I'm a fanatic ( one who won't change his/her mind and won't shut up).
Pegs me exactly. I admit it. I am indeed a fanatic when drawn into issues concerning the FR (Federal Reserve)
Having expressed my views on this criminal organization more then once to my email addressees, we are finally beginning to detect some signs that others, with at least a bit of clout, may finally be realizing and homing in on the source of the grandest financial 'fleece job' ever recorded in the annuls of our history.
But what should really nag all of us are the questions--why has it taken so long for the masses to understand the magnitude of this perpetual 'fleece job"--if indeed they understand , or even care, now? And what effect will this 'audit' have on the visibility of the organization-if any?
Remember as you read the following article---its about audting one of the most corrupt institutions in the world--one that is not a government institution at all, but is composed of FR Banks which are nothing more than private credit monopolies,domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey on the people of America for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers---Repeating: " their foreign customers"
In other words, these FR Banks are naught more than agents of the foreign central banks.
Making the FR little more than an out-of-control credit monopoly --an extremely extensive, arrogant and dangerous one at that!
Do yourselves a great service by learning all you can about this dandy institution that has managed to survive and flourish at the expense of you and I and will, if not curbed, play a prime role in finally destroying the economy of this country.
So read and make up your own mind. Fanatics needed badly!
Carlton
The first ever GAO audit of the Fedral Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill (HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.
What was revealed in the audit was startling: http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_f61ac908-cddb-11e0-bce9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=print
$16,000,000,000,000.00 (TRILLION) had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs. To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is only $14.5 trillion.
The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is only $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.
In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16trillion. ****
When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.
Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows:
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion* ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
Showing posts with label Ben Bernanke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Bernanke. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Glenn Beck Is Not Going Down Quietly…The Greatest Theft in History!!
RANDY'S RIGHT: I have watched Glenn Beck since he started his show on FoxNews in early 2009. I admire his challenge to us to check his stories and he is one of an elite group of people who actually admit and apologize for his mistakes. Although he reported on issues and individuals who were causing the collapse of our country, he never went after the Federal Reserve. Until now.
It appears that Mr. Beck is going down swinging and exposing the major culprit of our nation’s demise. Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve’s role in devaluing our dollar is exactly what Mr. Beck details in the following videos:
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/glenn-beck-is-not-going-down-quietly-the-greatest-theft-in-history/
It appears that Mr. Beck is going down swinging and exposing the major culprit of our nation’s demise. Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve’s role in devaluing our dollar is exactly what Mr. Beck details in the following videos:
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/glenn-beck-is-not-going-down-quietly-the-greatest-theft-in-history/
Monday, March 21, 2011
Monday, December 27, 2010
The Tea Party’s Uphill Battle
The Tea Party’s Uphill Battle
by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
The Tea Party movement and its millions of supporters have high hopes that the recent elections will rein in runaway government. While I endorse this objective, accomplishing it will be far more difficult than most people realize.
The Tea Partiers will have to contend with more than just a Big-Government president and Senate. They also face well-funded, well-connected, and well-entrenched special interests, plus a public that expects the officials they elect to shrink government and balance the federal budget only if it’s the other guy’s programs that get cut. Would-be reformers will also have to deal with the larger, permanent, unelected powers that aren’t accountable to the people.
The fact is that the United States isn’t as democratic as we’d like to think it is. We cherish the idea that the vox populi (the voice of the people) predominates over the will of privileged elites; that government is subordinate to the people (that it serves the people, rather than ruling them); that those in positions of governmental power should be accountable to the people from whom they derive their authority; that government is, essentially, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Is that the kind of system we have today? Let’s see:
Congress delegated its constitutional prerogative to be the guardians of our money to the Federal Reserve System. As I’ve previously discussed, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke & Co. exercise extraordinary discretionary powers that affect us all, yet Bernanke—arguably the second most powerful person in America—is unelected and unaccountable to the people.
Key rules by which we live—most notably, the right to legal abortion—were created by the Supreme Court, instead of by Congress. Regardless of your opinion about the Roe v. Wade decision, it doesn’t seem very democratic that five unelected, unaccountable justices should have the power to establish the rules by which we live.
Perhaps the greatest damage to democracy has been the tremendous amount of power amassed by “the permanent government,” the unelected federal bureaucrats.
Consider:
Although the Constitution confers the legislative prerogative on Congress, in a typical year federal agencies will adopt more than 10 times as many legally binding rules as Congress passes laws (3,830 final rules compared to 285 laws in 2008, for example).
