Citibank - Represent Consumers

Recuse Obama's 1 percent economic team

While President Obama campaigned for reelection as a candidate to fight for the 99 percent, he has assembled a second-term economic team that is extraordinarily cozy with the 1 percent.

His picks for Treasury, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and director of the Office of Management and Budget are guaranteed not to make anybody on Wall Street or the biggest corporations nervous.

First there was the prospective SEC chief, Mary Jo White, a tough former prosecutor who cashed in as a top defense attorney for big bankers post-bailout. When bankers like John Mack of Morgan Stanley needed to make insider charges go away or Jamie Dimon needed to make sure settling federal foreclosure fraud charges didn’t hurt too much, Mary Jo White was by their sides.

Then came the new Treasury secretary, Jacob Lew, the recipient of a series of lucrative favors from Citibank during his incredibly profitable trip through the Wall Street-Washington revolving door. The most galling was Citibank’s nearly $1 million bonus for Lew – after the bank was bailed out by taxpayers. The bonus was contingent upon him snagging a high-level government job.

That was not Lew’s only taste of taxpayer-funded generosity. Earlier, he got another big, highly unusual bonus on his way out the door from an executive position at state-financed New York University, after making a deal for Citibank to handle the school’s loan business. Meanwhile NYU students were seeing their tuition skyrocket. So after cutting a deal with Citibank, Lew gets a bonus from New York taxpayers to leave NYU. Then he gets hired by Citibank – no big surprise – and then gets a bonus to leave Citibank if he can become a high-ranked alumnus.

No wonder we call him “Lucky Lew.”

In the midst of all the recent furor over the sequester, the Senate confirmed Lew with little debate – and few answers to the many questions raised by his taxpayer-funded bonuses and benefits. One Republican senator spoke fiercely against Lew. Sen.Charles Grassley of Indiana said on the Senate floor, “Mr. Lew’s eagerness and skill in obtaining bonuses, severance payments, housing allowances and other perks raises concerns about whether he appreciates who pays the bills.”

Lew was confirmed with barely a peep from Republicans or Democrats. Independent Vermont Sen.Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, voted against Lew.

Democrats fell in line with their president. But why did Republicans make so little fuss about Lew? (Only 25 voted against him.) Sen. Orrin Hatch, of Utah for example, offered a long list of reasons why choosing Lew was a bad idea, then voted for him.

This was after Republicans had mounted a robust attack on Obama’s nominee for defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska. Hagel might have had an easier time if he was pushing Wall Street’s agenda of punishing the vast majority with of Americans with a bitter stew of unemployment, falling wages and austerity after a severe recession that Wall Street, not Main Street, caused.

Lew and White, meanwhile, have both offered comfort to the bankers. Lew told a Congressional committee that he doubted deregulation was a major cause of the financial collapse that wrecked the economy and forced taxpayers to pay for big bankers fraud and recklessness. For her part, White expressed concerns about overzealous prosecutors unfairly targeting bankers.

The latest candidate that Obama wants to put on the economic team, Sylvia Reynolds Burrell is, like Lew, an alumnus of the Clinton administration team who was mentored by then-Treasury secretary Robert Rubin. He helped big bankers’ dreams come undo true by working to end the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law before going through the revolving door himself to become Citibank’s president.

Reynolds went on to work at the Gates Foundation before taking over the Wal-Mart Foundation, the charitable arm of one the nation’s biggest and most profitable corporations, as well as one of the largest employers of low-wage workers.

She is not without ties to big financial institutions, serving on the board of directors of MetLife, the country’s biggest life insurance company. In the post Glass-Steagall world of high finance, Metlife through its subsidiaries lost big on bundled derivatives based on worthless real estate loans.

It’s quite a team the president is assembling, drawn from the country’s largest corporations and those who represent their interests. They may be very smart people. They also share this: one can scrutinize their records and find no hint of any of them questioning the impact of excessive corporate power or the big banks, or advocating policies that would empower and revive the middle-class. President Obama’s economic team exposes the wide and painful gap between his election-year rhetoric about income inequality and his willingness to do something about it.

