Your tax dollars at work fighting unemployment – in the Philippines

If you’re among the millions in the U.S. who are unemployed and need retraining for new work, you are, increasingly, out of luck.

But if you’re a major financial institution that wants to outsource jobs to the Philippines, until a couple of days ago, the Obama administration was spending about $36 million a year to improve the English language skills of your future workers.

Among those taking advantage of outsourced labor in the Philippines, in call centers and IT, are  a couple too-big-to-fail, bailed-out financial institutions, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase.

Last week, after a couple of congressmen got riled up about the outsourcing training, the U.S. Agency for International Development said it would “suspend” the program “pending further review of the facts.”

The program was set to expire at the end of the year in any case.

But the fact is that USAID has been offering training for future outsourcing workers for several years, from South Asia to Armenia, Information Week reported. In the Philippines, the U.S. contended it wasn’t just spending the money to subsidize Citibank and other would-be outsourcers; the government said it was actually using your tax dollars as part of an antiterrorism effort in a section of the country with a Muslim minority unhappy with its treatment by the central government.

According to the USAID scheme,  the would-be terrorists would be a lot happier once they learned a little English and were able to land a job in a Citibank call center.

Meanwhile the U.S. has been suffering through a staggering economic downturn and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, as President Obama and other politicians promise to stem outsourcing and bring jobs back to this country.

Since 2007, 500,000 call center jobs have been outsourced from the United States, according to Rep. Tim Bishop, a New York Democrat, and Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, the congressmen who demanded a halt to the program. In 2010, USAID had suspended a similar $10 million initiative to train Sri Lankan workers after Bishop and Jones complained about it.

Despite high unemployment, job training programs and community colleges in the U.S., which also offer the opportunity for workers to learn new skills, have had to go begging. As the New York Times reported last week, “work force centers that assist the unemployed are being asked to do more with less as federal funds dwindle for job training and related services.”

Federal money available for retraining workers is 18 percent lower, in today’s dollars, than it was in 2006, even though there are 6 million more people unemployed, the Times reported.

While the debate over cuts to unemployment benefits has received wide attention, the cuts to the retraining programs have gone largely unnoticed.

While the president has proposed a $2.8 billion increase for job training over the next 10 years, Republicans’ budget proposals have suggested that federal funds for job training should be cut even further.

The USAID program is obviously at odds with the Obama administration’s stated intent to discourage outsourcing. Given all the other benefits  and bailouts that this administration has already showered on Citibank and AIG, would it be too much to demand that the administration stop using our tax dollars to pay for these companies’ job training when they want to move more employment from the U.S.?

 

AIG / Citibank / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / Outsourcing - 04/25/2012

In new Hollywood role, former senator plays the heavy

Thanks to Hollywood lobbyist and former Senate banking chair Chris Dodd for telling it like it is.

Dodd warned that Hollywood’s big-money contributors, who have been very, very good to President Obama and his fellow Democrats, might withhold their cash after the president expressed reservations over a controversial Internet anti-piracy bill.

Who ever would have guessed it would be Dodd, who during his 21-year-long career in Washington collected more than $48 million in campaign contributions, much of it from the financial industry he was supposed to be overseeing, who would cut through all the lies and palaver to deliver the knockout punch to our Citizens United-poisoned political system?

“Candidly, those who count on quote  `Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake,” Dodd told Fox News. “Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

But who better than Dodd to make clear what contributors expect for their cash.  He knows exactly how the system works, from both sides of the revolving door.

It was Dodd, after all, who made sure that AIG executives got their bonuses in 2009 while taxpayers were bailing out the firm at the heart of the subprime meltdown. It was no coincidence that AIG executives had showered Dodd with  $56,000 in contributions.

Nobody knows this terrain as well as Dodd.

He was a “friend of Angelo,” one of those elected officials who personally got sweet mortgage deals – at below market rates– from Angelo Mozilo, the head of the Countrywide, the mortgage company that nearly sank under the weight of its subprime trash loans until Bank of America rescued it. (His colleagues on the Senate Ethics Committee dismissed a complaint against him.)

While he and his colleague, Rep. Barney Frank (House Financial Services Committee?), oversaw the watering down of financial reform legislation in the wake of the financial crisis, Dodd played the role of beleaguered public servant, wringing his hands in frustration over the army of lobbyists against whom he was claimed he powerless.

But now that’s he moved from Washington to Hollywood, he’s got a new script that calls for tough, public, bare-knuckled threats to the president of the United States.

And whatever he owes the American public for his perfidy as an elected official, we owe him a debt of gratitude for it. Because he has exposed the political system and the money that dominates it for what it is.

As Dodd has illustrated so eloquently, the Supreme Court got it wrong in their infamous Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to dump unlimited, unreported cash into our political system.

Money is not free speech. I don’t know whether Bob Dylan had Congress in mind when he sang nearly 30 years ago, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears,” but he was prophetic.