The Obamacare bill grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine or define what the legislation means no fewer than 1,697 times, according to a tabulation by Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
This year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform bill gives power to unelected officials to decide which financial institutions live and die. It also adds power to the 115 federal agencies that already shared regulatory supervision over the financial system, and guarantees high-paying federal jobs to all employees of those agencies, despite their failure to protect us from the financial meltdown of recent years.
The EPA has a long tradition of exceeding its statutory authority and seems determined to further cripple the generation of electricity by imposing heavy penalties for carbon dioxide emissions, despite the crack-up of the global-warming myth and the refusal of Congress to restrict CO2 emissions.
Nobody seems to be able to stop the National Labor Relations Board from helping unions to avoid conducting business in a way that is transparent to rank-and-file workers.
These are just a few examples of the power wielded by unelected officials. They are part of what the late economist Milton Friedman termed an ”iron triangle:” Congress appropriates funds for federal agencies, who, in turn, give grants to citizen-activist groups that then actively lobby Congress for expansions of those programs. Thus is maintained what Friedman and his wife, Rose, labeled “the tyranny of the status quo.”
The influx of some new, Tea Party-supported legislators in Congress should make government marginally more democratic. At least we can count on an end to the imperial speakership of Nancy Pelosi, which was characterized by major legislation written behind closed doors (in the middle of the night), ram-rodding bills along partisan lines (before even Pelosi’s allies could read them), and refusing to heed the concerns of millions of Americans (by excluding their elected representatives from even having a perfunctory say in Congress’ proceedings). That is significant, though incremental, progress.
Will the Tea Party movement be able to tame Big Government in all its undemocratic manifestations? That isn’t likely on the strength of just one strong mid-term election. The task ahead is daunting.
http://floydreports.com/the-tea-partys-uphill-battle/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=8d59ddcf79-EO_12_27_201012_27_2010&utm_medium=email
by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
The Tea Party movement and its millions of supporters have high hopes that the recent elections will rein in runaway government. While I endorse this objective, accomplishing it will be far more difficult than most people realize.
The Tea Partiers will have to contend with more than just a Big-Government president and Senate. They also face well-funded, well-connected, and well-entrenched special interests, plus a public that expects the officials they elect to shrink government and balance the federal budget only if it’s the other guy’s programs that get cut. Would-be reformers will also have to deal with the larger, permanent, unelected powers that aren’t accountable to the people.
The fact is that the United States isn’t as democratic as we’d like to think it is. We cherish the idea that the vox populi (the voice of the people) predominates over the will of privileged elites; that government is subordinate to the people (that it serves the people, rather than ruling them); that those in positions of governmental power should be accountable to the people from whom they derive their authority; that government is, essentially, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Is that the kind of system we have today? Let’s see:
Congress delegated its constitutional prerogative to be the guardians of our money to the Federal Reserve System. As I’ve previously discussed, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke & Co. exercise extraordinary discretionary powers that affect us all, yet Bernanke—arguably the second most powerful person in America—is unelected and unaccountable to the people.
Key rules by which we live—most notably, the right to legal abortion—were created by the Supreme Court, instead of by Congress. Regardless of your opinion about the Roe v. Wade decision, it doesn’t seem very democratic that five unelected, unaccountable justices should have the power to establish the rules by which we live.
Perhaps the greatest damage to democracy has been the tremendous amount of power amassed by “the permanent government,” the unelected federal bureaucrats.
Consider:
Although the Constitution confers the legislative prerogative on Congress, in a typical year federal agencies will adopt more than 10 times as many legally binding rules as Congress passes laws (3,830 final rules compared to 285 laws in 2008, for example).
The Obamacare bill grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine or define what the legislation means no fewer than 1,697 times, according to a tabulation by Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
This year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform bill gives power to unelected officials to decide which financial institutions live and die. It also adds power to the 115 federal agencies that already shared regulatory supervision over the financial system, and guarantees high-paying federal jobs to all employees of those agencies, despite their failure to protect us from the financial meltdown of recent years.
The EPA has a long tradition of exceeding its statutory authority and seems determined to further cripple the generation of electricity by imposing heavy penalties for carbon dioxide emissions, despite the crack-up of the global-warming myth and the refusal of Congress to restrict CO2 emissions.
Nobody seems to be able to stop the National Labor Relations Board from helping unions to avoid conducting business in a way that is transparent to rank-and-file workers.
These are just a few examples of the power wielded by unelected officials. They are part of what the late economist Milton Friedman termed an ”iron triangle:” Congress appropriates funds for federal agencies, who, in turn, give grants to citizen-activist groups that then actively lobby Congress for expansions of those programs. Thus is maintained what Friedman and his wife, Rose, labeled “the tyranny of the status quo.”
