Thursday, April 15, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, April 15, 2010


Happy Income Tax Day, folks...

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

And beyond that...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MRS. BARKER...!!!
Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SELLING_CALIFORNIA?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[California] Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to sell two dozen state office buildings would cost California taxpayers billions of dollars in rent in the years ahead, far more than the state stands to make from the sale, according to financial documents analyzed by The Associated Press.

If all buildings sell at the asking price, administration officials projected the state would net about $660 million after roughly $1.1 billion in construction bonds are paid off.

The state would then rent space in the buildings from the new owners for 20 years. Over that period, it would pay $5.2 billion in rent, according to documents prepared for potential buyers.

* CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF SHORT TERM SMOKE AND MIRRORS "GAIN" AT THE LONGTERM EXPENSE OF TAXPAYERS. WAY TO GO, ARNOLD... (*SMIRK*)

Under terms of the proposed leases, the state would have to pay a monthly fee for nearly 3,500 parking spaces it now controls, adding $138 million to the state's costs over the next two decades. California taxpayers may even cover increases in property tax assessments once the buildings are sold.

The plan to sell state office buildings was promoted by Schwarzenegger during last summer's drawn-out negotiations to close California's budget deficit. The governor sold the idea as a moneymaker for the state.

State Assemblyman Jim Silva (a Republican from Huntington Beach) was one of just three of California's 120 lawmakers who voted against the proposal. He and other critics questioned whether it was smart to be selling so much state property at a time when commercial real estate prices are in a slump, then saddle taxpayers with rent costs for decades to come.

* SO DO THE MATH. 120 MINUS 3 = 117 FRIGG'N IDIOTS - REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT - OUT OF 120 MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY.

The Schwarzenegger administration projected the state will spend $192 million in bond payments, maintenance and repairs for its buildings in the fiscal year that begins in July. By comparison, CB Richard Ellis estimated the state would pay $238 million in rent and utilities alone during its first year as a renter - a $46 million increase in costs to state taxpayers.

(*LONG SUFFERING SIGH*)

April 15, 2010 at 9:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201004150951dowjonesdjonline000542&title=update-us-jobless-claims-24k-to-484k-in-april-10-week

The number of workers filing new claims for jobless benefits surged last week despite expectations of a drop, but a U.S. Labor Department economist blamed the increase on technical factors and not on rising layoffs.

(*SNORT*)

This marks the second straight week of increases in initial claims. Last time the increase was blamed largely on the Easter holiday and other seasonal factors. A Labor Department economist said Thursday that this latest rise can also be pegged to lag effects from the spring holidays including Easter and Cesar Chavez Day, which is celebrated in worker-heavy California.

"Volatility is always higher in the weeks surrounding the Easter holiday," the economist said. "I think that the increase you're seeing is much more attributable to administrative factors than economic factors."

* HMM... THEN IF "VOLATILITY IS ALWAYS HIGHER" WHY WERE "EXPECTATIONS" (SEE FIRST PARAGRAPH) PEGGED TO A DROP RATHER THAN A RISE...??? HMM...???

* FOLKS... THESE PEOPLE ARE SO FULL OF SHIT THAT I'M TEMPTED TO CLOSE MY WINDOW BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE STENCH IS MAKING ME SICK HERE IN MY OFFICE.

The Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday that initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 24,000 to 484,000 in the week ended April 10.

* SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... FOLKS ARE SUPPOSEDLY "GOING ON HOLIDAY" FOR EASTER AND... er... CESAR CHAVEZ DAY... AND SO THEY'RE REGISTERING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT...??? (*SNORT*) YEAH... RIGHT.

April 15, 2010 at 10:45 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100426/scheer

There aren't too many genuine heroes to come out of the banking disaster, but Armando Falcon is one of them.

You have probably never heard of him, but his testimony Friday before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, available on the commission's website, is must reading for anyone trying to figure out why US taxpayers had to bail out companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Falcon was the chief regulator attempting to bring order to the houses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the first four years of this decade, and had he been listened to, a significant part of the housing crisis could have been mitigated. Instead his agency was denied serious regulatory power by Democrats in Congress including liberals such as Representatives Barney Frank and Maxine Waters...

* YOU KNOW WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE: A COMPLETE FORENSIC ACCOUNTING INVESTIGATION OF MAXINE WATERS' PERSONAL WEATH.

* HEY... I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH AUDITING EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS OF EACH PARTY EACH AND EVERY YEAR; I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'D BET THE IRISH CRYSTAL AGAINST PLASTIC CUPS THAT WATERS IS DIRTY.

This is a guy whom Republican Congressmen and the Wall Street Journal editorial writers have lionized, and for once they got it right. At least the part about Fannie and Freddie being out of control and their applauding Falcon's past efforts to rein in the greed of their top executives.

