama gets FDR's history wrong ... again

Once more Obama distorts the FDR-era history of Social Security. The first time was here, during the famous Progressive Bloggers interview, when he passed as fact a blatant and false Republican smear about FDR and Hoover.

And he's at it again. In his recent press conference, Obama said this during his anti-progressive rant:

This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.

Which is just flat false, not in any history of the era I studied. Krugman calls him out:

This is all wrong: both programs were huge from the start. From the beginning, Social Security applied to all private-sector workers, except those in agriculture, domestic service, or casual employment — and yes, those exceptions happened to exclude the majority of African-Americans. Still, it was by no means a small program that grew big. Medicare covered everyone 65 and older right from the beginning, although initially it only provided hospital insurance.

It is, as Rosenberg says, odd that Obama doesn’t know this history.

I included the last sentence to contrast the Professor's characteristic politeness with my own opposite thought. No, it's not odd at all; he passes on Republican talking points because ... (your turn).

GP Read the rest of this post...

EU to announce banker bonus limits

As they always do, bankers are furious and already talking about the difficulty of hiring quality staff under such conditions. They're also throwing out the usual threat of moving their business. Fine. Let them go. That problem can easily be addressed by requiring any bank that wants to do business with consumers in those countries, to agree to the banker bonus terms. If they don't want to, let them try their luck in Dubai or somewhere else. While doing so, they can also think about what happens to those who violate the laws. Beyond that, look at what happens when the government wants to make a point and you are in the way. The bankers are gamblers when it's money from someone else, but will they do the same when it's their own life? Roll the dice, boys. Roll the dice.

European regulators are set to reveal tough new restrictions on the bonuses that banks can pay their staff.

The limits are expected to be finalised today by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), although an announcement may not come until Monday.

The rules are likely to be much tougher than those agreed by the G20 countries, raising fears that bankers may emigrate to more lightly regulated countries.

The bonus limits are expected to apply to the global staff of European banks.

Read the rest of this post...

WikiLeaks: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks' against Nigerian AG to avoid lawsuit

Nothing is too shocking with the Big Pharma industry but exposing it is helpful. Who is Washington finds this offensive? Hmmm, probably those politicians who receive campaign contributions from Big Pharma. In other words, quite a few of them because they all prefer the comfortable relationship of letting that industry pilfer Americans with high costs (even compared to other countries) while the extra earnings conveniently help fuel US campaigns. This happy marriage must be protected at all costs.

But the cable suggests that the US drug giant did not want to pay out to settle the two cases – one civil and one criminal – brought by the Nigerian federal government.

The cable reports a meeting between Pfizer's country manager, Enrico Liggeri, and US officials at the Abuja embassy on 9 April 2009. It states: "According to Liggeri, Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to federal attorney general Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases. He said Pfizer's investigators were passing this information to local media."

The cable, classified confidential by economic counsellor Robert Tansey, continues: "A series of damaging articles detailing Aondoakaa's 'alleged' corruption ties were published in February and March. Liggeri contended that Pfizer had much more damaging information on Aondoakaa and that Aondoakaa's cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles."

Read the rest of this post...

House caucus meeting: 'F*** the president'

Jeez, that's really strong talk. But Fineman has the goods.



Three observations:

Fineman makes the same point that Jane Hamsher made earlier in the year — that a lot of Blue Dog Dems were asked to walk the plank for Obama's health care bill, and he gave them no cover for it during the 2010 elections. Now they're looking at Congress in the rear view mirror, and K Street lobbying careers through the windscreen in front of them. It's not just the progressives who are angry.

Note Keith's question at 2:00. With GOP opposition in the Senate, and Dem opposition in the House, why is Obama taking on the Dems? Jane has an answer worth considering: "Obama is using the unemployed as an excuse to get what he has wanted all along. And what he wants is to extend all the tax cuts."

Which supports my own conclusion:

What if it's a mistake to call Obama a bad negotiator? What if Obama's an excellent negotiator? If you think of him as negotiating for Republican positions against the Democrats, he almost always wins. His batting average is close to .900 at this point.