The influx of some new, Tea Party-supported legislators in Congress should make government marginally more democratic. At least we can count on an end to the imperial speakership of Nancy Pelosi, which was characterized by major legislation written behind closed doors (in the middle of the night), ram-rodding bills along partisan lines (before even Pelosi’s allies could read them), and refusing to heed the concerns of millions of Americans (by excluding their elected representatives from even having a perfunctory say in Congress’ proceedings). That is significant, though incremental, progress.
Will the Tea Party movement be able to tame Big Government in all its undemocratic manifestations? That isn’t likely on the strength of just one strong mid-term election. The task ahead is daunting.
http://floydreports.com/the-tea-partys-uphill-battle/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=8d59ddcf79-EO_12_27_201012_27_2010&utm_medium=email
Friday, November 12, 2010
A Tale of Three Men and One Child by NC Freedom
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered..” ~ Thomas Jefferson
The Federal Reserve celebrated its 100 birthday this past weekday back where it all started: Jekyll Island, South Carolina. Most people do not realize that the Federal Reserve is a private bank that controls our money supply in violation of our Constitution. Most people do not know that Congress has no idea how our monetary supply is maintained since the Federal Reserve will not allow an audit of their books.
READ ON:
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/a-tale-of-three-men-and-one-child-by-nc-freedom/
The Federal Reserve celebrated its 100 birthday this past weekday back where it all started: Jekyll Island, South Carolina. Most people do not realize that the Federal Reserve is a private bank that controls our money supply in violation of our Constitution. Most people do not know that Congress has no idea how our monetary supply is maintained since the Federal Reserve will not allow an audit of their books.
READ ON:
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/a-tale-of-three-men-and-one-child-by-nc-freedom/
Friday, September 24, 2010
Townhall Columnist: Larry Kudlow
Destroying King Dollar Is Not the Solution
Fed head Ben Bernanke and the FOMC dropped a new policy bomb at their meeting this week. Now they say inflation is too low. That’s the real problem. And the solution? Punch up the money supply and punch down the dollar -- or what I used to call King Dollar. No more.
In the 24 hours following the Fed announcement, gold rocketed up toward $1,300, a new record high. And the dollar plunged. It’s a big vote against the central bank and its constant tinkering and fine-tuning.
The Fed actually has opened the door even wider for more money-creating, balance-sheet expanding, Treasury-bond-buying actions at its next scheduled meeting, which will come the day after the midterm elections on November 3. That’s when QE2 may sail. “Quantitative easing” is what they call it. I call it dollar whack-a-mole.
Here’s a currency-trader quote from the Wall Street Journal: “Quantitative easing is broadly viewed to be corrosive to a currency’s value.” Right on, brother. Even though Bernanke doesn’t get it, the weaker dollar will rev up inflation mighty fast.
But right now, the reflation trade is king, not the dollar. Gold, commodities, some stocks, and foreign currencies are the place to be.
And do we really need more inflation? And should the Fed sacrifice the value of the dollar to get it?
Wall Street economist John Ryding doesn’t think so. He notes that over the past four-and-a-half decades, the consumer price index (CPI) has increased six-fold. So Ryding believes it’s absurd for the Fed to worry about a low inflation rate over the past year or so. Ryding is right.
Regarding the so-called too-low inflation rate, here are some facts: The CPI over the past year is up 1.1 percent. Producer prices paid by businesses are up 3.1 percent. And import prices are rising 4.1 percent. So it’s not as though all these indexes are actually plunging. And to the extent that the CPI and the personal consumption deflator (1.5 percent) are rising only a bit, well, that should be a good thing.
But here’s what the Fed is really missing, or ignoring: All of these price indicators are backward-looking. Sensitive, forward-looking inflation proxies -- like gold and the CRB spot raw-materials index -- are surging upwards. And the dollar downwards.
One of the cornerstones of economic growth in a free-market model is domestic price stability and a stable, reliable dollar. This is crucial for confidence and capital formation. In fact, Nobelist Robert Mundell always argued for low tax rates to spur growth and a steady dollar linked to gold to ensure price stability.
But now we are moving deeper into monetary Keynesian fine-tuning to control the economy. That, plus an overspending Keynesian fiscal policy, may be combined with higher tax rates and an ever-weakening dollar. It’s totally wrong. It’s exactly the reverse of Mundell’s thesis. Sinking the greenback and pumping more money into the system while raising tax rates and overspending is, over time, a prescription for stagflation: too much money chasing too few goods.