The problem with the so-called government-sponsored but essentially private institutions that the conservatives are so happy to vilify and that liberals feel the need to defend is that they represented the worst of both worlds. Although originally chartered by the government, they had morphed into super for-profit monstrosities run by executives whose huge bonuses depended on the price of the company stock. As Falcon put it in his testimony: "Ultimately the companies were not unwitting victims of an economic down cycle or flawed products and services of theirs. Their failure was deeply rooted in a culture of arrogance and greed." In short, they behaved like the other financial conglomerates, but the government-sponsored housing enterprises were protected by powerful members of Congress and what turned out to be a strong guarantee that their bad paper would be covered by the taxpayers.

The housing enterprises failed not because they were do-gooder pubic entities but because they weren't. Their top executives were driven by the same desire for outlandish profit that their counterparts at AIG and Citigroup had. As Falcon put it referring to then Fannie Mae's CEO Franklin Raines:

"While all of this political power satisfied the egos of Fannie and Freddie executives, it ultimately served one primary purpose: the speedy accumulation of personal wealth by any means.... In the case of CEO Franklin Raines, he collected over $90 million in total compensation from 1998 to 2003. Of that amount, $52 million was directly tied to achieving earnings-per-share goals. However, the earnings goal turned out to be unachievable without breaking rules and hiding risks."

It only adds insult to injury to blame the unfettered greed of folks like Raines, and his Congressional allies who were lavishly attended to by those agencies, on a concern for the low-income homebuyers who were their main victims.

April 15, 2010 at 3:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/15/dems_not_gop_have_taken_side_of_wall_st.html

It's not hard to predict how the coming fight over financial regulation legislation will be framed by most of the mainstream media. Democrats like Christopher Dodd, the sponsor of the pending Senate bill, will be portrayed as cracking down on greedy Wall Street operators. Republicans will be portrayed as letting Wall Street operators have their way.

* WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA WILL TRY TO AVOID REPORTING IS THIS:

In the 2008 campaign cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org website, Goldman Sachs personnel contributed $4.5 million to Democrats and just $1.5 million to Republicans.

Add in three other big Wall Street firms - Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup - and the total take was $12.7 million to Democrats and $6.7 million to Republicans.

Republicans owe no political debt to the big Wall Street firms. The image of Wall Streeters as solid Republicans is as dead as J. P. Morgan himself.

* NOW NONE OF THIS SHOULD COME AS "NEWS" TO BARKER'S NEWSBITES READERS - I'VE COVERED IT ALL BEFORE - BUT THINK ABOUT IT... WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION WOULD YOU GUESS IS AWARE OF WHAT I'VE JUST REITERATED?

(*SHRUG*)

The real heart of the Dodd bill is the provision creating a $50 billion fund collected from large financial firms and authorizing the FDIC to use the funds to reorganize any such firm it decides is failing. Under the bill, the FDIC would use this "resolution authority" rather than have the firm go into bankruptcy courts, as Lehman Brothers did after it collapsed in September 2008.

* SO MUCH FOR (WHAT REMAINS OF) AMERICAN CONTRACT LAW AND BASIC SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT... (*SIGH*)

It amounts to granting "too big to fail" status to financial firms like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. ... [I[t tells those firms' creditors and shareholders that Uncle Sam will bail them out if they make what turn out to be imprudent loans.

* AGAIN... YES... IF YOU'RE A REGULARLY READER OF BARKER'S NEWSBITES NONE OF THIS IS "NEWS" TO YOU. NO APOLOGIES! THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF! IT BEARS REPEATING... AND REPEATING... AND REPEATING...

The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy process was orderly and did not result in the financial collapse of the firm's counterparties in financial transactions. But it did impose severe losses on creditors, shareholders and managers. Players in the financial markets were put on notice that they face dire penalties for placing trust in shaky firms.

FDIC resolution authority would work differently. The Dodd bill specifically authorizes the agency to treat "creditors similarly situated" differently - i.e., it can pay off creditors who would get little or nothing in bankruptcy proceedings.

* HMM... UNION PENSION FUNDS...??? (*SMIRK*) HEDGE FUNDS WHOSE MANAGEMENT REGULARLY DONATES TO DEMOCRATS?

"[T]oo big to fail" status means..."large financial firms will be seen as protected by the government and, with lower funding costs, will squeeze out their Main Street competitors." Little wonder that Goldman Sachs likes the idea. It will be able to borrow at lower cost than small competitors and will be assured that its large counterparties will qualify for government bailouts. (Big firms tend to favor regulation because it insulates them from competition and protects them against loss.)

Republicans have good policy and political reasons to argue not for weaker regulation but for tougher regulation of Wall Street firms. They should oppose resolution authority that helps the big firms and, while they're at it, seek to increase the capital requirements on such firms that are left vague in the Dodd bill.

Democrats have taken the side of Wall Street. Republicans should stand up for Main Street - and taxpayers - instead.

April 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)