I'm serious about that; it's a perfect explanation. (Bonus points for noticing his passion.)

Maybe it's time to read that great Ken Silverstein article from way back in 2006, Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Poll: Cut the deficit, keep entitlements and tax the rich

Looking at how well the rich continue to make out during the recession, is anyone surprised? Why should the middle class and poor be asked to accept less when the rich keep getting richer? As we see the Wall Street bonus numbers emerge, few Americans are going to be sympathetic to accepting cuts as the bankers shop for their latest articles of conspicuous consumption.

Should the economy continues to stagnate (there's very little reason to see significant growth in the next two years) it will be very interesting to see how the public will view the latest giveaway that the GOP and Obama are hoping to wrap up soon. Outside of White House economists, it's difficult to find anyone who believes in a rapid economic turnaround. Bloomberg:

Americans want Congress to bring down a federal budget deficit that many believe is “dangerously out of control,” only under two conditions: minimize the pain and make the rich pay.

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.

That aversion to sacrifice is at odds with a spate of recent studies, including one by President Barack Obama’s debt panel, that say reductions in Medicare, Social Security, military and other spending are necessary to curb a deficit that totaled $1.29 trillion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, or 9 percent of the gross domestic product.

Read the rest of this post...

Grayson, Hamsher & Nader discuss Obama & the tax 'deal'

Despite my reservations about Lawrence O'Donnell, I give him credit for hosting a full-on progressive panel discussion of the Obama tax "deal". His guests — Alan Grayson, Jane Hamsher, Ralph Nader and Rabbi Michael Lerner. Every one of the panelists made sense; each was well worth listening to; and O'Donnell let them speak.

This is in two parts. Part 1 starts with a response to Rep. Shelley Berkley (Nev.) and her lone No vote in the House Dems caucus meeting that rejected Obama's tax "deal".

(Berkley is in the New Dems coalition, by the way. Despite her expressed concern for poor people in her district, Wikipedia tells us she was "a member of the legal counsel for several Las Vegas casinos" and a former "national director for the American Hotel-Motel Association." I'll leave you to guess where her heart is.)



Grayson is excellent in his brief comments here. Obama was elected to win for us, to be "commander-in-chief" of the "people in this country with a conscience", not to be "the capitulator-in-chief and negotiate the terms of our surrender". Tough talk. (Note, from a writing standpoint, how perfectly worded Grayson's short comment is, and how well delivered, i.e., not at all like memorized lines. He's very good at this.)

Hamsher is very good on the horse-trading going on. Listen to her list; lots of insider details here. (Note also her mention of the Buy American Bonds program; not including that in the "deal" is another Republican poison pill designed to blow up the states. More on that later.)

Nader makes his usual point about this being a dance to show faux-spine before Congress caves as well. His two speeches though, starting at 4:30 and again at 11:05, are worth more than one pass of the tape. And note his new meme — Obama is "tempermentally conflict-averse" and has never "broken the will of the Republican minority party." (Watch Jane grinning through his whole last speech.)

Tempermentally conflict-averse; this one has legs. Now Part 2, which starts with remarks from House ConservaDem Steny Hoyer:



I'm now in the camp that says this "deal" should die, and nothing with Big Boy tax cuts in it should live. Grayson (at :55) makes me cautiously optimistic.

About primarying Obama: There's lots of talk in Part 2 on this. The fact that O'Donnell is hosting it (allowing it) says a lot. Keep in mind that all primary talk benefits Clinton, as long as she doesn't appear to be involved in it. Lerner is obviously sincere, which makes him a great uninvolved front-runner.

If the party elders are allowing this discussion to occur, they have plans. If so, progressives have to be ready; otherwise, we'll have our not-Obama alternative handed to us. Jane is very smart not to give a name (6:20).

Note that Grayson has to display party loyalty now if he wants to take over its leadership. It's very, very smart of him to do so here.