White has already said she will recuse herself, if she is confirmed, from cases involving her former clients – not that the SEC has shown much interest in scrutinizing the too-big-to fail banks. Lew should likewise remove himself any decision-making that would affect Citigroup, though that would leave him twiddling his thumbs for most days, since the Treasury’s main job in the Obama administration so far has been figuring out ways to prop up Citigroup and the other too-big-to-fail institutions.

Does Jack Lew's Citibank contract violate ethics laws?

The emerging details of prospective Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s contract with Citibank raise fresh concerns about the persistent issue of the Obama administration’s revolving door with too big to fail banks.

During Lew’s confirmation hearing earlier this month, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, questioned the president’s pick to run the Treasury Department about a provision in his employment contract with Citibank – where Lew landed after his previous tenure as a high-ranking official in the Clinton administration.

According to his Citibank contract, he would lose a hefty bonus worth nearly $1 million and other compensation if he left before he received it, except under two very specific circumstances – either he died or obtained a high-level job in the federal government.

If he became a lobbyist, he would lose the bonus. If he became a farmer or the governor of New York, no bonus. Only by getting one of the administration's top jobs could he swim in that vast ocean of cash.

The unusual terms of the contract create a huge potential conflict of interest for Lew, who stood to gain enormous wealth if he landed a government job. Citibank is ensuring that Lew can comfortably move back into the public sector without financial sacrifice. What do the bankers expect for their money? On many tough issues which will require Lew to represent consumers, borrowers and taxpayers when big banks lobby authorities for weaker regulation, can we count on Lew to strongly represent us, even though we have no millions to dangle in front of him?

During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Hatch noted “your employment agreement included a clause stating that ‘your guaranteed incentive and retention award’ would not be paid upon exit from Citigroup but there was an exception that you would receive that compensation ‘as a result of your acceptance of a full time high level position with the United States Government or a regulatory body.’ Now is this exception consistent with President Obama’s efforts to ‘close the revolving door’ that carries special interest influence in and out of the government?”

Lew’s answer doesn’t pass the smell test. “I’m not familiar with records that were kept, so I don’t have access to things that I don’t know about,” Lew testified.

Is Lew, with a reputation as a serious numbers cruncher, policy wonk and savvy political negotiator, suggesting that when it came to the terms of his own bonus, he didn’t read the relevant documents?

Either his statement is false or he just disqualified himself from any government job, especially one overseeing the nation’s complicated finances.

Lew’s response begs for further inquiry. Hatch didn’t pursue it during the hearing. Neither did any of the major media in their coverage. The only initial coverage came from Pam Martens in her “Wall Street on Parade” blog. She referred to the “bombshell” Hatch dropped during the hearing. A week later, Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Weil covered the issue, writing that it appeared that Citibank paid Lew a “sort of bounty” to get a high-powered job in the administration. Lew has certainly earned that Citibank bonus with a series of powerful positions, first in the State Department, then as director of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget and then as his chief of staff.

Lew and the Obama administration may have other problems aside from whether Lew’s Citibank bonus disqualifies him from a job overseeing it and other megabanks. Government watchdog Bart Naylor, an analyst with Public Citizen in D.C., said, after reviewing excepts of Lew’s contract, that the Justice Department should investigate for a possible criminal violation of USC 18 Section 209, which reads:

“Whoever receives any salary, or any contribution to or supplementation of salary, as compensation for his services as an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, of any independent agency of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, from any source other than the Government of the United States, except as may be contributed out of the treasury of any State, county, or municipality; or

Whoever, whether an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other organization pays, makes any contribution to, or in any way supplements, the salary of any such officer or employee under circumstances which would make its receipt a violation of this subsection—?”

Naylor, said: “ The Department of Justice should answer whether the contract between Citi and Mr. Lew is in accord with federal ethics law. This law prevents a private company from making `any contribution’ to an employee `for his services’ to the executive branch of the government. Citi’s contract states that Mr. Lew would sacrifice any bonus he earned unless he landed a high level federal job. Authorities must answer whether the $1 million bonus Mr. Lew qualified for by taking a high level government job constituted a `contribution’ from Citi.”