Now think of this: With all the Fed’s pump-priming since late 2008, there is still $1 trillion of excess bank reserves sitting on deposit at the central bank. This massive cash hoard suggests that liquidity is not the problem for the financial system or the economy. And putting another $1 trillion into excess reserves only doubles the problem.
A much better idea would be a fiscal freeze on spending, tax rates, and regulations. This is apparently what the tea-party driven Republican congressional leaders intend for their election platform.
Such a freeze would go a long way toward reducing the massive overhang of uncertainty that has plagued the economy and stifled the animal spirits. The Fed can print money, but it can’t print new jobs or growth. On the other hand, a rollback of the big-government obstacles to growth would get folks to put money to work. Not only the $1 trillion in excess bank reserves, but the massive corporate cash hoard, estimated at roughly $2 trillion.
And a lot of that corporate cash is lodged overseas to avoid punitive U.S. taxation. So, in addition to freezing tax rates at home, why not move to a 5 percent tax-rate holiday on repatriated foreign corporate profits? The result would be $300 billion to $400 billion flowing back into the U.S. economy for investment and job-creating purposes.
In other words, pro-growth fiscal action is the solution, not wrecking the value of the dollar or somehow boosting the future domestic inflation rate.
Historically, nothing good has ever come to our economy from a steadily rising gold price. Doesn’t anybody around here have enough common horse sense to see that? Maybe that’s what this midterm election is going to be all about.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2010/09/23/destroying_king_dollar_is_not_the_solution/page/2
Townhall.com Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you
Fed head Ben Bernanke and the FOMC dropped a new policy bomb at their meeting this week. Now they say inflation is too low. That’s the real problem. And the solution? Punch up the money supply and punch down the dollar -- or what I used to call King Dollar. No more.
In the 24 hours following the Fed announcement, gold rocketed up toward $1,300, a new record high. And the dollar plunged. It’s a big vote against the central bank and its constant tinkering and fine-tuning.
The Fed actually has opened the door even wider for more money-creating, balance-sheet expanding, Treasury-bond-buying actions at its next scheduled meeting, which will come the day after the midterm elections on November 3. That’s when QE2 may sail. “Quantitative easing” is what they call it. I call it dollar whack-a-mole.
Here’s a currency-trader quote from the Wall Street Journal: “Quantitative easing is broadly viewed to be corrosive to a currency’s value.” Right on, brother. Even though Bernanke doesn’t get it, the weaker dollar will rev up inflation mighty fast.
But right now, the reflation trade is king, not the dollar. Gold, commodities, some stocks, and foreign currencies are the place to be.
And do we really need more inflation? And should the Fed sacrifice the value of the dollar to get it?
Wall Street economist John Ryding doesn’t think so. He notes that over the past four-and-a-half decades, the consumer price index (CPI) has increased six-fold. So Ryding believes it’s absurd for the Fed to worry about a low inflation rate over the past year or so. Ryding is right.
Regarding the so-called too-low inflation rate, here are some facts: The CPI over the past year is up 1.1 percent. Producer prices paid by businesses are up 3.1 percent. And import prices are rising 4.1 percent. So it’s not as though all these indexes are actually plunging. And to the extent that the CPI and the personal consumption deflator (1.5 percent) are rising only a bit, well, that should be a good thing.
But here’s what the Fed is really missing, or ignoring: All of these price indicators are backward-looking. Sensitive, forward-looking inflation proxies -- like gold and the CRB spot raw-materials index -- are surging upwards. And the dollar downwards.
One of the cornerstones of economic growth in a free-market model is domestic price stability and a stable, reliable dollar. This is crucial for confidence and capital formation. In fact, Nobelist Robert Mundell always argued for low tax rates to spur growth and a steady dollar linked to gold to ensure price stability.
But now we are moving deeper into monetary Keynesian fine-tuning to control the economy. That, plus an overspending Keynesian fiscal policy, may be combined with higher tax rates and an ever-weakening dollar. It’s totally wrong. It’s exactly the reverse of Mundell’s thesis. Sinking the greenback and pumping more money into the system while raising tax rates and overspending is, over time, a prescription for stagflation: too much money chasing too few goods.
Now think of this: With all the Fed’s pump-priming since late 2008, there is still $1 trillion of excess bank reserves sitting on deposit at the central bank. This massive cash hoard suggests that liquidity is not the problem for the financial system or the economy. And putting another $1 trillion into excess reserves only doubles the problem.
A much better idea would be a fiscal freeze on spending, tax rates, and regulations. This is apparently what the tea-party driven Republican congressional leaders intend for their election platform.
Such a freeze would go a long way toward reducing the massive overhang of uncertainty that has plagued the economy and stifled the animal spirits. The Fed can print money, but it can’t print new jobs or growth. On the other hand, a rollback of the big-government obstacles to growth would get folks to put money to work. Not only the $1 trillion in excess bank reserves, but the massive corporate cash hoard, estimated at roughly $2 trillion.
And a lot of that corporate cash is lodged overseas to avoid punitive U.S. taxation. So, in addition to freezing tax rates at home, why not move to a 5 percent tax-rate holiday on repatriated foreign corporate profits? The result would be $300 billion to $400 billion flowing back into the U.S. economy for investment and job-creating purposes.
In other words, pro-growth fiscal action is the solution, not wrecking the value of the dollar or somehow boosting the future domestic inflation rate.
Historically, nothing good has ever come to our economy from a steadily rising gold price. Doesn’t anybody around here have enough common horse sense to see that? Maybe that’s what this midterm election is going to be all about.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2010/09/23/destroying_king_dollar_is_not_the_solution/page/2
Townhall.com Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The Hill
Regulators to hash out major new finance regulations this month
Financial regulators are set this month for a series of crucial meetings and decisions as they hash out major new U.S. and international rules that might govern the financial world for years to come.
And as they convene in Washington and Basel, Switzerland, regulators from around the world are coming under heavy lobbying pressure by the financial industry not to overreach while the global economy remains weak.
In the United States, regulators are starting to lay out how they will oversee "systemic risk" and firms deemed "too big to fail." The Obama administration is also facing pressure from Democrats and consumer advocates to quickly nominate the first head of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created as part of the Wall Street reform bill.
In Basel, international regulators aim to strike a deal on new capital standards — known as Basel III — that will impact the world's largest banks and financial firms.
"Everything else flows from here," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president at the Financial Services Roundtable. "Once you have a CFPB head, you can start defining rules. Once you have Basel III, we'll know capital levels. And once you have the systemic risk council, the regulations can flow. These are major milestones."
The Basel discussions might receive the most attention as financial officials look to forge standards before the heads of the G-20 nations meet in November in Seoul. Discussions are set for Tuesday, with U.S. officials urging higher capital and liquidity standards and requirements for banks to hold more capital.
"Stronger capital standards are absolutely essential as one of the key components going forward to assure the safety of the system," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified to a commission investigating the causes of the financial crisis.
But overcoming international differences is a formidable obstacle, with various governments looking to shape the rules so they do not disproportionately hurt their domestic financial markets.
Meanwhile, a U.S. council of financial regulators charged with overseeing "systemic risk" is set to meet for the first time in September. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who serves as chairman of the council, said in August he planned to use the first meeting to lay out a roadmap for implementing new regulations.
The Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other regulators have already begun to hold meetings, propose new rules and, in some cases, adopt new regulations. But the council meeting will mark the first time regulators meet in full as a public body.
Wayne Abernathy, executive vice president at the American Bankers Association, said the council meeting will be an important juncture to understand how regulators attempt to collaborate as they implement new rules.
"The council was not given the responsibility to coordinate the implementation of Dodd-Frank," he said, using the shorthand for the financial reform bill. "I think there has been an effort by Geithner to step into that role."
The council also holds the power to determine whether large non-bank financial companies should face more stringent oversight from the Federal Reserve. The council will base its determinations on 11 factors, including a firm's leverage, interconnectedness and the value of its assets.
The financial industry is closely watching those deliberations. Companies including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Ford Motor Credit have already begun meeting with the Federal Reserve and other regulators as they look to enact new rules on derivatives and other financial products.
The administration will also face renewed calls in September from Democratic allies to nominate a consumer agency head before the party suffers expected losses in the midterm elections.
Many congressional Democrats, labor unions and consumer advocates have been pushing hard for Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren.
But Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has publicly questioned if Warren, a Harvard professor and champion of the agency, could win the 60 votes necessary to overcome procedural hurdles.
The White House has said repeatedly she is among the candidates under consideration but the president has not yet made a decision.
The Senate would have about a month to consider a potential nomination before recessing for the elections. If the Senate does not act before the recess, the stakes might quickly increase after Election Day.
Winners in special Senate elections in Delaware, Illinois and West Virginia will be seated immediately after Election Day, rather than in January.
Republican Rep. Mike Castle is considered the frontrunner for the Delaware seat and the Illinois race is a tossup, meaning Democrats might hold two fewer votes for a confirmation battle in a lame-duck session of Congress.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/corporate-governance/117331-regulators-to-hash-out-major-new-finance-rules-this-month
Financial regulators are set this month for a series of crucial meetings and decisions as they hash out major new U.S. and international rules that might govern the financial world for years to come.
And as they convene in Washington and Basel, Switzerland, regulators from around the world are coming under heavy lobbying pressure by the financial industry not to overreach while the global economy remains weak.
In the United States, regulators are starting to lay out how they will oversee "systemic risk" and firms deemed "too big to fail." The Obama administration is also facing pressure from Democrats and consumer advocates to quickly nominate the first head of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created as part of the Wall Street reform bill.
In Basel, international regulators aim to strike a deal on new capital standards — known as Basel III — that will impact the world's largest banks and financial firms.
"Everything else flows from here," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president at the Financial Services Roundtable. "Once you have a CFPB head, you can start defining rules. Once you have Basel III, we'll know capital levels. And once you have the systemic risk council, the regulations can flow. These are major milestones."
The Basel discussions might receive the most attention as financial officials look to forge standards before the heads of the G-20 nations meet in November in Seoul. Discussions are set for Tuesday, with U.S. officials urging higher capital and liquidity standards and requirements for banks to hold more capital.
"Stronger capital standards are absolutely essential as one of the key components going forward to assure the safety of the system," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified to a commission investigating the causes of the financial crisis.
But overcoming international differences is a formidable obstacle, with various governments looking to shape the rules so they do not disproportionately hurt their domestic financial markets.
Meanwhile, a U.S. council of financial regulators charged with overseeing "systemic risk" is set to meet for the first time in September. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who serves as chairman of the council, said in August he planned to use the first meeting to lay out a roadmap for implementing new regulations.
The Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other regulators have already begun to hold meetings, propose new rules and, in some cases, adopt new regulations. But the council meeting will mark the first time regulators meet in full as a public body.
Wayne Abernathy, executive vice president at the American Bankers Association, said the council meeting will be an important juncture to understand how regulators attempt to collaborate as they implement new rules.
"The council was not given the responsibility to coordinate the implementation of Dodd-Frank," he said, using the shorthand for the financial reform bill. "I think there has been an effort by Geithner to step into that role."
The council also holds the power to determine whether large non-bank financial companies should face more stringent oversight from the Federal Reserve. The council will base its determinations on 11 factors, including a firm's leverage, interconnectedness and the value of its assets.
The financial industry is closely watching those deliberations. Companies including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Ford Motor Credit have already begun meeting with the Federal Reserve and other regulators as they look to enact new rules on derivatives and other financial products.
The administration will also face renewed calls in September from Democratic allies to nominate a consumer agency head before the party suffers expected losses in the midterm elections.
Many congressional Democrats, labor unions and consumer advocates have been pushing hard for Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren.
But Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has publicly questioned if Warren, a Harvard professor and champion of the agency, could win the 60 votes necessary to overcome procedural hurdles.
The White House has said repeatedly she is among the candidates under consideration but the president has not yet made a decision.
The Senate would have about a month to consider a potential nomination before recessing for the elections. If the Senate does not act before the recess, the stakes might quickly increase after Election Day.
Winners in special Senate elections in Delaware, Illinois and West Virginia will be seated immediately after Election Day, rather than in January.
Republican Rep. Mike Castle is considered the frontrunner for the Delaware seat and the Illinois race is a tossup, meaning Democrats might hold two fewer votes for a confirmation battle in a lame-duck session of Congress.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/corporate-governance/117331-regulators-to-hash-out-major-new-finance-rules-this-month
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Bernanke Urges Congress to Renew Bush Tax Cuts
Bernanke Urges Congress to Renew Bush Tax Cuts
Thursday, 22 Jul 2010 08:13 PM By: David A. Patten
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke dropped a major bombshell on Democrats seeking massive new revenues to narrow the deficit, announcing Thursday that he favors preserving the Bush administration tax cuts to help a faltering U.S. economy.
“In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. “There are many ways to do that. This is one way.”
Bernanke's statement put him directly at odds with White House officials and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who favor raising taxes on wealthy Americans by letting the tax cuts the Bush administration passed in 2001 and 2003 expire.
Bernanke's views also conflict with those of his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who told Bloomberg TV's Judy Woodruff just last week that lawmakers should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled at year's end.
Greenspan conceded, however, that doing so probably would slow growth.
Bernanke emphasized the importance of giving the economy a boost. But he also told the House committee that dealing with the deficit, which has ballooned during the Obama administration, remains a major consideration.
“We need to be taking steps to reassure the American people and the markets that our fiscal situation is going to be well controlled,” Bernanke said. “That means that, if you extend the tax cuts, you need to find other ways to offset them.”
Bernanke's comments came on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 201 points, in part on reports of strong corporate profits.