Sorry for the length — there's a metric ton here to digest. If you have the time, please watch twice.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Citibank's Peter Orszag thinks disabled Americans should work more

Is there really any surprise that this was one of Obama's leading economic advisers? While it's certainly fashionable in right wing circles to kick those in the weakest situation, most Americans care a lot more about the spoiled Wall Street types getting away with crashing a global economy without punishment. Unfortunately Orszag and fellow conservative economists never add up those numbers and talk about those costs. How about we stop beating the most vulnerable in society and start getting back to the system that used to produce a growing middle class?

Maybe the pampered class like Orszag could tally up the costs of the poor and disabled and compare it to what Wall Street receives every year. Let's include tax breaks, sub-inflation government lending, lost pension fund and 401K income from the crisis, increased unemployment costs because of Wall Street, lost tax dollars since there are fewer Americans working, as well as lost jobs because of Wall Street's actions. If the number doesn't equal the $9 trillion lent to the industry during the crisis, plus the hundreds of billions from TARP then Wall Street types should quit this constant bashing of the poor. Nobody likes bullies that pick on the weak. Bullshit from people like this is getting old.

The spike in disability insurance applications (and awards) does not reflect a less healthy population. The fraction of working-age adults who report a disability, about one in 10, has remained roughly constant for the past 20 years. (Indeed, it would be surprising if the number of workers with disabilities had risen by 50 percent over the past four years.) Rather, the weak labor market has driven more people to apply for disability benefits that they qualify for but wouldn’t need if they could find work.

When Congress created the disability insurance program in 1956, it required that recipients be unable to “engage in substantial gainful activity in the U.S. economy.” In other words, they had to be unable to work. That was sensible at the time, when more jobs involved physical labor and technologies to assist people with disabilities were not widely available.

Today, however, many people with disabilities are able to engage in some form of work — even if they can’t admit that and still keep their insurance benefits. Cutting off access to the workplace in this way is both unfortunate and unnecessary — and reinforces the threat that the current downturn could cause a long-term reduction in the share of people who work.

Read the rest of this post...

Halliburton discussing $500m settlement to avoid Cheney arrest

Surely this means Halliburton is not guilty of anything, right? It's just a friendly payment because Nigeria asked nicely. What corporation wouldn't hand over $500,000,000 if a country sent a letter with obviously false allegations against the business? The settlement is no doubt out of the goodness of the heart of Halliburton because they've always been known as the nicest, most honest business on the planet. More from ThinkProgress. Read the rest of this post...

WikiLeaks: US conspired with China to block Copenhagen environment reform

From the start, the Obama Administration has made it abundantly clear that it was going to be business-as-usual for the most part. The talk about "change" obviously crumbled when they announced their economic team that was every bit a part of the existing economic problem. Only a few short months later, the Obama Administration was working hand-in-hand with China to continue the Bush policies of blocking environmental reform. If Democratic voters wanted to vote for a Republican, they would have, but they didn't. Or at least none of us thought we did. If this was an item bought in a store we'd all be looking at the fine print for a proper exchange. We've been sold a bill of goods.

Last year's climate summit in Copenhagen was a political disaster. Leaked US diplomatic cables now show why the summit failed so spectacularly. The dispatches reveal that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement.

In May 2009 the Chinese leaders received a very welcome guest. John Kerry, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, met with Deputy Prime Minister Li Keqiang in Beijing. Kerry told his hosts that Washington could understand "China's resistance to accepting mandatory targets at the United Nations Climate Conference, which will take place in Copenhagen."

According to a cable from the US embassy in the Chinese capital, Kerry outlined "a new basis for 'major cooperation' between the United States and China on climate change."

Read the rest of this post...

Majority of Americans against Fed power

This does raise the question of why the administration decided to re-nominate Bernanke. It also leaves you wondering why they allowed the Federal Reserve to hold so much power in the new financial reform bill. Outside of the Washington Bubble, there's clearly a different view. Why we allow the bankers to run the Fed after everything they have done to damage the system is a mystery.

Americans across the political spectrum say the Fed shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo.

In a previous poll, conducted Oct. 7-10, 35 percent of Americans said the Fed should be radically overhauled, while 8 percent said it should be abolished.

Republicans and independents are more likely to support ending the Fed, with 19 percent of independents, 16 percent of Republicans, and 12 percent of Democrats wanting to do away with the central bank. Among those who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement, which wants to rein in government, 21 percent want to abolish the Fed.