Even if Lew’s Citibank bonus doesn’t constitute a criminal violation, it certainly violates the spirit of the law and gravely undermines the public’s confidence in him and in the administration’s ability to protect the public from the onslaught of Citibank lobbying and political contributions. If the Obama administration wishes to retain any shred of credibility in its ability to regulate too big to fail banks, it should immediately launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Lew’s contract – and the contracts of the many other former Citibank officials who have served in the administration.

Here’s a partial list:

•Former Citigroup chief economist Lewis Alexander, who joined Treasury in 2009 as a top adviser to former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Alexander is probably best known for having incorrectly predicted, while still at Citi in 2007, that the U.S. would avoid a recession from the crash of the housing bubble. He left the Treasury Department in 2011.

•Former vice-chairman of Citigroup’s global markets Lewis Susman was named to the plum assignment of U.S. ambassador to Great Britain in 2009. He earned his job the old-fashioned way, as one of President Obama’s top contributors and bundlers during the 2008 campaign.

• Michael Froman, a veteran of the revolving door who served in the Clinton Treasury Department before his work as a chief financial officer at Citibank, is credited with introducing President Obama to Robert Rubin, the former Clinton Treasury secretary who oversaw the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act before becoming Citibank CEO during the financial crisis. Froman is a special assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. The New York Times reported that Froman received more than $7.4 million in compensation from Citibank between January 2008 and joining the White House in February, 2009 – including a $2.25 million bonus, which the White House claimed Froman donated to charity.

•David Lipton, another Clinton Treasury veteran who was paid huge Citibank bonuses ($1.275 million in 2008 and $762,000 in 2009) while serving as the bank’s head of country global risk management. President Obama appointed him special assistant to the National Economic Council and the National Security Council.

The administration should get a clue, withdraw Lew’s nomination, and find somebody to lead the Treasury who puts the interests of the public and taxpayers ahead of those of the big bankers.

Citibank / Executive Pay / Lobbying / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Revolving door / Too Big To Fail - 02/25/2013

Four ways to tell if President Obama was lip-syncing

So it turns out that Beyonce’s ardent, flawless performance of the Star-Spangled Banner may have been lip-synced. The more important and far trickier question is whether President Obama’s impassioned promise to fight for the middle class and a just society is for real, or just more lip service.

The president pushed all the right buttons to our inspire our belief, crafting a theme of “We the people,” defending the importance of collective efforts and evoking battlefields in the people’s fight for justice, from March on Selma to Seneca Falls to the Stonewall bar. And he took the oath of office with his hand on Martin Luther KIng’s traveling bible, the one the civil rights leader carried with him and scribbled notes in as he led the movement.

Many people have invested their hopes and dreams in the president’s leadership and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the tepid economic recovery and unkept promises. I thought it was a terrific speech but I’m less giddy about the speech and our prospects for the next four years.

One source of my skepticism is the president’s choice to replace Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, under whose leadership, blessed by the president, the too big to fail banks got bigger, no bankers were held accountable for the financial collapse, and the government’s efforts to clean up the foreclosure mess floundered. Geithner, meanwhile, ridiculed efforts by others on the Obama economic team who wanted to fight for a bigger stimulus that would have helped others who weren’t bankers.

To replace Geithner, the president chose his chief of staff Jacob Lew, who enjoyed a brief, highly paid stint at too big to fail Citigroup from 2006 to 2009, as a manager in a unit that bet against the housing market in the run-up to the financial collapse. After Citigroup reaped its share of the taxpayer-funded bailout, the bank awarded Lew a $950,000 bonus. Before his service to Citigroup, he served as head of the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration, which gave bank deregulation its final push into reality. Of his Citigroup gig, Robert Kuttner wrote, “It was mainly a chance for a skilled public manager to make himself some money until the Democrats returned to power.”

Especially troubling is the lack of expertise Lew demonstrated in comments during a 2010 Senate hearing, where he candidly acknowledged he was not particularly sophisticated in his financial understanding – but went on to downplay the role of deregulation in the financial meltdown.

