FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘policy’ Category

By Daniel Greenfield, CanadaFreePress

One of the more insidious aspects of the government takeover is how such takeovers are pitched as reforms. Of course reform traditionally applies to institutions reforming themselves or being reformed by their constituents or shareholders. The idea of government reforming the private sector smacks of unlimited authority, which is exactly what it is. And so a government that cannot reform itself, that cannot stop its out of control spending, its constant legislative corruption, its culture of pork and kickbacks, its compulsive need to appropriate power, sets out to instead take over every aspect of life within the country in the name of reform.

But though the government cannot regulate itself, it insists that it can regulate everything outside itself

Can an alcoholic who can’t stop drinking, teach others to be teetotalers? Can a compulsive gambler who drops 10 grand a week in Vegas, regulate the gambling habits of others? Only as an example to others of how bad things can get. But though the government cannot regulate itself, it insists that it can regulate everything outside itself. The blind leading the blind is bad enough, but what are we to make of the blind leading those who can actually see. That’s what government regulation is.

But the reform pitch is part of the whole insidious premise that government is protecting the people from being exploited by acting as a referee on their behalf. It’s so insidious because it’s both deceptive and appealing. Most people have felt taken advantage of by corporations. And indeed we do have a legal system in order to avoid criminal exploitation. But what government refereeing does, is blur the line between the criminal and the unethical, and between the unethical and the profiteering, thereby creating a mandate to not only crackdown on criminal actions, but on acts that are unethical or just greedy.

For example, reformers may begin by exposing an insurance company forging documentation to avoid paying claims, an illegal act, to focusing on misleading claims made by insurance representatives, an unethical act, to campaigning for lower insurance rates, an area that is not illegal or unethical, but a question simply of profit. By exploiting this kind of slippery slope, entire industries have been heavily regulated, even in areas well outside of the government’s purview.

Exposing illegal activity is used by advocates for a government takeover to regulate unethical and profiteering behavior

The scandal generated by exposing illegal activity is used by advocates for a government takeover to regulate unethical and profiteering behavior, which they all class together as proof of malfeasance. By doing so they define both legal and illegal behavior as illegal, because it is rooted in the desire for profit—an essentially socialist position. Going back to the muckrakers, socialists discovered that they could create an impetus for socialism by delegitimizing the profit motive, and the best way to do so was to begin by building their case around blatantly criminal activity and then move down the ladder to attacking the basic idea of capitalism itself.

The overall target was of course the free market, promising the people that government would act as their guardian, protecting them with regulation from the abuses of capitalism. The genuinely deceptive thing however, was that politicians were making the same offer to companies, promising to act as their referee to protect them from their rivals, their workers and their customers. What was actually happening was that government was inserting itself as the “referee”, promising to protect the different segments of the free market from each other.

So politicians “protect” consumers from companies by price controls, while protecting companies from their competitors by creating de-facto monopolies through legislative loopholes, and then protect companies from consumers by tightly regulating what products consumers can buy. ObamaCare, which both imposes price controls and forces consumers to buy health insurance, is a typical example, in which the government as referee screws over both sides, while giving them both some seeming advantage. In reality both sides are worse off than before, and only the politicians and their camp followers gain from the regulation.

And that is how it began. Retailers were promised protection from distributors. Distributors were promised protection from manufacturers. The public was promised protection from all them. Of course this called for reams and reams of legislation. And that legislation called for more legislation. And the politicians and officials in charge of the process naturally welcomed lobbyists from various trade and consumer groups to “explain” their positions them, said explanations usually accompanied by donations and pledges of political support.

By placing itself as the referee, government had a court in which cases went on forever, while collecting “fees” from all the litigants. In Dickens’ Bleak House, there is the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, a lawsuit involving an inheritance that has dragged on for generations, and eventually leaves nothing to the descendants who have been fighting for it, but is entirely absorbed by the judges, the lawyers and the assorted camp followers of the legal system. So too the American people are discovering that the “inheritance” of their economy is vanishing into the maw of the government that promised to get justice for them.