The impact of money in politics has put a curse on our democracy, and it won’t be lifted until we throw the corporations and the billionaires’ money out.

As Dodd’s remarks demonstrate, big money campaign contributions are a blunt force instrument, which corporate interests and the wealthy can use to control the politicians who depend on them for their livelihoods, as Dodd did when he was playing the part of the distinguished U.S. senator.

Rest assured, the people who gave him $48 million knew his real role was so serve them, whatever lines he was required to utter for the scene he was playing at the time.

 

 

AIG / Citizens United / Congress / Executive Pay / Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 02/01/2012

Real Fraud, Faux Enforcement

The number one question people ask me when they find out I write about the financial crisis is: “How come nobody has gone to jail?”

I think I have found an explanation. His name is Robert Khuzami and he works as chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division.

He is not the literal reason. SEC enforcement is civil, not criminal. So he’s not responsible for putting people in prison.

But focusing on Khuzami puts into sharp focus the conflicts at the heart of the government’s efforts to regulate and hold accountable the big banks.

Khuzami is a former federal prosecutor. But he came to the SEC from a high-profile position he took after his stint as a lawman: he served as general counsel to Deutsch Bank, one of the world’s largest investment banks, which had a massive business in the securitized mortgage loans, and was the recipient of nearly $12 billion in “backdoor bailout” federal funds funneled through AIG.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Khuzami was the first SEC enforcement chief to come directly from a big bank. He is one in a long line of Obama economic appointments with strong ties to the financial industry, who either worked for the banks directly or in their interests by favoring deregulation that was one of the major causes of the economic collapse.

Now Khuzami’s former employer, Deutsch Bank, is in hot water with the feds, who sued the bank earlier this month alleging that the “bank committed fraud and padded its pockets with undeserved income as it repeatedly lied so it could benefit from a government program that insured mortgages,” Business Week reported.

For the SEC, it’s all kosher because its stringent recusal policy assures that Khuzami won’t work on any Deutsche Bank cases.

Remember that Khuzami was not just a guy punching a clock. He was the bank’s general counsel, so he supervised legal issues for the firm.

So here was a former federal prosecutor who, in the midst of the go-go real estate boom, apparently thought it was OK for his bank to commit mortgage fraud. Zero Hedge dug up his financial disclosure statement, which reveals he was compensated nearly $4 million in salary and bonuses between 2006 and 2009, and may lose money if Deutsche Bank suffers as a result of the government’s lawsuit.

The president and the SEC, knowing what kind of mischief the too big to fail banks were engaged in during the boom, and how Khuzami had profited from it, thought it was a terrific idea to appoint somebody like him to go after his former cronies.

Khuzami’s tenure at SEC has been marred by accusations that he gave two Citibank executives preferential treatment in agreeing to drop charges against them after he met secretly with their lawyer. In January, the SEC’s inspector general said it was investigating the matter.

Is there no one but former bankers available to work in the financial sector? The president, with $1 billion to raise to fund his reelection effort, has been unwilling to dig into the fraud at the heart of the financial collapse. Until he does, the economic recovery will be built on quicksand.

 

AIG / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) / Too Big To Fail - 05/11/2011

Going Without Heat For Goldman-Sachs

With all the trillions tossed around in the government’s efforts to prop up the big banks, a $2.9 billion taxpayer-funded windfall to Goldman-Sachs might not sound like that big a deal.

But imagine if we still had that $2.9 billion, if it was still in the federal coffers and not in the pockets of Goldman bankers.

Maybe President Obama wouldn’t feel the need to cut off aid for poor people to help pay for heating oil through the cold winter – that $2.9 billion would more than pay for the proposed cuts.

Maybe you’re not in favor of helping poor people stay warm in the winter.

How about space travel?

That $2.9 billion could pay for nearly a year’s worth of research on manned space travel, which is also under threat.

But what did we taxpayers get from this generosity to Goldman Sachs?

Absolutely nothing. Worse than that, we rewarded extremely bad behavior.

The $2.9 billion payment was arranged by federal authorities as part of what they have described as their emergency efforts to salvage the financial system in the wake of the financial collapse brought on by the bankers’ greed, recklessness and fraud, enabled by regulators’ laxity.

The Federal Reserve, which was supposed to be overseeing this massive giveaway to the banks, contends it didn’t intend to give the windfall to Goldman-Sachs bankers. It was just $2.9 billion that got away from them in their hurry to fill the bankers’ pockets with our cash- I mean- save the economy. McClatchy News Service, using bland journalism-speak, calls it a “potentially huge regulatory omission.”

Goldman hit the jackpot on our bailout of AIG, in which taxpayers compensated the firm 100 cents on the dollar for bad proprietary trades. That means Goldman gambled with its own money, which it is entirely entitled to do.

But when they lose their money, as the old blues song says, they should “learn to lose.”