“My sense, as someone who has generally been familiar with these trends is that the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation; there was an increasing emphasis on highly abstract leveraged derivative products that got us to the point that in the period of time leading up to the financial crisis risks were taken, they weren’t fully embraced, they weren’t well understood,” Lew said. “I don’t personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it but I don’t believe that deregulation was the proximate cause. I would defer to others who are more expert about the industry to try and parse it better than that.”

But the even the grandaddy of financial deregulation himself, Alan Greenspan, has acknowledged what a fiasco it was. As the Consumer Education Foundation pointed out in its March 2009 report, co-authored with Essential Information, “financial deregulation led directly to the financial collapse” by allowing banks to concoct and sell complex investments based on worthless mortgages – without any government oversight or interference.

Regardless of his expertise or lack of it in high finance, Lew is a member in good standing of the elite financial industry – government corridors of power that have been peddling austerity – a particularly hostile landscape for the hopes and dreams of the middle class. Is this really the person Obama believes is best to lead the economic team that is supposed to protect the middle class? If Obama is serious about following through about his inaugural speech promises to protect and preserve economically vulnerable Americans, he’s going to need a much more ambitious and specific agenda than he’s offered so far, and he’s going to need to abandon some major policies he’s been pursuing. And he’s going to need a cabinet and a political team to flesh those policies out, sell them to the country and skillfully push them through Congress. Lew will have to reach way beyond his comfort zone, in which he has functioned as a quintessential insider and number-cruncher.

A great inaugural speech is not about to convince the vast corporate interests that have poisoned our politics to pack up and go home.

To truly protect the middle class, the president is going to have get outside the austerity bubble that Washington has built up around itself with the help of the media wise men and women who judge political courage and wisdom by how much our leaders are willing to slash from social programs.

The way to protect the middle class is straightforward – but demands a departure from the conventional thinking that rules Washington.

Economist Robert Pollin suggests two very specific – and grand – goals for Obama to shoot for. First, cut unemployment in half by the end of 2016, back to 3.9 percent, where it was in 2000, creating an additional 13 million jobs, through a combination of federal stimulus funding,and grabbing the excess funds that the Federal Reserve has shoveled to banks. While bankers have profited from the Fed’s generosity, they have not used those funds to spur the broader economy. Here’s an interview in which Pollin details his views.

The second is creating a real program to fight and reverse rising poverty in the U.S., reducing the number of people living in poverty from 15 to 11 million, again aiming to reduce the poverty to 2000 levels. Again, Pollin says the best way to do this is by focusing on resources on job creation.

Inside Washington’s austerity bubble, this idea of dramatically reducing unemployment or poverty is never discussed any more, amid assumptions that either people are poor because of their own failings or the government can’t afford to do anything about it.

But outside the bubble, economists like Pollin and others suggest another path, and if Obama is serious about the ideals he articulated in his speech, he’ll lead the fight to burst the austerity bubble, embracing this more activist path.

If he’s really intent on helping average Americans, there are two policies President Obama is pursuing that he should immediately discard, because they will hurt the middle class.

The first is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latest in a long line of so-called free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, that have been sold to the public as boosts to the economy but have really crushed low and middle income jobs by increasing outsourcing and lowering wages. While the TPP talks exclude the public, corporate lobbyists have free access.

The president and his team should acknowledge the dangers to America of these phony free trade deals, and abandon the TPP and others like them.

The president should also drop the idea of “tweaking” Social Security by adopting “chained CPI,” which is a way of calculating the “cost of living” that would reduce future Social Security payments. The president has suggested that “chained CPI” could be part of fiscal grand bargain to reduce the deficit. While the president has touted the plan as a kind of a technical fix that would strengthen the program in the long run, Social Security watchdogs say chained CPI would result in substantial benefit reductions.

You’ll know the president is serious about keeping his promise to protect the middle class when you see him following through on this short list.

Citibank / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Social Security - 01/27/2013

Strong message for weak leaders

A New York jury didn’t just acquit a midlevel Citibank executive, they sent a strong, clear message to Washington.

The only question is, how do we get Washington to start listening?