But the markets were also encouraged by the news that two more Senate Democrats — Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. — are joining the growing number of voices urging an extension of the tax breaks enacted under the Bush administration to stave off the possibility of a double-dip recession.
Fox News business editor and anchor Neil Cavuto said the market's reaction was telling. "Don't you find it a tad odd that, among the many reasons the Dow soared more than 200 points today, was this talk that some Democrats want to delay the tax hike for the rich. Telling, don't you think? Government stands down," he said, "stocks shoot up."
In supporting the tax-cut extension, Conrad and Nelson allied themselves with fellow Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who made similar remarks in support for keeping the tax breaks last week.
"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."
The Wall Street Journal reported that at least six Democrats in the House also have come out in favor of delaying the scheduled tax increases for those earning $250,000 or more annually — a demographic that consists of many small business owners who play a key role in job creation.
Bernanke's support for lower taxes was widely seen as evidence of Fed nervousness about recent signs of growing economic weakness.
The Labor Department reported a spike in claims for state unemployment benefits Thursday, to more than 464,000 last week. In what may have been the understatement of the day, Bernanke's colleague, New York Fed President William Dudley, told the panel that the “road to recovery is turning out to be a bit bumpy.”
Bernanke's support for extended tax cuts also is being seen as a tacit admission that simply lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply may not be enough.
“There is an implicit message from various Fed speakers that monetary policy is less useful now than most times,” Tom Gallagher, senior managing director at International Strategy & Investment Group in Washington, told Bloomberg. “It is a fair inference that Bernanke thinks it would be good to avoid fiscal restraint rather than have more monetary ease if the outlook for 2011 is poor.”
Although Bernanke continues to maintain that there's still plenty the Fed can do to spur the economy, many analysts worry that with interest rates so low the Fed's toolbox of resources has been spent.
So far, Bernanke continues to say no second recession will occur. But he left little doubt Thursday that the central bank intends to respond if necessary to stave another downturn.
"We are ready and will act if the economy does not continue to improve, if we don't see the kind of improvements in the labor market that we are hoping for and expecting," he told the committee.
Fiscal conservatives used the hearing to continue to lambast the Obama administration for its management of the economy. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., blasted "the spendthrift, anti-business and anti-job economic policies of this administration," adding that "the staggering amount of money that we're spending on government programs is jeopardizing both our short- and long-term economic future."
Allowing the tax breaks to expire would push the top individual tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Taxes on capital gains and dividends would go up as well.
Republicans have been arguing for months that raising taxes amidst a struggling economy wracked by high unemployment would be a major mistake.
Congress has adopted budget rules that would allow lawmakers to extend tax cuts on households earning less than $250,000 a year, which both Democrats and Republicans favor. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated those reductions would cost federal coffers about $255 billion per year. There is no such rule in place for tax breaks to those making more than $250,000 a year. Those extensions would cost another $115 billion, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Other sources estimate the gap at closer to $55 billion.
Despite Bernanke's testimony, there has been no indication the president is reconsidering campaign pledge to do away with the Bush tax cuts.
In his Rose Garden speech Monday in support of extending unemployment benefits, Obama attacked Republicans who "didn't have any problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
There also appears to be a concerted effort among Democratic leaders to stave off any momentum for keeping the tax breaks.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers voiced his opposition to any such moveon Wednesday . On Thursday, just hours before Bernanke's scheduled testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters: "It is appropriate to allow tax cuts for the wealthy to expire."
And Speaker Pelosi adamantly weighed in against Bernanke's proposal as well.
“My stance is that the Bush-era tax cuts contributed to the deficit, did not create any jobs, and that they should be repealed,” said the California Democrat.
After the hearing, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he likes Bernanke's proposal, but doesn't know whether it will persuade his colleagues enough to change their minds.
Bloomberg News asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for his reaction.
"In an ideal world, I agree with him," Hoyer said.
Bernanke made it clear that he shares the No. 1 worry of those members of Congress who will find their names on a ballot this November, saying, "I absolutely agree with you that unemployment is the most important problem that we have right now."
Thursday, 22 Jul 2010 08:13 PM By: David A. Patten
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke dropped a major bombshell on Democrats seeking massive new revenues to narrow the deficit, announcing Thursday that he favors preserving the Bush administration tax cuts to help a faltering U.S. economy.
“In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. “There are many ways to do that. This is one way.”
Bernanke's statement put him directly at odds with White House officials and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who favor raising taxes on wealthy Americans by letting the tax cuts the Bush administration passed in 2001 and 2003 expire.
Bernanke's views also conflict with those of his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who told Bloomberg TV's Judy Woodruff just last week that lawmakers should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled at year's end.
Greenspan conceded, however, that doing so probably would slow growth.
Bernanke emphasized the importance of giving the economy a boost. But he also told the House committee that dealing with the deficit, which has ballooned during the Obama administration, remains a major consideration.
“We need to be taking steps to reassure the American people and the markets that our fiscal situation is going to be well controlled,” Bernanke said. “That means that, if you extend the tax cuts, you need to find other ways to offset them.”
Bernanke's comments came on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 201 points, in part on reports of strong corporate profits.
But the markets were also encouraged by the news that two more Senate Democrats — Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. — are joining the growing number of voices urging an extension of the tax breaks enacted under the Bush administration to stave off the possibility of a double-dip recession.
Fox News business editor and anchor Neil Cavuto said the market's reaction was telling. "Don't you find it a tad odd that, among the many reasons the Dow soared more than 200 points today, was this talk that some Democrats want to delay the tax hike for the rich. Telling, don't you think? Government stands down," he said, "stocks shoot up."
In supporting the tax-cut extension, Conrad and Nelson allied themselves with fellow Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who made similar remarks in support for keeping the tax breaks last week.
"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."
The Wall Street Journal reported that at least six Democrats in the House also have come out in favor of delaying the scheduled tax increases for those earning $250,000 or more annually — a demographic that consists of many small business owners who play a key role in job creation.
Bernanke's support for lower taxes was widely seen as evidence of Fed nervousness about recent signs of growing economic weakness.
The Labor Department reported a spike in claims for state unemployment benefits Thursday, to more than 464,000 last week. In what may have been the understatement of the day, Bernanke's colleague, New York Fed President William Dudley, told the panel that the “road to recovery is turning out to be a bit bumpy.”
Bernanke's support for extended tax cuts also is being seen as a tacit admission that simply lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply may not be enough.
“There is an implicit message from various Fed speakers that monetary policy is less useful now than most times,” Tom Gallagher, senior managing director at International Strategy & Investment Group in Washington, told Bloomberg. “It is a fair inference that Bernanke thinks it would be good to avoid fiscal restraint rather than have more monetary ease if the outlook for 2011 is poor.”
Although Bernanke continues to maintain that there's still plenty the Fed can do to spur the economy, many analysts worry that with interest rates so low the Fed's toolbox of resources has been spent.
So far, Bernanke continues to say no second recession will occur. But he left little doubt Thursday that the central bank intends to respond if necessary to stave another downturn.
"We are ready and will act if the economy does not continue to improve, if we don't see the kind of improvements in the labor market that we are hoping for and expecting," he told the committee.
Fiscal conservatives used the hearing to continue to lambast the Obama administration for its management of the economy. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., blasted "the spendthrift, anti-business and anti-job economic policies of this administration," adding that "the staggering amount of money that we're spending on government programs is jeopardizing both our short- and long-term economic future."
Allowing the tax breaks to expire would push the top individual tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Taxes on capital gains and dividends would go up as well.
Republicans have been arguing for months that raising taxes amidst a struggling economy wracked by high unemployment would be a major mistake.
Congress has adopted budget rules that would allow lawmakers to extend tax cuts on households earning less than $250,000 a year, which both Democrats and Republicans favor. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated those reductions would cost federal coffers about $255 billion per year. There is no such rule in place for tax breaks to those making more than $250,000 a year. Those extensions would cost another $115 billion, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Other sources estimate the gap at closer to $55 billion.
Despite Bernanke's testimony, there has been no indication the president is reconsidering campaign pledge to do away with the Bush tax cuts.
In his Rose Garden speech Monday in support of extending unemployment benefits, Obama attacked Republicans who "didn't have any problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
There also appears to be a concerted effort among Democratic leaders to stave off any momentum for keeping the tax breaks.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers voiced his opposition to any such moveon Wednesday . On Thursday, just hours before Bernanke's scheduled testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters: "It is appropriate to allow tax cuts for the wealthy to expire."
And Speaker Pelosi adamantly weighed in against Bernanke's proposal as well.
“My stance is that the Bush-era tax cuts contributed to the deficit, did not create any jobs, and that they should be repealed,” said the California Democrat.
After the hearing, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he likes Bernanke's proposal, but doesn't know whether it will persuade his colleagues enough to change their minds.
Bloomberg News asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for his reaction.
"In an ideal world, I agree with him," Hoyer said.
Bernanke made it clear that he shares the No. 1 worry of those members of Congress who will find their names on a ballot this November, saying, "I absolutely agree with you that unemployment is the most important problem that we have right now."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