The fees are paid out in campaign contributions, in taxes collected to fund the expanding regulatory mechanisms and in the invisible toll added to all economic transactions by the regulations themselves. That is because any regulatory mechanism also becomes part of the system. Each regulation changes the way the free market works and the way that companies and consumers behave, as both continue to strive to gain maximum advantage for themselves. Since each regulation also adds more expenses to both sides and blocks areas of commercial competition, both sides become more creative and thus also more deceptive. But rather than making economic competition better, more regulation actually makes the competition worse. And this provides grist for the reformer’s mill, who pile on more regulations, which only makes the matter worse. The next step leads to the black market, with the most regulated economies, such as the USSR, also featuring a thriving black market. Because regulations don’t change human behavior, they just change the context in which it is expressed, and the strategies it employs.

By position itself as the referee, government has expanded well beyond its constitutional boundaries into socialism

By position itself as the referee, government has expanded well beyond its constitutional boundaries into socialism. And it has done so by playing on the fears of both customers and companies, promising an orderly and tightly controlled market, for the highest bidder of course. The government promises low prices and available products to customers. And then raises their taxes and gives multi-billion dollar grants to corporations, or just bails them out when those regulations help insure their failure. The result is a diminished availability of products, much higher prices when accounting for inflation, and a culture of entitlement among both companies and the public, in which both sides feel entitled to use the government to exploit the other. Which is exactly what the “referee” wants, because then it has them right where it wants them.

Socialism requires simply that the majority believe that they will be better off having government dispense the work of others to them, rather than working for themselves. And the “reformers” have convinced large numbers of Americans of just that. The results can be seen in an endless assortment of consumer groups that promise us the solution to all problems is to have the government regulate every single thing that companies do, and they can be seen in companies with CEO’s whose main strategies are to hire lobbyists, outsource the actual labor to China and then leave with a golden parachute on their least profitable quarter. This is what happens when people cease to believe in working for a living, and come to believe that the government is their best economic solution.

This week in the news, Senator Schumer has announced that he will investigate an airline’s carry on bag fee. While the first reaction of many people may be that such a fee is repugnant, have they considered how much they’ll be paying for the expanded government regulatory mechanisms. Or how much they’ll paying when that airline’s lobbyists agree to get rid of the fee and instead take home a bailout instead? Because there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can buy lunch or you can get it from the government. But government lunches cost about a hundred times as much. And though you may not be paying for it up front, you will pay. And your children. And their children after you.

Submitted by James Bianco of Bianco Research

•    The Wall Street Journal – Fed Proposes Tool to Drain Extra Cash
The Federal Reserve on Monday proposed selling interest-bearing term deposits to banks, a move the U.S. central bank would make when it decides to drain some of the liquidity it pumped into the economy during the financial crisis. The new facility is intended to help ensure that the Fed can implement an exit strategy before a banking system awash with Fed money triggers inflation. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has described term deposits as “roughly analogous to the certificates of deposit that banks offer to their customers.” Under the plan, the Fed would issue the term deposits to banks, potentially at several maturities up to one year. That would encourage banks to park reserves at the Fed rather than lending them out, taking money out of the lending stream.The central bank said the proposal “has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term.” “The Federal Reserve has addressed the financial market turmoil of the past two years in part by greatly expanding its balance sheet and by supplying an unprecedented volume of reserves to the banking system,” it said. “Term deposits could be part of the Federal Reserve’s tool kit to drain reserves, if necessary, and thus support the implementation of monetary policy.” Michael Feroli, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, said “it’s another step forward in the exit-strategy infrastructure, but it’s been well flagged in advance, so it’s not a surprise.” When Fed officials decide to tighten credit, they would likely use the term-deposits program ahead of — or in conjunction with — adjusting their traditional policy lever, the target for the federal funds interest rate at which banks lend to each other overnight. The Fed also said Monday that its balance sheet rose slightly to $2.2 trillion in the week ending Dec. 23. The Fed’s total portfolio of loans and securities has more than doubled since the beginning of the financial crisis. As part of its efforts to fight the downturn, the central bank is buying $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, a program it says will end in March. The Fed now holds $910.43 billion in mortgage-backed securities, it said Monday.

