Wall Street's Record Breaking $144 Billion Bonuses

Wall Street is having another record breaking year ... in handing out bonuses. Is that a record we actually want them to break? Hell, no!

What happened to the notion of the person who makes the decisions bearing the responsibility for those decisions? If I am a small business owner, and I mismanage my business, I don't get paid. Why doesn't this same, simple idea apply to Wall Street Executives?

They gamble with our money, yet the investors and taxpayers are the only ones on the hook to cover the losses.

Wall Street pay is on pace to break a record high for a second consecutive year, according to a report in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal.

Some three dozen top banks and securities firms will pay $144 billion in salary and benefits this year, the paper said. That’s a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, according to a survey conducted by the Journal. Compensation is expected to rise at 26 of the 35 firms surveyed, including banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges.

The report shows revenue is expected to rise at 29 of the firms, but at a slower pace than pay. Wall Street revenue is expected to rise 3 percent, to $448 billion from $433 billion, despite a slowdown in some high-profile activities like stock and bond trading. Wall Street is expected to pay 32.1 percent of its revenue to employees, the same as last year, but down from the 36 percent paid out in 2007, the Journal said.

Profits on Wall Street were depressed by losses over the past two years, but they have bounced back from the 2008 crisis, the paper said. Even so, this year’s estimated profit of $61.3 billion for the firms surveyed still falls about 20 percent short from the record $82 billion made in 2006, the Journal said.

Large Wall Street banks are unlikely to accelerate bonus payouts, however, to help their employees avoid the higher tax rates that may be coming when tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration expire on January 1.

Paying out bonuses early would likely be a public relations disaster for a sector already blamed for the economic downturn, compensation experts noted.

Where is the bonus for the homeowner losing their home? Where is the bonus for the small business owner, the backbone of our economic recovery? Where is the bonus for the person who makes their payments on time every month, but still can't manage to get ahead?

The excesses of Wall Street Executives is obscene. Where was the oversite on this when Congress and the President (Obama and Bush) gave these corporations our taxdollars in bailouts?

Will we ever get answers? I doubt it.

UPDATE: Here is more about the greedy bastards!

Wall Street Executives clearly would like to see Republicans take over the Congress. Is there any question about why?

In a question about which two issues the Republicans should focus on after the elections, nearly two-thirds of respondents said extending President George W. Bush-era tax cuts should be a priority, while more than half said boosting economic growth should take top priority.

Good grief ...

Mitch McConnell's tax cut lies

Joan Walsh, at Salon, has got Mitch McConnell's number ... and if we're smart, it's up. The American public simply has to wake up and realize that every time McConnell's lips are moving he's lying.

Walsh asks: "Why does the GOP get away with saying tax cuts for the rich are "existing tax policy"? Or that they create jobs?" She goes on to say:

I don't see the Park51 controversy as a mere distraction from the country's "real" issues of unemployment and economic trouble. What matters more than our nation's tradition of religious and political freedom? But it's clear to me that the "mosque" issue is this August's version of last August's "death panels" – another faux-Fox controversy manufactured by divisive right-wingers to keep us from focusing on our country's serious problems.

What would Republicans do without the "mosque" flap, if they had to vigorously defend, in detail, their economic program? Sunday on "Meet the Press," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was as preposterous as House Minority Leader John Boehner on the same show two weeks ago, blustering about having to account for how much extending the Bush tax cuts for the megarich – set to expire in 2011 -- will deepen the deficit. Just as Boehner sputtered and refused to answer repeatedly, then blamed "this Washington game and their funny accounting" for the vexing fact that protecting the megarich will add $3.2 trillion to the deficit, so did McConnell obfuscate. "Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, 'pay for'?" McConnell asked host David Gregory, calling the tax cuts "existing tax policy."

My favorite paragraph is:

I also don't understand why, if as the Republicans claim, these tax cuts are the secret to job growth, two Bush terms only saw the number of jobs grow by 1.1 million, when jobs grew by 22.7 million under Bill Clinton, at the same time that taxes on the rich were higher.

It's hard to argue with the facts.

It's time to to "update and extend old-fashioned bank regulation"

I agree with Paul Krugman, who made the above statement in a NYT's op-ed.

Let’s face it: Financial reform is a hard issue to follow. It’s not like health reform, which was fairly straightforward once you cut through the nonsense. Reasonable people can and do disagree about exactly what we should do to avert another banking crisis.

So here’s a brief guide to the debate — and an explanation of my own position.

Leave on one side those who don’t really want any reform at all, a group that includes most Republican members of Congress. Whatever such people may say, they will always find reasons to say no to any actual proposal to rein in runaway bankers.

Even among those who really do want reform, however, there’s a major debate about what’s really essential. One side — exemplified by Paul Volcker, the redoubtable former Federal Reserve chairman — sees limiting the size and scope of the biggest banks as the core issue in reform. The other side — a group that includes yours truly — disagrees, and argues that the important thing is to regulate what banks do, not how big they get.

Krugman points out it was the failure of many small banks in the 1930s that led to the our financial crisis and the Great Depression. So in this case, size really doesn't matter!

Regulation is what matters. The message big bankers now have is that they can virtually do whatever they want, because the government will bail them out.

This rescue was necessary, but it put taxpayers on the hook for potentially large losses. And it also established a dangerous precedent: big financial institutions, we now know, will be bailed out in times of crisis. And this, it’s argued, will encourage even riskier behavior in the future, since executives at big banks will know that it’s heads they win, tails taxpayers lose.

Could someone please explain to me why Paul Krugman isn't running the show?

A Woman's Nation

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Takes a long time to load, but is worth a listen.

US Financial Collaps Driven by 'Fraud'

Is anyone surprised?

Bill Moyers recently interviewed William K. Black, a professor of economics and law with the University of Missouri, about our current economic disaster. What Black alleged should come as no surprise to anyone paying the least bit of attention.

[Black] alleged that American banks and credit agencies conspired to create a system in which so-called "liars loans" could receive AAA ratings and zero oversight, amounting to a massive "fraud" at the epicenter of US finance.

But worse still, said Black, Timothy Geithner, President Barack Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, is currently engaged in a cover-up to keep the truth of America's financial insolvency from its citizens.

Wow, this sounds really bad. And if true, it is bad, or is it?

Maybe we need to keep digging. Here is more of what Professor Black has to say:

What we know now is that the rating agencies never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I'm quoting Fitch, the smallest of the rating agencies, "the results were disconcerting, in that there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined."

He equated the entire US financial system to a giant "ponzi scheme" and charged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, like Secretary Henry Paulson before him, of "covering up" the truth.

Yikes!

Why would an administration committed to change appear to be giving us more of the same?

"Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?" asked Moyers.

"Absolutely, because they are scared to death," he said. "All right? They're scared to death of a collapse. They're afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we'll run screaming to the exits. And we won't rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it's foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, 'We just can't let the big banks fail.' That's wrong."

Ultimately, said Black, the financial downfall of the United States in the wake of the Bush years is due to "the most elite institutions in America engaging in or facilitating fraud."

"When will Americans wake up and hold the real criminals - Banksters - accountable for their actions, and pressure the government to enact systemic changes to prevent future abuses?"

So there you have it. During the Reagan administration we saw the beginning of deregulation -- or more plainly, the beginning of the end.

During the George W. Bush administration the crooks had the keys to the bank. The whole lot of them should be in jail, not receiving billion dollar bailouts.

Now, about the Obama administration. Maybe they are trying to "protect" us ... but in the same way they are "protecting" us by not releasing the torture photos?

Maybe it's time to level with the American people, and make the bad guys pay for their crimes. What do you think?

The full interview can be viewed on-line.

Senate Republicans Want You To Lose Your House

Senate Republicans blocked a measure that would have allowed Judges to fix mortgages in bankruptcy.

The Senate handed a victory to the banking industry on Thursday, defeating a Democratic proposal that would have given homeowners in financial trouble greater flexibility to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages. [...]

The mortgage provision garnered only 45 votes in the Senate, falling well short of the 60 votes necessary to break a threatened filibuster to a measure sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, that would give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to modify mortgages. In recent weeks, major banks and bank trade associations worked closely with Senate Republicans to stop the measure. Twelve Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting against it.

The defeat clears the way for a final vote as early as Friday for the legislation, which has several features that the banking industry has sought. One provision would have the effect of reducing a proposed special premium the banks would owe the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation later that year by more than 50 percent — a $7.7 billion saving. A second provision would make permanent the temporary increase in deposits guaranteed by the F.D.I.C., to $250,000, from $100,000.

Democrats control Congress and the White House, yet Republicans STILL manage to run the show! WTF is up with that??

UPDATE:

Here are the Dems who voted nay on the Durbin amendment:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)

New Optimism on Economy

A question I've asked in the past is how much of our economic problems are fear based and how much is reality. Did panic on Wall Street cause the terrible down turn in our economic situation, or are greedy CEO's in the banking industry responsible?

Replacing fear with confidence could put us on the road to recovery -- at least that's what the latest New York Times/CBS News poll suggests.

Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, suggesting that Mr. Obama is enjoying some success in his critical task of rebuilding the nation’s confidence, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

These sometimes turbulent weeks — marked by new initiatives by Mr. Obama, attacks by Republicans and more than a few missteps by the White House — do not appear to have hurt the president. Americans said they approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, foreign policy, Iraq and Afghanistan; fully two-thirds said they approve of his overall job performance.

By contrast, Republican fortunes have dropped in the first weeks of the Obama presidency; just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.

It is not unusual for new presidents to enjoy a period of public support. Still, the durability of Mr. Obama’s support contrasts with that of some other new presidents, and is striking at a time when anxiety has gripped households across the country and Mr. Obama has alternately sought to rally Americans’ spirits and warn against economic collapse as he seeks Congressional support for his programs. The poll found that 70 percent of respondents are very or somewhat concerned that someone in their household will be out of work and looking for a job over the next 12 months; 40 percent said they had cut back spending on luxuries, and 10 percent on necessities; 31 percent said they had cut both.

For all that, the number of people who think the country is heading in the right direction has jumped from 15 percent in mid-January, just before Mr. Obama took office, to 39 percent today, while the number who think it is heading in the wrong direction has dropped from 79 to 53 percent. That is the highest percentage of Americans who said the country is heading in the right direction since February of 2005, the second month of the second term of former President George W. Bush.

Hopefully the President will be able to keep optimisim up long enough to impliment the programs necessary to turn the economy around.

In the mean time, Republicans have a problem. And the actions of Florida's Republican Governor may be contributing to the problem.

As more and more people are falling on hard times the state decided to crack down on collections.

Valerie Gainous paid her debt to society, but almost went to jail because of a debt to Florida’s courts.

In 1996, she was convicted of writing bad checks; she paid restitution, performed community service and thought she was finished with the criminal justice system. Earlier this year, however, she received a letter from Collections Court telling her that she was once again facing jail time — this time, for failing to pay $240 in leftover court fees and fines, which she says she cannot afford.

Ms. Gainous has been caught up in her state’s exceptionally aggressive system to collect the court fines and fees that keep its judiciary system working. Judges themselves dun citizens who have fallen behind in their payments, but unlike other creditors, they can throw debtors in jail — and they do, by the thousands.

As Florida’s budget has tightened with the economic crisis, efforts to step up the collections process have intensified, and court clerks say the pressure is on them to bring in every dollar. “I would say there is an even more dramatic focus on those funds now,” said Beth Allman, the spokeswoman for the Florida Association of Court Clerks. [...]

Advocates for the poor have urged other states not to follow Florida’s example of squeezing defendants harder to make up for budget cuts. Rebekah Diller, deputy director of the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said the state’s system wasted resources “to get blood from a stone.” Judges, she said, should not become “debt collectors in robes,” which she called both demeaning to the judges and humiliating for the people who must stand before them.

Rhode Island seems to agree. Faced with statistics showing that arrests for nonpayment cost far more than they bring in, the state passed a law in August granting judges latitude to waive court debts for poor defendants.

Maybe sending poor people to jail isn't the best solution. Maybe helping people find meaningful employment, and becoming full contriutors to society, is a better solution?

What do you think?

AIG: We're Mad as Hell ...

Paying out millions of dollars in bonuses, and spending millions remodeling executive suites is absolutely unacceptable in these tough times. Let your Senators know what you think.

Have You No Shame, Sir

Congress is moving as quickly as it can to recoup some, or all, of the $165 million paid out in bonuses to AIG executives. The behavior of these individuals is truly shameless.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (Mont.) would unveil a proposal by tomorrow that would tax up to 98 percent of the bonus money. "That will certainly send a message to the people at AIG and all others who try to benefit from the hardships the American people face," Reid said.

In the House, Reps. Steve Israel (N.Y.) and Tim Ryan (Ohio) introduced the "Bailout Bonus Tax Bracket Act" to create a 100 percent tax on bonuses over $100,000 that are distributed to employees of financial firms receiving federal bailout funds. Currently, the IRS withholds 25 percent from bonuses less than $1 million and 35 percent for bonuses more than $1 million dollars. The Israel-Ryan proposal would apply to all bonuses to government-supported firms such as AIG that have been given since Jan. 1.

The congressional efforts come as New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced that at least 73 employees of AIG's Financial Products unit -- the London-based division of the insurance giant that sold the high-risk derivatives blamed for the company's near-collapse -- got bonuses of at least $1 million. He sent AIG subpoenas yesterday seeking data on who received the bonuses and the justification for them.

I like the House plan. Why not tax at 100% BONUS money going to incompetent executives? If they want to receive their bonuses, then get off the Corporate Welfare train. Many of these same individuals have no problem attacking the truly poor who receive benefits.

The bonuses, guaranteed through employment contracts that had been made public to the government earlier and paid out on Friday, were offered as a way to lure or keep top talent to help sort out the financial situation at AIG, officials there said. But when news of the payments surfaced in recent days, lawmakers turned to the Obama administration, demanding that the U.S. Treasury attempt to claw back some of the money.

WHAT "top talent"?? You mean the people who got their company INTO this mess? It's time to clean house.

On Monday Sen. Charles Grassley had a suggestion for top AIG executives:

A prominent U.S. senator gibed that executives of the troubled insurer American International Group Inc might consider suicide, adopting what he called a Japanese approach to taking responsibility for their actions.

Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, made the comments Monday in an interview with a radio station in his home state of Iowa.

"The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them (is) if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide," Grassley said.

That might be a bit drastic, but I can certainly appreciate Grassley's anger.

Backtracking on his earlier comments, Grassley had this to say today:

"What I'm expressing here, obviously, is not that I want people to commit suicide," Grassley said on Tuesday. "But I do feel very strongly that we have not had statements of apology, statements of remorse, statements of contrition on the part of CEOs of manufacturing companies or banks or financial services or insurance companies that are asking for bailouts, that they understand that they are responsible for running their corporation into the ground."

AIG: Rewarding Incompetence

Hard working Americans understand that if you don't perform up to expectations, or are just plain incompetent, you not only won't get a bonus, but you'll probably get fired! Small business owners know that if they don't make their bottom line, they will be out of business. So why is it so hard for Wall Street firms to get this simple principle?

Rep. Barney Frank charged Monday that a decision by financially strapped insurance giant AIG to pay millions in executive bonuses amounts to "rewarding incompetence."

Echoing outrage expressed on both sides of the political aisle in the wake of revelations that American International Group will pay roughly $165 million in bonuses, Frank said he believes it's time to shake up the company.

"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Appearing on NBC's "Today" show, Frank noted that the Federal Reserve Board, using a Depression-era statute, was the institution that gave AIG its initial government bailout, before Congress passed legislation providing for additional assistance. He said he did not think sufficient safeguards were built into that initial bailout by the Fed.

The $165 million was payable to executives by Sunday and was part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue. [...]

On ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, Sen. Richard Shelby said Congress must do everything it can to make sure the government money going to AIG is handled appropriately.

"We ought to explore everything that we can through the government to make sure that this money is not wasted," the Alabama Republican said. "These people brought this on themselves. Now you're rewarding failure. A lot of these people should be fired, not awarded bonuses. This is horrible. It's outrageous."

These jerks PROFIT while many of us are losing our jobs, or struggling to keep them. Conservatives in Congress like to point the finger of blame at unions, but the REAL culprit in this mess are Wall Street companies who have so far bilked nearly a trillion dollars of our tax dollars.

Jon Stewart's recent attack of CNBC's Jim Cramer

Keep Hope Alive

Are we seeing a glimmer of hope as this week comes to and end?

Investors could get used to this whole “optimism” thing.

For a third day, stock markets climbed higher on Thursday as Wall Street seized on some less-than-dire glimmers from the banking system, retail sales, the auto industry and the General Electric Company. In the last hour of trading, financial markets were about 3 percent higher after rising steadily all day.

Financial companies and major banks led the way, but traders said they were cheered by the breadth of the upward move. Every sector was higher, from technology companies to car companies to retailers.

At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was 239.66 points or 3.4 percent higher, at 7,170.06 while the broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was up 4 percent or 29.38 points, to 750.74. The Nasdaq was 3.97 percent or 54.46 points higher, at 1,426.10.

And General Motors says it won't need additional cash in March.

General Motors, which has borrowed $13.4 billion from the federal government since December to keep itself out of bankruptcy, said on Thursday that it had withdrawn a request for an additional $2 billion that it thought was needed to stay alive through the end of this month.

G.M., the nation’s largest automaker, issued a statement saying that it had told President Obama’s auto industry task force, which is reviewing the restructuring plan that the company submitted last month, that its March financing request “would not be needed at this time” because it is making more progress than expected in reducing costs.

The statement did not specify whether G.M. still expected to need the full $30 billion that it had requested.

“This development reflects the acceleration of G.M.’s companywide cost reduction efforts as well as proactive deferrals of spending previously anticipated in January and February,” the statement said. “G.M. will remain in regular contact with the presidential task force on the auto industry on the status of G.M.’s restructuring actions, its liquidity position, timing of future funding requests, and other relevant topics of mutual concern.”

Let's hope this is a trend of things to come.

Obama Urged to "Rein In The Chaos"

In today's Washington Post, former Intel Corp. chief executive Andy Grove is urging President Obama to "rein in the chaos."

He begins with a quote from Niccolò Machiavelli: There is nothing more difficult . . . than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

Machiavelli's 500-year-old warning notwithstanding, we elected a president who is committed to "change." The economic meltdown in which our country finds itself at the start of his administration makes his difficult task even more daunting. In less than two months, the hopeful enthusiasm that welcomed the Obama administration has given way to growing worry and frustration. I find myself wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them. I have no qualifications to judge how well the Obama team manages the political dynamics, but as a business executive with 40 years' experience, much of it managing change, and a part-time academic dedicated to studying why so few corporations succeed in navigating change, I feel compelled to comment not on the what of the Obama team's efforts but on the how.

I have found that to succeed, an organization must travel through two phases: first, a period of chaotic experimentation in which intense discussion is allowed, even encouraged, by those in charge. In time, when the chaos becomes unbearable, the leadership reins in chaos with a firm hand. The first phase serves to expose the needs and options, the potential and pitfalls. The organization and its leaders learn a lot going through this phase. But frustration also builds, and eventually the cry is heard: Make a decision -- any decision -- but make it now. The time comes for the leadership to end the chaos and commit to a path.

We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.

Is the president biting off more than the American public can chew? Do we need stability in the financial market before we can begin to tackle the other major problems left behind? Are some of the problems President Obama wants to address contributing factors to the financial meltdown? Can he "fix" the first, if we do not address the others?

These (and other questions) have me wringing my hands, too!

What do you think?

Jon Stewart Eviscerates CNBC; Letterman Calls Limbaugh Bonehead Gangster

Depression Cooking with Clara

Times are tough, and more and more people are typing "depression" into their Google search engine. Depression Cooking with Clara is just one of the entries you will find.

91 year old cook and great grandmother, Clara, recounts her childhood during the Great Depression as she prepares meals from the era. Learn how to make simple yet delicious dishes while listening to stories from the Depression.

My parents lived through the great depression, so I've had meals very similar to this one.

President Obama Addresses Congress

Watch CBS Videos Online
I thought the President delivered a great speech tonight, and a vast majority of Americans seemed to agree.

Poll: Positive Reception For Obama Address

CBS News and Knowledge Networks held a nationally representative poll of approximately 500 people who watched President Obama give his address to Congress to gauge their reaction in the minutes after the president’s speech.

Though the results are not yet final, here are the preliminary findings.

Seventy-nine percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 62 percent approved.

Fifty-two of speech watchers think the president's economic plans will help them personally. Thirty-five thought so before the speech.

Seventy-five percent of speech watchers now say they were able to get a good understanding of Barack Obama’s economic plans, compared to 61 percent before the speech.

Seventy-three percent of speech watchers think President Obama’s plans will make the economy better. Twelve percent think they will make them worse, while 15 percent think they will make no difference.

Seventy-nine percent of speech watchers are optimistic about the next four years with Mr. Obama as president. Seventy-one percent said they were optimistic before the speech.

We will have a full report on the poll later on.

This is a scientifically representative poll of speech watchers. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 5 percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal seemed to be running for president, using the same old tired Republican talking points. Rachel Maddow just reported that the Presidents approval rating is 68%, support for the stimulus plan is at 64%, and the Republican argument that the stimulus plan has too much spending and not enough tax cuts is supported by only 10% of the country. When will these guys get it!

New Rules

How Worried Are You?

Real Time with Bill Maher is on, and the panel is having a good discussion on the state of the US economy. One of the things mentioned really caught my attention. Bill said the average price for a home in Detroit is $18,000. Think about it -- that's less than what I paid for my car!

The Great Depression has reached Detroit. The average price of a home is now $18,513 and unemployment has reached 21%, and it’s expected to get worse. Detroit is facing a crisis of epic proportions that officially puts Detroit statistically (and real term) on par with the great depression. [...]

It has become the center of all that is wrong with America ... and nothing of what is right.

For example, the crime rate has fallen ... because of lack of targets within the city. Meaning there is nothing left to steal. In fact, even the criminals don’t want to leave jail.

Reading this leads me to ask what are your thoughts about the following question:

Is the panic causing the problem, or is the problem causing the panic?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Wall Street has been on a roller coaster ride for some time now, and when the market tanks it impacts everyone. Is there justification for all this panic, or are they merely panicking for the sake of panicking ... and does that question even make any sense?
.

Bailout or Rip-off

Okay, so you and I pay our taxes as is expected. Our tax dollars are used to bailout some of the largest companies and federal contractors in the country, and what do those CEO's do? Move the money into offshore tax havens. Does that sound fair?

A majority of America's largest publicly traded companies and the U.S. government's largest federal contractors -- including some receiving millions in federal bailout money -- use multiple subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to conduct business and avoid paying U.S. taxes, a new report finds.

The new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, released today by Sens. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), lists Citigroup and Morgan Stanley as having set up hundreds of tax haven subsidiaries, along with American International Group and Bank of America. Also in the tax-haven list are well-known companies and such federal contractors as American Express, Pepsi and Caterpillar.

GAO, searching publicly available data filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, determined that 83 of the 100 largest publicly traded corporations and 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors maintain subsidiaries in countries generally considered havens for avoiding taxes. Dorgan and Levin said they requested the updated report from one several years ago because they are focused on combating offshore tax abuses, which they estimated cause $100 billion in lost U.S. tax revenue each year. [...]

The practice is legal, but Dorgan and Levin are hoping to gain the support of President-elect Barack Obama for legislation that would outlaw it.

"This report shows that some of our country's largest companies and federal contractors, many of which are household names, continue to use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the U.S. And, some of those companies have even received emergency economic funds from the government," Dorgan said. "I think we should take action to shut down these tax dodgers, and we will be introducing legislation to do just that."

And in the Coke-Pepsi wars it seems Pepsi has 70 tax haven subsidiaries, while Coca Cola has eight. As one of their slogans says: things go better with Coke!

Tough Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Church

History has taught us that elected officials are more likely to infuse religion into the public sphere during times of crisis. Without a public vote, the motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins during the Civil War. The action marked what many believe to be a dangerous trend — injecting religion into America’s national symbols.

Overcome by pre-World War II patriotic fervor, the US supreme Court ruled it was constitutional to require Jehovah's Witness students to violate their faith and pledge allegiance to the flag in public schools. You might be asking yourself, 'what's the big deal?' Well, a Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible is that saluting the flag would amount to placing another deity before God. Something they just don't do.

Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes in Texas. Their literature was confiscated and even burned. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall was stormed and torched in Kennebunk, Maine. The ACLU reported to the Justice Department that nearly 1,500 Witnesses were physically attacked in more than 300 communities nationwide. Partly because of this violent reaction to its decision, the Court reversed itself with remarkable speed.

The Cold War was marked by Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s infamous anti-communist “witch-hunts” -- but also by a greater emphasis on religion. During this shameful period in American history Congress inserted the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, and “In God We Trust” replaced E pluribus unum as the national motto.

We are in another crisis today.

The New York Times reports:

The sudden crush of worshipers packing the small evangelical Shelter Rock Church in Manhasset, N.Y. — a Long Island hamlet of yacht clubs and hedge fund managers — forced the pastor to set up an overflow room with closed-circuit TV and 100 folding chairs, which have been filled for six Sundays straight.

In Seattle, the Mars Hill Church, one of the fastest-growing evangelical churches in the country, grew to 7,000 members this fall, up 1,000 in a year. At the Life Christian Church in West Orange, N.J., prayer requests have doubled — almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs.

Like evangelical churches around the country, the three churches have enjoyed steady growth over the last decade. But since September, pastors nationwide say they have seen such a burst of new interest that they find themselves contending with powerful conflicting emotions — deep empathy and quiet excitement — as they re-encounter an old piece of religious lore:

Bad times are good for evangelical churches.

“It’s a wonderful time, a great evangelistic opportunity for us,” said the Rev. A. R. Bernard, founder and senior pastor of the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, New York’s largest evangelical congregation, where regulars are arriving earlier to get a seat. “When people are shaken to the core, it can open doors.” [...]

Many ministers have for the moment jettisoned standard sermons on marriage and the Beatitudes to preach instead about the theological meaning of the downturn. [...]

Part of the evangelicals’ new excitement is rooted in a communal belief that the big Christian revivals of the 19th century, known as the second and third Great Awakenings, were touched off by economic panics. Historians of religion do not buy it, but the notion “has always lived in the lore of evangelism,” said Tony Carnes, a sociologist who studies religion.

A study last year may lend some credence to the legend. In ”Praying for Recession: The Business Cycle and Protestant Religiosity in the United States,” David Beckworth, an assistant professor of economics at Texas State University, looked at long-established trend lines showing the growth of evangelical congregations and the decline of mainline churches and found a more telling detail: During each recession cycle between 1968 and 2004, the rate of growth in evangelical churches jumped by 50 percent. By comparison, mainline Protestant churches continued their decline during recessions, though a bit more slowly.

Many Americans do turn to their faith during times of crisis, but there are other citizens who hold a different view. And among the faithful there are differences about how their faith is expressed. For this reason we must be vigilant in safeguarding separation of church and state.

It's important that government not sponsor religious messages or activities that may be divisive and make some feel like second-class citizens. We enjoy more individual freedom, religious diversity, and interfaith peace than any nation in history. We enjoy this precisely because we have a wall of separation between church and state.

At this time of crisis we must not hesitate to protect that wall from attack.

.