Lucky for Goldman, we’re there to pick them up, dust them off and wish them well, no questions asked.

Just how much longer are we going to allow our public officials, Republican and Democrat, to use our money to foot the bill for these deadbeats’ bad gambling debts?

Just how many people are going to have to go cold before we cut Goldman off?

AIG / Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Financial Crisis / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 02/18/2011

AIG Founder Asks “Terrorists” for Help

One of the particularly infuriating aspects of the financial crisis is the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Wall Street titans.

These devotees of free markets didn’t hesitate to grab the taxpayer life preservers blithely tossed to them by the U.S. Treasury when they were about to go under. Taxpayers never got a “thank you,” much less “I’m sorry,” from these geniuses who nearly destroyed our economy.

But one among them has set himself apart. I refer to Maurice Greenberg, the founder of American International Group, or AIG. In its prime, AIG was possibly the largest insurance company on the planet, selling everything from life insurance to environmental liability coverage for big corporations.

Greenberg was used to the royal treatment accorded the billionaires at the top of the Money Industry. He pulled in $20 million in 2004 from AIG and an off-the-books executive slush fund the company setup for its top execs.

Like many of his peers at that level, Greenberg was a major player in American politics. AIG and Greenberg’s charities donated tens of millions of dollars to grease the wheels in Washington and keep his company free of regulation.

But unlike many of his insurance brethren, who had figured out that they were usually better off keeping their thoughts to themselves, Greenberg never hesitated to pronounce his views, especially when he thought it was good for business. So Greenberg put himself and his behemoth insurance company at the forefront of “tort reform” – an insurance industry inspired propaganda effort to blame trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits (“torts”) for higher insurance premiums.

“Tort reform” conveniently diverted public attention from the fact that insurance companies were raising rates in order to offset investment losses in the stock market  - often while friendly state insurance regulators looked the other way. There was another benefit, too. The “solution” advocated by the insurance companies was to restrict the rights of Americans to have their day in court. This usually involved capping damages or attorneys fees, both of which enabled insurance companies to pay out less in claims, and keep more money for themselves. Too many willing state legislatures fell for this trick, though California voters ultimately got it right and capped the insurance industry’s premiums.

Back in 2004, when George Bush and the Corporate Republican Establishment were firmly in control of Washington, “tort reform” was high on their list of priorities. In fact, they expanded their attack, targeting the class action lawsuits that consumers often bring against corporations. Greenberg was a particularly vociferous cheerleader for the push to limit the ability of injured or ripped-off consumers to undertake a class action.

Referring to legislation that would restrict consumers’ ability to bring a class action lawsuit, Reuters reported in 2004 that "Greenberg likened the battle over reforming class action litigation to the White House's 'war on terror.’” Reuters quoted Greenberg as saying, “It's almost like fighting the war on terrorists….I call the plaintiff's bar terrorists."

That was 2004. A year later, Greenberg himself was in a world of legal trouble (PDF). He was ousted in 2005 after an investigation by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer found that AIG had engineered a series of sham transactions intended to make AIG’s financial picture look better. In 2006, AIG paid $1.6 billion to settle a variety of charges.

Then came the financial collapse. AIG was at the forefront of the form of Wall Street gambling known as “credit default swaps,” under which AIG would sell insurance on packages of subprime mortgages known as “derivatives.” Though long gone, Greenberg remained AIG’s biggest shareholder, so he lost billions when AIG’s credit default swaps went into default and the Bush Administration took over the company in exchange for a taxpayer bailout that now totals $182 billion.

Ever since then, Greenberg’s been insisting on justice… for himself.

Demanding an investigation of the government’s decision to seize AIG, Greenberg suggested “class-action lawsuits that put people under oath in depositions and discovery.”

A fervent deregulator, Greenberg now blames the federal government for failing to regulate his industry. “I don’t recall any regulator coming to look at the [insurance] holding companies, and if they did, it was a very superficial job,” according to a report on a speech Greenberg gave last year.

In a speech in February, Greenberg had this to say about improving America’s judicial system: “We go around the world preaching about the importance of the rule of law…. We better take a look at America and make sure we have the rule of law here first.”

AIG / Harvey Column - 03/15/2010

Getting a Haircut and a Hotdog

Lawmakers are always looking for a fig leaf when it comes to presiding over a massive public bailout of their friends on Wall Street. So, for example, when Treasury Secretary Geithner appeared on Capitol Hill last March to explain why AIG got one hundred cents on the dollar, which it promptly turned around and handed over to Goldman Sachs and its other Wall Street partners, Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus wanted to know, “Was there any discussion over a haircut – [the Wall Street Banks] taking 95% or 90% as full payment?”

Five or ten cents on the dollar – that’s what Congressman Bachus and his colleagues on Capitol Hill think is a sufficient penalty for having hopped into bed with AIG? 

AIG / Goldman-Sachs / Harvey Column - 12/14/2009