•    Bloomberg.com – Fed Proposes Term-Deposit Program to Drain Reserves
The Federal Reserve today proposed a program to sell term deposits to banks to help mop up some of the $1 trillion in excess reserves in the U.S. banking system.  The plan, subject to a 30-day comment period, “has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term,” the central bank said in a statement released in Washington. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is preparing tools and strategies to shrink or neutralize the inflationary impact from the biggest monetary expansion in U.S. history. Central bankers are also conducting tests of reverse repurchase agreements and discussing the possibility of asset sales. Term deposits may help the central bank “assert operational control over the federal funds rate” once officials decide to lift the overnight bank lending rate from the current range of zero to 0.25 percent, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. Excess cash “would be locked up” rather than put downward pressure on the federal funds rate, he said.The Fed won’t begin raising interest rates until the third quarter of 2010, according to the median estimate of 62 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News in the first week of December.

•    The Financial Times – Fed to offer term deposits to banks
The US Federal Reserve plans to offer term deposits to banks as part of its “exit strategy” from the exceptionally loose monetary policy used to fight the recession. In a consultation paper released on Monday the Fed said it planned to change its rules so that it could pay interest on money locked up at the central bank for a defined period. The Fed added that the well-flagged rule change – designed to allow it more influence over the $1,100bn in excess reserves held by banks – was part of “prudent planning. . . and has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term”. It is one of a number of measures that has been outlined over the past few months by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, as an option to drain liquidity from the financial system in a manner that protects the economic recovery while heading off the threat of inflation.

•    The Federal Reserve – Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Board is requesting public comment on proposed amendments to Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, to authorize the establishment of term deposits. Term deposits are intended to facilitate the conduct of monetary policy by providing a tool for managing the aggregate quantity of reserve balances. Institutions eligible to receive earnings on their balances in accounts at Federal Reserve Banks (”eligible institutions”) could hold term deposits and receive earnings at a rate that would not exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. Term deposits would be separate and distinct from those maintained in an institution’s master account at a Reserve Bank (”master account”) as well as from those maintained in an excess balance account. Term deposits would not satisfy required reserve balances or contractual clearing balances and would not be available to clear payments or to cover daylight or overnight overdrafts. The proposal also would make minor amendments to the posting rules for intraday debits and credits to master accounts as set forth in the Board’s Policy on Payment System Risk to address transactions associated with term deposits.

Comment

We believe the proposal of this new tool signals the Federal Reserve is still flailing around trying to look busy so everyone is assured they have a plan.  The fact is they have no plan and are still throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks. From the November 4 FOMC minutes:

Participants expressed a range of views about how the Committee might use its various tools in combination to foster most effectively its dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. As part of the Committee’s strategy for eventual exit from the period of extraordinary policy accommodation, several participants thought that asset sales could be a useful tool to reduce the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and lower the level of reserve balances, either prior to or concurrently with increasing the policy rate. In their view, such sales would help reinforce the effectiveness of paying interest on excess reserves as an instrument for firming policy at the appropriate time and would help quicken the restoration of a balance sheet composition in which Treasury securities were the predominant asset. Other participants had reservations about asset sales–especially in advance of a decision to raise policy interest rates–and noted that such sales might elicit sharp increases in longer-term interest rates that could undermine attainment of the Committee’s goals. Furthermore, they believed that other reserve management tools such as reverse RPs and term deposits would likely be sufficient to implement an appropriate exit strategy and that assets could be allowed to run off over time, reflecting prepayments and the maturation of issues. Participants agreed to continue to evaluate various potential policy-implementation tools and the possible combinations and sequences in which they might be used. They also agreed that it would be important to develop communication approaches for clearly explaining to the public the use of these tools and the Committee’s exit strategy more broadly.