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

So, that wasn't very fun yesterday. Not at all. Failure all around. There's still hope for passing the repeal -- using the standalone bill offered by Senators Lieberman, Udall and Collins. But, everything will have to go like clockwork. Collins will have to bring the votes of at least two fellow GOPers. Scott Brown and Lisa Murkowski say they support repeal. Here's their chance. There can be no games. No haggling about time for debate or amendments. Just an up or down vote.

And, don't even get me going on the President right now. Remember, the White House concocted the DADT repeal strategy. Their goal was to push off any votes until after the Pentagon issued its report. Imagine if our allies in the House and Senate followed that plan. We'd really be no where. We're at least kinda still in the game because the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee passed the DADT language in May.

When I interviewed Obama on October 27th, I told him that there was disillusionment and disappointment in the LGBT community. He said to me, "I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think that the disillusionment is justified." Well, it is more than justified.

Today, Obama is meeting with Bill Clinton at 3 PM ET. Should be interesting.

And, as John reports, there are no votes in the Senate til Monday. Why?

Congrats to Liu Xiaobo for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize today. He's not there. He's in jail in China. And, that country's leaders are having a hissy fit over this event. Shame on them. And, shame on all those other countries that boycotted the ceremony because of pressure from China. Read the rest of this post...

Ireland to implement 90% tax on banker bonuses

This should be the model for other countries, but we all know they're much too afraid of taking on the bankers. They're important people and geniuses, you know. CNBC:

Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said on Thursday he would include a 90 percent charge on bankers' bonuses in the budget bill.

"As far as the future is concerned I do propose to introduce the amendment to the finance bill to put this matter beyond any doubt and provide a high rate, a 90 percent rate of charge on any ... bankers' bonuses," Lenihan told local radio.

Ireland's government will seek parliamentary approval for a 85 billion euro ($113 billion) IMF/EU rescue package next week,in a surprise maneuver designed to embarrass its political rivals.

Read the rest of this post...

UN report paints bleak picture for women in Afghanistan

Oh, who could forget all of the Laura Bush visits and big talk in the early days of the war about how we were doing so much to help Afghan women. Not so much today. Whether it's the dire situation for women, the corruption (that includes millions of US tax dollars) or even the drug trade, none of these problems are progressing. Back in the US, government officials once again take advantage of it all being "over there" and a population who is focused on so many other problems at home that our politicians created. The experiment in nation building has failed horribly.

The Guardian:

The report by the UN's Afghanistan mission said that such practices are problem in all communities and cause "suffering, humiliation and marginalisation for millions of Afghan women and girls".

Despite recent efforts to toughen laws designed to protect women, the government does little to combat abuses. For example, the law on elimination of violence against women, which was regarded by rights activists as a major step forward when it came into effect in August last year, is not being enforced in many rural areas, where officials have not even heard of it, the report said.

One long-observed tradition covered by the report is the concept of baad, where a young girl will be given in marriage to settle disputes between families.

"Many of the women told us that, instead of the murderer being punished, an innocent girl is punished and has to spend her life in slavery and subject to cruel violence," said Georgette Gagnon, the UN's director of human rights in Kabul.

Read the rest of this post...

'Shove it' indicator suggests improving jobs market

Could be. The market is certainly better than it was a year or two ago, but that's not saying much.

“There is one area where there does appear to be some additional risk taking, and that is seen in the number of people leaving their jobs,” said Don Rissmiller, economist for Strategas Research Partners. “The last time we saw an inflection point of this sort in the number of people quitting their jobs, we were at the end of the last ‘jobless recovery’ in 2003.”

In October 2 million individuals quit their jobs, up from 1.7 million during the same month a year ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. On its web site, the BLS states, “Quits tend to rise when there is a perception that another job is available and tend to fall when there is a perception that jobs are scarce.”

The rise in quitting is accompanied by an increase in the job outlook in the latest survey by staffing firm Manpower and an ISM survey of managers indicating bigger capital expenditures planned for next year, Rissmiller points out in his note.

Read the rest of this post...