The message came along with a not guilty verdict in the case of a Citibank executive, accused by the SEC of negligence for failing to provide disclosures to clients that his own bank was betting against the complex financial packages that the bank was selling.

Brian Stoker’s lawyer argued that he was just one of many who were doing the same thing in Citibank’s employ.

The attorney argued that it was others, higher up the chain of command at Citibank, who had committed the misconduct.

Evoking the child’s book, “Where’s Waldo?” the lawyer, John Keker, invited jurors find those hidden characters who were really to blame.

Not only did the jurors acquit Stoker, they wrote an unusual letter to the SEC: “This verdict should not deter the SEC from continuing to investigate the financial industry, review current regulations and modify existing regulations as necessary,” the jurors wrote.

Twenty-three year old juror Travis Dawson told the New York Times: “I’m not saying that Stoker was 100 percent innocent, but given the crazy environment back then it was hard to pin the blame on one person. Stoker structured a deal that his bosses told him to structure, so why didn’t they go after the higher-ups rather than a fall guy?”

And the jury foreman, Beau Brendler, told American Lawyer magazine: ”I would like to see the CEOs of some of these banks in jail or given enormous fines,” he said, “not a lower level employee.”

In a separate case, Citibank has already agreed to pay a fine on the collateralized debt obligations at the heart of the case against Stoker.

While the Justice Department is touting that civil fines for fraud have skyrocketed, the Times reported that prosecutions against individuals, especially those at the top, are rare to nonexistent.

“A lot of people on the street, they’re wondering how a company can commit serious violations of securities laws and yet no individuals seem to be involved and no individual responsibility was assessed,” Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of a subcommittee that oversees securities regulation, said at a recent hearing.

The SEC has been hobbled by 20 years of inadequate funding and a revolving door that delivers SEC lawyers right into jobs with the firms that they’re supposed to be regulating, or with the law firms that represent those firms.

And that’s not the worst of it.

Prosecutors take their cues from the top. The Obama administration, from the president to his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner and his attorney general, Eric Holder, has consistently blamed the 2008 financial collapse on stupidity and greed but said that most of the worst banker conduct was not illegal. President Obama has paid only lip service to holding bankers accountable while doing nothing.

The most recent example is a mortgage fraud task force the president announced in January. It took months to get staff and office and the task force has done little more than issue a couple of subpoenas and some press releases.

So it’s no wonder that the SEC continues to avoid pursuing the financial elite.

Meanwhile, both presidential candidates and the big media continue to ignore the issue of banker accountability.

As Mike Lux has pointed out, in the 2010 exit polls, 37 percent of voters blamed Wall Street for the on-going weak condition of the U.S. economy. Those voters, who are angry at Wall Street and skeptical of government, had voted 2 to 1 for Obama in 2008, but in the midterms, broke 56 to 42 percent Republican. They now view the president as a “Wall Street liberal.” These voters have no illusions about Romney, but given the choice, they will favor the candidate who promises to lower their taxes and reduce the deficit, according to Lux.

Can our political leaders hear the message that the New York jury is sending? Or has the money that rules our political system completely drowned it out?

Contact your representative and let them know we haven’t forgotten all the promises to hold Wall Street accountable for its misdeeds.

Citibank / Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 08/10/2012

What's the `worst CEO' worth?

Why did the nation’s largest pension fund take a strong stance against Citibank’s excessive CEO compensation, but then turn around and vote for Bank of America’s lesser, but still outrageous, pay plan?

The California pension fund, CalPERS, was among the 92 percent of shareholders who went along with Bank of America in an advisory vote on CEO compensation earlier this week. In Wednesday’s vote, CalPERs did vote for measures that would have required disclosure on B of A’s lobbying activities as well an independent review of the bank’s foreclosure actions.

While But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan faced noisy protests and pointed questions at the bank’s annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C, both of those initiatives, like say on pay, were defeated.

In their nonbinding “say on pay” vote, Bank of America shareholders approved a $7 million 2011 pay package for Moynihan. Last month, 55 percent of Citibank’s shareholders, including CalPERS, voted against a 15 percent pay hike for their CEO, Vikram Pandit, who had been getting along on $1 a year in 2009 and 2010 while Citibank floundered.