The Federal Reserve first hinted at term deposits almost two months ago, although exactly what they were talking about was left vague until now.

Remember that the Federal Reserve has to withdraw over a trillion dollars of excess liquidity.  The easiest way to do this is to sell hundreds of billions of MBS, Treasuries and agencies.   As the bold highlighted passage above implies, they are scared to death of doing this, so they propose complicated schemes to withdraw liquidity like reverse repos and now term deposits.

We have argued that these schemes will not work.  They cannot be done in the sizes necessary or enough to even matter.  The Federal Reserve could possibly drain tens of billions of dollars via these schemes, but collectively that will amount to a rounding error when the goal is to withdraw over a trillion in excess reserves.

The Federal Reserve does not want to admit defeat, so they continue pursuing these strategies that will not make a difference.  We believe they also do it to “look busy” as they are taking measurements and notes as to how to withdraw all the liquidity they have pumped in.  They think this will give the market comfort that someone is on the case and that inflation expectations will not get out of control.  The market is not buying this.  Inflation expectations, s measured by TIPS inflation breakeven rates, are going vertical.

Reinvestment Risk

As to term deposits, the Federal Reserve is proposing an illiquid short term instrument for banks to invest in.  Banks would buy these instruments and “lock up” the excess reserves they now have.  This would have the same effect as draining excess reverses.  The maturities of these instruments would be as long as one year.

It is unclear if there will be a secondary market for these instruments, and if so, how liquid it will be.
Without a secondary market, buyers of these instruments face huge reinvestment risk.  The future course of short term interest rates is arguably to the most uncertain it has been in decades.  Will the Federal Reserve stay near zero until 2012 or will they be forced to raise rates in the first half of 2010?  Given all this uncertainty, who wants to lock up money in something that cannot be sold before maturity?  This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s statement that the “maximum-allowable rate for each auction of term deposits would be no higher than the general level of short- term interest rates.”

The general level of short-term interest rates is set on known instruments that have generations of history and active secondary markets.  If the Federal Reserve wants to introduce a new, and wholly unknown instrument with an uncertain secondary market and offer no interest rate premium, then we cannot see how this will work beyond a token amount after some arm twisting to get them sold.  The Federal Reserve will have to offer a premium for uncertainty and illiquidy to make this fly in any major way, something they said they will not do.

Complicated Is Simple

The Federal Reserve owns 80% of AIG.  With each passing day it looks like the Federal Reserve is adopting AIG Financial Product’s business practices.  That is, when faced with a financial problem, they create complicated tools (like CDS).  When critics says these new products will not work, tell them they do not know what they are talking about and create even more complicated tools to dazzle everyone.  Once the tools are so complicated that no one understands them, you will be hailed as an expert with no peer.  You might even be named TIME’s Person of the Year.

Of course, we do not intend that Zero Hedge should become a center of excellence for the review of obscure Senate rules, but, as a consequence of the full-court-press-rush to pass the health care bill, this was too interesting not to reprint:

Under Senate Rule XXII, “a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules… the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting” to end debate. Yet there were only 60 votes for cloture on the Reid bill. So unless there is some basis for giving special treatment to rules changes that are buried into other legislation, it would seem that either a) cloture was not achieved, or b) the entrenchment provisions do not actually alter the Senate rules.

Woops.

I’m told that a fine point of distinction means that Reid’s entrenchment clauses were blessed by a Senate parliamentarian with respect to the 60 needed.  I suppose one needs to be far more versed in the minutia of Senate procedure than an honest citizen could claim to be.

UPDATE:

Here was DeMint on the topic yesterday:

The entire thing is worth watching, but here is our favorite part:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

Either way the process continues:

Senate Democrats cleared the last 60-vote hurdle on U.S. President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul on Wednesday, virtually ensuring final passage of its version of the biggest health policy changes in four decades.

Good morning, worker drones: This Week in Mayhem

by Project Mayhem

Project Censored releases top censored news stories of 2009, Market Skeptics highlights catastrophic fall in global food production, gold bounces off $1100, Copenhagen succeeds in building global governance framework, Pakistan and Yemen sink further into chaos..

LAST WEEK IN MAYHEM

Project Censored releases list of 25 censored news stories of the past year

* 1. US Congress Sells Out to Wall Street
* 2. US Schools are More Segregated Today than in the 1950s
* 3. Toxic Waste Behind Somali Pirates
* 4. Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina
* 5. Europe Blocks US Toxic Products
* 6. Lobbyists Buy Congress
* 7. Obama’s Military Appointments Have Corrupt Past
* 8. Bailed out Banks and America’s Wealthiest Cheat IRS Out of Billions
* 9. US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza
* 10. Ecuador Declares Foreign Debt Illegitimate
* 11. Private Corporations Profit from the Occupation of Palestine
* 12. Mysterious Death of Mike Connell—Karl Rove’s Election Thief
* 13. Katrina’s Hidden Race War
* 14. Congress Invested in Defense Contracts
* 15. World Bank’s Carbon Trade Fiasco

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/two-thousand-and-ten-book/

2010 Food Crisis for Dummies

The countries that make up two thirds of the world’s agricultural output are experiencing drought conditions.

The following article is HIGHLY recommended for anyone trading in the commodities futures markets or interested in possible future outcomes in 2010.

“If you read any economic, financial, or political analysis for 2010 that doesn’t mention the food shortage looming next year, throw it in the trash, as it is worthless. There is overwhelming, undeniable evidence that the world will run out of food next year. When this happens, the resulting triple digit food inflation will lead panicking central banks around the world to dump their foreign reserves to appreciate their currencies and lower the cost of food imports, causing the collapse of the dollar, the treasury market, derivative markets, and the global financial system. The US will experience economic disintegration.

So far the crisis has been driven by the slow and steady increase in defaults on mortgages and other loans. This is about to change. What will drive the financial crisis in 2010 will be panic about food supplies and the dollar’s plunging value. Things will start moving fast.”

http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/12/2010-food-crisis-for-dummies.html

Gold bounces off $1100

Gold has bounced off $1100, as expected, but the question  is whether this level will hold.  This is almost impossible to predict…what we do know is that gold is going much higher intermediate-term.  Short-term, we could see pricing pressures on gold until we get a new leg down in the economic crisis and/or war in Central Asia.  Things are heating up around the world, particularly in Yemen and Pakistan.  Regardless, we expect a hard floor for the gold price in the range of $1000-1050.  We will watch carefully for the next two business weeks leading into Jan 1st, as this will involve year-end mark-to-market for gold on many balance sheets so expect volatility.  In terms of the next year (2010) we are expecting a dollar crisis so it would be wise to own gold under such circumstances.

Tarpley – Hyperinflation possible in 2010
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9059

Gerald Celente – 2010 – Prepare for the Worse
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9060

Copenhagen Treaty yields start of Global Governance

The Copenhagen treaty was a success despite the massive scientific scandal; the global bankster-gangsters got precisely what they wanted.  The objective was to establish the framework for a world government, which is often called ‘global governance’ in policy planning circles. The seeds of this were successfully planted.  There were two main accomplishments at Copenhagen:  1) agreement on a global transaction tax on GDP, paid to the World Bank  and 2) agreement on preliminary funding for global governance, conservatively $100bn by 2020 but we believe this number will be much much higher (probably in trillions).

“In 2004, it was less than $300 million. But in 2005, the trade really started to soar, ending the year with $10.8 billion-worth of transactions. A year later, in 2006, the “carbon” market had grown to $31 billion. In 2007, again it more than doubled its turnover, to $64 billion. Last year, it did it again, reaching a colossal $126 billion. By 2020, some estimates suggest the annual value will reach $2 trillion.”

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/protecting-big-carbon.html

“This is the biggest heist in history. As they poured carbon over snow-covered Denmark from their gas-guzzling jets, world leaders were congratulating themselves on securing a deal which will make their backers and financiers a trillion pounds a year. These riches will come from buying and selling permits, the so-called ‘carbon credits’ which allow industry and electricity generators in developed countries to emit carbon dioxide.