CalPERS’ position this week is strangely at odds with its previous positions.

In the past, CalPERS has been has been particularly tough on Bank of America. In 2010, it cast an unusual vote against all of the bank’s directors, including then-CEO Ken Lewis.

Asked for comment on Wednesday’s Bank of America CalPERS vote, a spokesperson referred me to the pension board’s 79-page governing principles, specifically the provisions covering executive compensation. CalPERS declined to answer any questions about why the pension fund voted for Moynihan’s compensation fund, but against Citibank’s.

True, Moynihan’s pay is less ($7 million) than Pandit’s ($15 million), but that doesn’t make either of them acceptable, much less understandable, by anything but the tortured logic of the too big to fail, government-coddled banks.

To approve Moynihan’s pay, shareholders had to overlook mountains of evidence that the bank is on the wrong track. Back in October, the bank retreated on a scheme to soak its customers for a $5 a month fee on debit cards after President Obama blasted it. The bank, which Bloomberg News estimates received more than $1.5 billion in federal bailout aid, has repeatedly been the target of criticism for underperforming in voluntary government loan modification programs. Earlier this year, B of A was among the big banks that settled foreclosure fraud charges with the feds and states attorney general. Though it was touted as $25 billion settlement, it actually only cost the banks $5 billion. But the bank fraud it highlighted was real.

Richard Eskow of Campaign For America’s Future outlined Moynihan’s dark career trajectory, from B of A general counsel to head of its retail division to CEO, while the bank completed its disastrous $2.5 billion acquisition of slimy subprime lending king Countrywide. When Moynihan joined senior management the bank’s stock traded around $52 a share. Today it trades around $7 or $8 a share.

Tallying the eventual costs of the Countrywide acquisition, Eskow includes a massive $8.4 billion settlement with states over illegal behavior, $600 million to settle a class action suit, $335 million to settle a discrimination suit and $50 to $55 million for its part of lawsuits against Countrywide’s former CEO.

One bank analyst, Michael Mayo, recently ranked the worst CEOs. Moynihan was at the top of the list (with Citibank’s Pandit not far behind). Mayo cited the stock slide along with the debit card fee debacle and the bank’s failure to stem its foreclosure fraud and mortgage servicing problems.

Eskow hits the nail on the head when he asks: By what standard does Moynihan still have a job, let alone a multimillion-dollar salary?

And by what standard does he merit a vote of confidence by CalPERS, which less than a month earlier had taken a strong stand against excessive pay for another failed bank executive, Pandit?

Especially after the pension fund’s chief investment fund officer, Joe Dear, vowed after the Citibank vote to get even more activist. “Excessive CEO pay is not in the interest of the shareowners and not in the interest of companies,” Dear told CNNMoney.

CalPERS has long been an advocate for improved corporate governance, but its credibility has sagged after it suffered staggering losses in the financial collapse and was caught in its own sleazy “pay to play” scandal.

CalPERS’ Bank of America’s vote leaves unanswered questions about the pension fund’s claims to increased activism. Did CalPERS single out Citibank because that was the only too-big-to-fail bank to fail its latest government stress test, as U.S News and World Report suggested?

Or could the vote have something to do with the confidential settlement last November of a lawsuit CalPERS and 15 other institutional investors filed against Bank of America? Could CalPERS officials have agreed to back off their previous hard line against the Bank of America board as part of a secret deal the public will never see?

Of course, we don’t know details – the settlement is sealed.

Was Citibank a publicity-grabbing one-off, or did the pension fund give Bank of America a bye? We’ll have to wait and see just exactly what CalPERS means by activism when it comes to challenging the pampered, powerful titans of the nation’s too big to fail banks.

For now, all we can do is paraphrase the classic film portraying of the lack of accountability of corrupt power, `Chinatown’:

“Forget it Jake, it’s Wall Street.”

Bank of America (BoA) / CalPERS / Citibank / Executive Pay / Martin Column - 05/11/2012

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