The frenzied negotiations we have just seen were never about ‘saving the planet’. They were always about money.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1237235/ANALYSIS-Saved–trillion-pound-trade-carbon.html

Copenhagen accord keeps Big Carbon in business

“The part played at Copenhagen by all the tree-huggers, abetted by the BBC and their media allies, was to keep hysteria over warming at fever pitch while the politicians haggled over the real prize, to keep the Kyoto system in place.

The only tree they were concerned with hugging was the money tree and all the vast political apparatus that now supports it, allowing governments to tax and regulate us into handing over ever more of our money, largely without realising it, every time we drive a car, fly in a plane, pay our electricity bill or carry out any of a vast range of activities that involve the emission of CO2. ”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6845686/Copenhagen-accord-keeps-Big-Carbon-in-business.html

Saudis rain missiles down on Yemen

Saudi warplanes rain ’1,011 missiles’ on Yemen
“Houthi fighters say Saudi warplanes have fired some 1,011 missiles on the borderline with Yemen where the Shia population is already under heavy state-led and US-aided bombardment. “

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114162&sectionid=351020206

US air raids kill 63 civilians in Yemen
“Yemen’s Houthi fighters say scores of civilians, including many children, have been killed in US air-raids in the southeast of the war-stricken Arab country.”
http://dprogram.net/2009/12/19/us-air-raids-kill-63-civilians-in-yemen/

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
“The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration’s campaign against al Qaeda.”

Pakistan on brink ;  Obama feigns surprise

Internally displaced Pakistani women and children, aka alQueda

Pakistan continues to deteriorate, as we have been expected since the election of Obama.  There is definitely a new war brewing in the region.  The most likely conflict is either an event justifying going into Pakistan, or an event justifying going into Iran.  In either case, doing so would land us in deep deep trouble, and would escalate into a regional war.  Pakistan is a nuclear-armed country, with ballistic and cruise missiles, and Iran has advanced Russian weaponry.  War in either country would be a big mistake with catastrophic consequences for the world, but our fearless leaders do not seem to care about the people of the world or their lives.  Regardless, the CIA and ISI are doing an excellent job of destabilizing Pakistan, which seems to be the policy objectiive.

Pakistan political crisis deepens

“THE political crisis in Pakistan has deepened after the Government’s anti-corruption agency sought a warrant for the arrest of the country’s Interior Minister.”

http://www.theage.com.au/world/pakistan-in-crisis-as-creeping-coup-unfolds-20091219-l6lf.html

Symptom of a Deeper Malady Pakistan’s Refugee Disaster

In the meantime, with the winter months fast approaching, hundreds of thousands of “unintegrated” refugees who do not find more durable shelter, even as military sweeps continue, could face exposure and starvation. Some aid groups are demanding that the United States pressure Pakistan to respect international humanitarian law and allow independent access to the refugees.

THIS WEEK IN MAYHEM

source: cmegroup

Not much happening this week due to the Christmas holiday. Tuesday brings us the GDP number and existing home sales, Wednesday is new home sales, and Thursday is durable goods orders and jobless claims.  This week we are watching Yemen and Pakistan.

Have a great week and Merry Christmas

Project Mayhem Research (PMR) is a DC/Baltimore-based grassroots think tank dedicated to exposing corruption worldwide. PMR is affiliated with Zerohedge.com, a popular and growing anti-corruption site, through contribution of free articles for the public. Topics include the politics of war and weapons systems, unexpected applications of cybernetics, the growing international surveillance state, global warming ‘deindustrialization’ economics, broad systemic international corruption , in-depth policy analysis of studies from bank and military funded research groups, genetic analysis and surveillance of pandemic influenza, corruption in the international gold market, the power structure and history of the global elite, and analysis of their political objectives expressed through monopolistic international finance capital (read: powerful banks) between now and 2050.

Sign up for free news updates and future subscription information–

* Required

Tomorrow at 10 am the House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing with SEC’s Robert Khuzami (oddly Mary Schapiro, together with Chris Cox, had been scheduled to appear initially, however “in a series of last minute negotiations, members settled on Khuzami”) to discuss what the SEC has already found to be a criminal transaction (and attempted to promptly bury under the rug if only if it weren’t for one Judge Jef Rakoff). Details of the hearing below:

Washington, DC – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Chairman Edolphus “Ed” Towns (D-NY) and Domestic Policy Subcommittee
Chairman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will convene a joint hearing entitled:
“Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal Turn Into a
Federal Bailout?  Part V?”  The hearing will examine the events
surrounding Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch and its
receipt of Federal financial assistance. 

The hearing will
take place at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 11, 2009 in room 2154
Rayburn House Office Building.  A webcast of the hearing will be
available on the Committee’s website: http://oversight.house.gov.

As for the actual hearing, Dow Jones presents this advance look of how Dennis Kucinich will approach the interrogation:

[Kucinich] plans to present Khuzami with a financial forecast
that had been prepared by Merrill Lynch a few weeks ahead of the December 2008
shareholder vote on the merger, according to subcommittee documents obtained
by Dow Jones.
The forecast omits projected losses from Merrill Lynch’s illiquid assets for
the month of December and underestimates by almost half the roughly $15
billion after-tax fourth quarter loss, the documents say.
Based on the subcommittee’s investigations, Kucinich says he believes Bank
of America executives were aware of the red flags raised by Merrill Lynch’s
forecast. But that didn’t stop them from presenting the document to their
lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Kucinich says Bank of America’s decision not to investigate the Merrill
Lynch document and notify shareholders of any change in expectations amounts
to “an egregious violation of securities laws.”

Referring specifically to the Merrill Lynch forecast, [BofA spokesman Lawrence] Di Rita said, “The
matter of Merrill’s projected fourth-quarter 2008 losses was considered
carefully and the decisions were made in good faith at a time of unprecedented
economic and market upheaval.”

And while committtee chairman Edolphus Towns is allegedly satisfied with BofA’s behavior in the last year, “since it paid the last of its $45 billion debt to taxpayers” even though it does not have the ready sources for this outflow, and even though the deal was merely a front to allow BofA traders to scalp exorbitant bonuses one last time before everything collapses, Judge Rakoff may not share Towns’ utter lack of interest with due process and punsihment of criminal behavior, especially where said criminal behavior has already been proven.

One day, Vince McMahon will pay handsomley to get Ben Bernanke and Alan Grayson in the squared circle. Until that day, we should just hope and dream. In the meantime, we have litters and public appearances by the Florida Congressman, who takes the latest AIG “taxpayer payback” opportunity to remind everyone of just how deeply he loves the “we create money out of thin air” institution that is the Federal Reserve.

I write with concern about two announced deals that are lauded by AIG CEO Robert Benmosche as AIG’s plan to ‘pay back the taxpayer’. In reading through the deal, it looks to me like the Federal Reserve is simply engaged in yet another disguised bailout of AIG. It’s not surprising that the New York Fed continues to shovel money at AIG using its balance sheet, since this seems to be official policy, but this time, the bailout also involves cheating the IRS.

In describing the deal specifics:

This relationship is not significantly different from just making the subsidiaries collateral for the existing loan from the New York Fed, with four exceptions. One, the FRBNY’s right are downgraded in this deal from creditors to preferred shareholders. Two, AIG gets to claim “repayment” and take a tax loss to reduce the company’s income taxes. Three, the FRBNY credit facilities are already collateralized. Four, the New York Fed owns nearly 80% of AIG, putting it on all sides of the deal.

And most brazenly, and deserving of applause, the allegation that Bernanke is implicilty breaking the law by his most recent AIG bailout:

As the New York Fed owns most of AIG, this deal could be considered a faked sale to generate a capital loss for the purposes of injecting Treasury funds into AIG without the consent of Congress. Please explain the legality of the arrangement.

Full Grayson letter to Bernanke: