|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 27, 2017 at 12:00 AM||comments (0)|
“Republicans are killing the requirements that insurance plans cover essential health benefits” such as emergency services, maternity care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment and prescription drugs. This is why i wanted Trump to win the presidency America. don't you just love his compassion?By JJP
In Major Defeat for Trump, Push to Repeal Health Law Fails
WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders, facing a revolt among conservatives and moderates in their ranks, pulled legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act from consideration on the House floor Friday in a major defeat for President Trump on the first legislative showdown of his presidency.
“We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future,” the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, conceded.
The failure of the Republicans’ three-month blitz to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement exposed deep divisions in the Republican Party that the election of a Republican president could not mask. It cast a long shadow over the ambitious agenda that Mr. Trump and Republican leaders had promised to enact once their party assumed power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
And it was the biggest defeat of Mr. Trump’s young presidency, which has suffered many. His travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Allegations of questionable ties to the Russian government forced out his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Tensions with key allies such as Germany, Britain and Australia are high, and Mr. Trump’s approval ratings are at historic lows.
Republican leaders were willing to tolerate Mr. Trump’s foibles with the promise that he would sign into law their conservative agenda. The collective defeat of the health care effort could strain that tolerance.
Mr. Trump, in a telephone interview moments after the bill was pulled, tried to put the most flattering light on it. “The best thing that could happen is exactly what happened — watch,” he said.
“Obamacare unfortunately will explode,” Mr. Trump said later. “It’s going to have a very bad year.” At some point, he said, after another round of big premium increases, “Democrats will come to us and say, ‘Look, let’s get together and get a great health care bill or plan that’s really great for the people of our country.’”
Mr. Trump expressed weariness with the effort, though its failure took a fraction of the time that Democrats devoted to enacting the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010. “It’s enough already,” the president said.
A major reason for the bill’s demise was the opposition of members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which wanted more aggressive steps to lower insurance costs and to dismantle federal regulation of insurance products.
In a day of high drama, Mr. Ryan rushed to the White House shortly after noon on Friday to tell Mr. Trump he did not have the votes for a repeal bill that had been promised for seven years — since Mr. Obama signed the landmark health care law. During a 3 p.m. phone call, the two men decided to withdraw the bill rather than watch its defeat on the House floor.
Mr. Trump later told journalists in the Oval Office that Republicans were 10 to 15 votes short of what they needed to pass the repeal bill.
The effort to win passage had been relentless, and hardly hidden. Vice President Mike Pence and Tom Price, the health secretary, visited Capitol Hill on Friday for a late appeal to House conservatives, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.
Paul D. Ryan, the House speaker, said, “We are going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future,” after Republicans decided to pull the bill repealing Obamacare in a blow to President Trump. By ASSOCIATED PRESS. Photo by Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
“You can’t pretend and say this is a win for us,” said Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina, the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who conceded it was a “good moment” for Democrats.
“Probably that champagne that wasn’t popped back in November may be utilized this evening,” Mr. Walker said.
At 3:30 p.m. on Friday, Mr. Ryan called Republicans into a closed-door meeting to deliver the news that the bill would be withdrawn, with no plans to try again. The meeting lasted five minutes. One of the architects of the House bill, Representative Greg Walden, Republican of Oregon and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, put it bluntly: “This bill’s done.”
“We are going to focus on other issues at this point,” he said.
The Republican bill would have repealed tax penalties for people without health insurance, rolled back federal insurance standards, reduced subsidies for the purchase of private insurance and set new limits on spending for Medicaid, the federal-state program that covers more than 70 million low-income people. The bill would have repealed hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act and would also have cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood for one year.
Mr. Ryan had said the bill included “huge conservative wins.” But it never won over conservatives who wanted a more thorough eradication of the Affordable Care Act. Nor did it have the backing of more moderate Republicans who were anxiously aware of the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that the bill would leave 24 million more Americans without insurance in 2024, compared with the number who would be uninsured under the current law.
The budget office also warned that in the short run, the Republicans’ legislation would drive insurance premiums higher. For older Americans approaching retirement, the cost of insurance could have risen sharply.
With the House’s most hard-line conservatives holding fast against the bill, support for the legislation collapsed Friday after more and more Republicans came out in opposition. They included Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, the soft-spoken chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Barbara Comstock of Virginia, whose suburban Washington district went for the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, in November.
“Seven years after enactment of Obamacare, I wanted to support legislation that made positive changes to rescue health care in America,” Mr. Frelinghuysen said. “Unfortunately, the legislation before the House today is currently unacceptable as it would place significant new costs and barriers to care on my constituents in New Jersey.”
The bill died after Republican leaders, in a bid for conservative support, agreed to eliminate federal standards for the minimum benefits that must be provided by certain health insurance policies.
“It’s so cartoonishly malicious that I can picture someone twirling their mustache as they drafted it in their secret Capitol lair last night,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Republicans are killing the requirements that insurance plans cover essential health benefits” such as emergency services, maternity care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment and prescription drugs.
Mr. Trump blamed Democrats for the bill’s defeat, and they proudly accepted responsibility.
“Let’s just, for a moment, breathe a sigh of relief for the American people that the Affordable Care Act was not repealed,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader.
Defeat of the bill could be a catalyst if it forces Republicans and Democrats to work together to improve the Affordable Care Act, which members of both parties say needs repair. Democrats have been saying for weeks that they want to work with Republicans on such changes, but first, they said, Republicans must abandon their drive to repeal the law.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan walked in the Capitol on Friday after a vote on the rules for debating the American Health Care Act, the bill to replace the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times
“Obamacare is the law of the land,” Mr. Ryan said. “It’s going to remain the law of the land until it’s replaced.”
Whatever success Mr. Trump had in making business deals, he utterly failed in his first effort at cutting a deal at the pinnacle of power in Washington, Democrats said.
“This is not the art of the deal,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, alluding to Mr. Trump’s best-selling book. “It is the art of the steal, of taking away insurance coverage from families that really need it to provide tax breaks for those at the very top.”
Rejection of the repeal bill may prompt Republicans to reconsider the political strategy they were planning to use for the next few years.
“We have to do some soul-searching internally to determine whether or not we are even capable of functioning as a governing body,” said Representative Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota. “If ‘no’ is your goal, it’s the easiest goal in the world to reach.”
Representative Robert Pittenger, Republican of North Carolina, offered this advice to hard-line conservatives who helped sink the bill: “Follow the example of Ronald Reagan. He was a master; he built consensus. He would say, ‘I’ll take 80 percent and come back for the other 20 percent later.’”
Failure of the House effort leaves the Affordable Care Act in place, with all the features Republicans detest.
“We tried our hardest,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas, chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health. “There were people who were not interested in solving the problem. They win today.”
“The Freedom Caucus wins,” he added. “They get Obamacare forever.”
|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 26, 2017 at 1:05 PM||comments (0)|
|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 26, 2017 at 11:35 AM||comments (0)|
Make America great again? Meet the new boss(President of the USA), same as the last 44! By JJP
Only the wealthiest would get $600 billion in tax breaks from 'Trumpcare' replacement for Obamacare?
U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who helped put himself through college by working as a magician, has continued his performing since joining Congress.
In the March 20, 2017 episode of "Magic Mondays," his regular video feature, the Wisconsin Democrat appeared to make part of a playing card move from his closed hand into an assistant’s hand.
The purpose of the trick was to attack the Republican replacement for Obamacare, which is championed by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, supported by President Donald Trump and up for a House vote on March 23, 2017.
Under "Trumpcare," as Pocan calls the proposal, "$600 billion worth of tax breaks will go to the wealthiest in this country."
That figure has made headlines.
But Pocan’s claim, while partially on target, suffers from saying that all the money would go to "the wealthiest."
Recent claims about what is formally known as the American Health Care Act -- including two portraying it as a sop to the rich -- have gotten mixed reviews on the Truth-O-Meter.
Mostly False: A claim from U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who previously held Pocan’s seat, that "TrumpCare" would let insurance executives "personally make millions off your health care." One provision pegged at $400 million over 10 years is a tax break for corporations, not executives, and there’s no way to know how much of it would be turned into compensation for executives.
Mostly True: A claim by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that the GOP legislation gives "$275 billion in tax breaks for the top 2 percent, people earning $250,000 a year or more." The savings over 10 years is projected to benefit the top 4.4 percent.
Half True: Ryan’s claim that the legislation "will lower premiums." For people who buy health insurance on their own, premiums are expected to be higher than Obamacare in 2018 and 2019, but lower than Obamacare after that.
The $600 billion
It’s important to remember that the claims in those fact checks, along with the one by Pocan, were made about the original GOP replacement proposal -- prior to tweaks made in the days leading up to the expected House vote.
The widely reported $600 billion in tax breaks comes from a solid source: estimates made by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, which is staffed by independent professionals. That’s the value over 10 years (2017 through 2026) of repealing nearly all the taxes contained in Obamacare and making other tax changes.
To evaluate Pocan’s characterization of the $600 billion, we relied on analyses done by two expert nonprofit organizations -- the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Tax Policy Center. Here’s our breakdown:
$275 billion to high-income earners by repealing two taxes:
$158 billion: A 3.8 percent tax applied to capital gains, dividend and interest income for families with $250,000 or more in income ($200,000 for singles).
$117 billion: Medicare surtax -- a 0.9 percent tax hike on wage income in excess of $250,000 a year for couples ($200,000 for singles).
It’s arguable whether households earning $250,000 per year are "the wealthiest," but they are clearly on the high end of the income scale.
According to the Tax Policy Center: About 90 percent of the benefit from repealing the investment tax would go to the top 1 percent of earners, who make $700,000 or more. And more than 99 percent of people would get no benefit from repeal of the Medicare surtax, while those in the top 1 percent would get three-quarters of the benefit—an average tax cut of $7,300.
The rest of the $600 billion can be broken into two categories.
$190 billion to businesses by repealing three taxes:
$145 billion: A tax on health insurance companies based on their market share.
$25 billion: Annual fee paid by prescription drugmakers and importers.
$20 billion: A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device makers and importers.
Both Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center and Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told us these are a mixed bag. Repealing the taxes helps shareholders of those corporations, who tend to be wealthier; but they would also help a broad swath of people through lower prices.
$122 billion to a variety of individuals through tax changes:
$49 billion: Postponing the so-called Cadillac tax on high-cost health plans actually helps middle-income taxpayers, the Tax Policy Center says.
$35 billion: Allowing more tax deductions for medical expenses -- starting at 7.5 percent of income, rather than 10 percent. This tends to help middle- and upper-income people, given that the rich are well insured and the poor don’t pay income taxes.
$19 billion: Repealing a cap of $2,500 on the pre-tax dollars workers could put into flexible spending accounts annually. Poorer people can’t afford to put more than $2,500 aside for medical expenses, but this change benefits middle-income folks as well as the wealthiest.
$19 billion: Increasing, to $6,550 for an individual and $13,100 for couples, the amount that could be put annually into a Health Savings Account. Similar impact as the pre-tax change.
Pocan says that under "Trumpcare," the Republican replacement for Obamacare, "$600 billion worth of tax breaks will go to the wealthiest in this country."
Not all of the $600 billion in tax breaks (over 10 years) would go to the wealthiest Americans.
But nearly half -- $275 billion -- would almost exclusively benefit only people on the highest end of the income scale.
And the wealthiest, along with middle- and lower-income Americans, would benefit from the remainder of the tax breaks.
For a statement that is partially accurate but leaves out important details, our rating is Half True.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 26, 2017 at 10:55 AM||comments (0)|
This is why the South has "Right to Work" legislation everywhere. Which means right to get "SCREWED". Pay is "$8.75 an hour to $10.50" . Race to the bottom is here America! By JJP
Inside Alabama’s Auto Jobs Boom: Cheap Wages, Little Training, Crushed Limbs
The South’s manufacturing renaissance comes with a heavy price.
Regina Elsea was a year old in 1997 when the first vehicle rolled off the Mercedes-Benz assembly line near Tuscaloosa. That gleaming M-Class SUV was historic. Alabama, the nation’s fifth-poorest state, had wagered a quarter-billion dollars in tax breaks and other public giveaways to land the first major Mercedes factory outside Germany. Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai followed with Alabama plants of their own. Kia built a factory just over the border in West Point, Ga. The auto parts makers came next. By the time Elsea and her five siblings were teenagers, the country roads and old cotton fields around their home had come alive with 18-wheelers shuttling instruments and stamped metal among the car plants and 160 parts suppliers that had sprouted up across the state.
A good student, Elsea loved reading, horses, and dogs, especially her Florida cracker cur, named Cow. She dreamed of becoming a pediatrician. She enrolled in community college on a federal Pell Grant, with plans to transfer to Auburn University, about 30 miles from her home in Five Points. But she fell in love with a kindergarten sweetheart, who’d become a stocker at a local Walmart, and dropped out of school to make money so they could rent their own place.
Elsea went to work in February 2016 at Ajin USA in Cusseta, Ala., the same South Korean supplier of auto parts for Hyundai and Kia where her sister and stepdad worked. Her mother, Angel Ogle, warned her against it. She’d worked at two other parts suppliers in the area and found the pace and pressure unbearable.
Elsea was 20 and not easily deterred. “She thought she was rich when she brought home that first paycheck,” Ogle says. Elsea and her boyfriend got engaged. She worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, hoping to move from temporary status at Ajin to full time, which would bring a raise from $8.75 an hour to $10.50. College can wait, she told her mom and stepdad.
On June 18, Elsea was working the day shift when a computer flashed “Stud Fault” on Robot 23. Bolts often got stuck in that machine, which mounted pillars for sideview mirrors onto dashboard frames. Elsea was at the adjacent workstation when the assembly line stopped. Her team called maintenance to clear the fault, but no one showed up. A video obtained by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration shows Elsea and three co-workers waiting impatiently. The team had a quota of 420 dashboard frames per shift but seldom made more than 350, says Amber Meadows, 23, who worked beside Elsea on the line. “We were always trying to make our numbers so we could go home,” Meadows says. “Everybody was always tired.”
After several minutes, Elsea grabbed a tool—on the video it looks like a screwdriver—and entered the screened-off area around the robot to clear the fault herself. Whatever she did to Robot 23, it surged back to life, crushing Elsea against a steel dashboard frame and impaling her upper body with a pair of welding tips. A co-worker hit the line’s emergency shut-off. Elsea was trapped in the machine—hunched over, eyes open, conscious but speechless.
No one knew how to make the robot release her. The team leader jumped on a forklift and raced across the factory floor to the break room, where he grabbed a maintenance man and drove him back on his lap. The technician, from a different part of the plant, had no idea what to do. Tempers erupted as Elsea’s co-workers shoved the frightened man, who was Korean and barely spoke English, toward the robot, demanding he make it retract. He fought them off and ran away, Meadows says. When emergency crews arrived several minutes later, Elsea was still stuck. The rescue workers finally did what Elsea had failed to do: locked out the machine’s emergency power switch so it couldn’t reenergize again—a basic precaution that all factory workers are supposed to take before troubleshooting any industrial robot. Ajin, according to OSHA, had never given the workers their own safety locks and training on how to use them, as required by federal law. Ajin is contesting that finding.
An ambulance took Elsea to a nearby hospital; from there she was flown by helicopter to a trauma center in Birmingham. She died the next day. Her mom still hasn’t heard a word from Ajin’s owners or senior executives. They sent a single artificial flower to her funeral.
Alabama has been trying on the nickname “New Detroit.” Its burgeoning auto parts industry employs 26,000 workers, who last year earned $1.3 billion in wages. Georgia and Mississippi have similar, though smaller, auto parts sectors. This factory growth, after the long, painful demise of the region’s textile industry, would seem to be just the kind of manufacturing renaissance President Donald Trump and his supporters are looking for.
Except that it also epitomizes the global economy’s race to the bottom. Parts suppliers in the American South compete for low-margin orders against suppliers in Mexico and Asia. They promise delivery schedules they can’t possibly meet and face ruinous penalties if they fall short. Employees work ungodly hours, six or seven days a week, for months on end. Pay is low, turnover is high, training is scant, and safety is an afterthought, usually after someone is badly hurt. Many of the same woes that typify work conditions at contract manufacturers across Asia now bedevil parts plants in the South.
“The supply chain isn’t going just to Bangladesh. It’s going to Alabama and Georgia,” says David Michaels, who ran OSHA for the last seven years of the Obama administration. Safety at the Southern car factories themselves is generally good, he says. The situation is much worse at parts suppliers, where workers earn about 70¢ for every dollar earned by auto parts workers in Michigan, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Many plants in the North are unionized; only a few are in the South.)
Cordney Crutcher has known both environments. In 2013 he lost his left pinkie while operating a metal press at Matsu Alabama, a parts maker in Huntsville owned by Matcor-Matsu Group Inc. of Brampton, Ont. Crutcher was leaving work for the day when a supervisor summoned him to replace a slower worker on the line, because the plant had fallen 40 parts behind schedule for a shipment to Honda Motor Co. He’d already worked 12 hours, Crutcher says, and wanted to go home, “but he said they really needed me.” He was put on a press that had been acting up all day. It worked fine until he was 10 parts away from finishing, and then a cast-iron hole puncher failed to deploy. Crutcher didn’t realize it. Suddenly the puncher fired and snapped on his finger. “I saw my meat sticking out of the bottom of my glove,” he says.
Now Crutcher, 42, commutes an hour to the General Motors Co. assembly plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., where he’s a member of United Auto Workers. “They teach you the right way,” he says. “They don’t throw you to the wolves.” His pay rose from $12 an hour at Matsu to $18.21 at GM.
In 2014, OSHA’s Atlanta office, after detecting a high number of safety violations at the region’s parts suppliers, launched a crackdown. The agency cited one year, 2010, when workers in Alabama parts plants had a 50 percent higher rate of illness and injury than the U.S. auto parts industry as a whole. That gap has narrowed, but the incidence of traumatic injuries in Alabama’s auto parts plants remains 9 percent higher than in Michigan’s and 8 percent higher than in Ohio’s. In 2015 the chances of losing a finger or limb in an Alabama parts factory was double the amputation risk nationally for the industry, 65 percent higher than in Michigan and 33 percent above the rate in Ohio.
“I gave them a very strong message … ‘American consumers are not going to want to buy cars stained with the blood of American workers’ ”
Korean-owned plants, which make up roughly a quarter of parts suppliers in Alabama, have the most safety violations in the state, accounting for 36 percent of all infractions and 52 percent of total fines, from 2012 to 2016. The U.S. is second, with 23 percent of violations and 17 percent of fines, and Germany is third, with 15 percent and 11 percent. But serious accidents occur in plants from all over, according to more than 3,000 pages of court documents and OSHA investigative files obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Michaels, who was running OSHA when Elsea was killed, was furious when he learned how it happened. A year earlier, while attending a conference in Seoul, he’d paid a visit to executives at Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Co. to warn them that OSHA had found serious safety violations at many of their Korean-owned suppliers in the Southeast. Michaels told the carmakers they were squeezing their suppliers too hard. Their productivity demands were endangering lives, and they had to back off.
Elsea was killed at this plant only a month after Ajin settled OSHA violations related to eight other workers’ injuries.
“I gave them a very strong message: ‘This brings shame on your reputation. American consumers are not going to want to buy cars stained with the blood of American workers,’ ” says Michaels, who in January rejoined the faculty of George Washington University. “They didn’t acknowledge the problem but said they were committed to safe working conditions. Clearly, they didn’t make safety a requirement for their suppliers.” Safety is a top priority at Hyundai’s Alabama operation, says spokesman Robert Burns, who added that Hyundai promotes safety at suppliers’ plants with quarterly forums and requires suppliers to comply with OSHA standards.
After Elsea’s death, Ajin issued a statement saying all employees were being retrained in safety procedures. “Ajin USA is deeply saddened by the tragic loss of Regina Elsea,” it said. A spokesman, Stephen Bradley, says the company can’t comment on the incident because of litigation. Elsea’s death “was a tragic accident, and Ajin remains deeply saddened,” the company said in a written statement. “Safety continues to be our guiding principle.”
Ajin had settled other OSHA violations a month before Elsea was killed. Eight workers had fingers crushed or fractured in recent years in welding machines. After the first seven injuries, Ajin’s safety manager recommended installation of a machine controller called Soft Touch, which slows welding electrodes and stops them from closing together if a finger is detected. Nothing happened. Then an eighth worker smashed his thumb. For the unsafe welding machines, OSHA fined Ajin a total of $7,000.
In December, after investigating Elsea’s death, OSHA fined the company $2.5 million for four “willful” citations, the agency’s most severe sanction, reserved for violators that “knowingly” disregard employee safety. Ajin is contesting the findings.
The pressure inside parts plants is wreaking a different American carnage than the one Trump conjured up at his inauguration. OSHA records obtained by Bloomberg document burning flesh, crushed limbs, dismembered body parts, and a flailing fall into a vat of acid. The files read like Upton Sinclair, or even Dickens.
Last year a 33-year-old maintenance worker was engulfed in flames at Nakanishi Manufacturing Corp.’s bearing plant in Winterville, Ga.—after four previous fires in the factory’s dust-collection system. OSHA levied a $145,000 fine on the Japanese company, which supplies parts to Toyota Motor Co., for a willful violation for knowingly exposing workers to unguarded machinery. The plant’s maintenance chief told the OSHA investigator that he’d been too busy to write up proper lockout procedures for working on the system. The technician suffered third-degree burns all over his upper body.
Phyllis Taylor, 53, scorched her hand inside an industrial oven last year at the HP Pelzer Automotive Systems Inc. insulation plant in Thomson, Ga., while baking foam rubber linings for BMW hoods. The oven had been down for repairs earlier that day, and “there was always pressure to catch up,” Taylor says. She slipped on a puddle of oil at her feet, and as she instinctively grabbed the oven in front of her, the door slammed down on her hand. She’d been telling her supervisor for weeks about the oil leak. “They don’t pay you no mind; they just want you to work,” says Taylor, who had skin graft surgery but still can’t close her dominant hand. The plant’s maintenance manager told OSHA, “The focus of this plant is production at all costs.” OSHA fined HP Pelzer $705,000 for 12 “repeat” safety violations.
“You heard all day long, ‘If we don’t get these parts out, the customer is going to fine us $80,000’ ”
Nathaniel Walker, 26, had been doing the same high-wire act for three years at the factory of WKW-Erbsloeh Automotive, a supplier of metal trim parts to Mercedes and BMW, in Pell City, Ala. Every Saturday he climbed onto a ventilation duct above big dipping pools of acid on the plant’s back line, where the aluminum parts were anodized to give them a protective coat. It was always a race. At first, Walker and a co-worker had 24 hours to clean and service as many of the 34 tanks as possible. As production demands rose, management cut that to 14 to 16 hours, and sometimes to as few as 6. The job required balance and dexterity. Walker and his colleague hopped on and off the 4½-foot-high ventilation shafts, hauling hoses, tools, and 50-pound bags of caustic soda. They were always exhausted—Walker worked from 3 p.m. to 3 a.m., seven days a week, for up to six months straight.
There were no gangways, no cables, no handrails. The only training the workers got from the plant’s German supervisors, according to Walker, was in how to rinse off the ventilation ducts so they weren’t so slippery.
In July 2014, Walker fell in. He was balancing on the duct between two tanks—one empty, one full—while using a crowbar in the empty one to remove and replace a lead cathode. His hands slipped, and he tumbled backward into a vat of sulfuric and phosphoric acid 4 feet deep. Submerged, he swam for a second before righting himself. A nearby co-worker quickly pulled him out and hosed him down, minimizing damage to his skin and eyes. Walker’s cotton shirt pulled off his skin like wet tissue paper. His throat burned and swelled from swallowing the solution. He spent four days in intensive care and didn’t fully recover for months.
OSHA fined WKW-Erbsloeh $178,000 and issued the company a willful violation for failing to secure the work areas around open chemical tanks. The agency had inspected WKW-Erbsloeh eight times since 2009 and issued multiple citations after another worker’s arm was chewed up in a polishing machine and a third employee lost a thumb. Walker was earning $13 an hour when he fell into the acid. “I was way, way underpaid for working all the time in a risky situation like that,” he says.
Ray Trott, a retired U.S. Marine aircraft maintenance chief, worked for WKW-Erbsloeh as a production manager until 2015. He says the German managers didn’t seem to understand the American workers and were never satisfied with what they got from them. “If you made 28,000 parts one day, the next day they’d want 29,000,” Trott says. “You heard all day long, ‘If we don’t get these parts out, the customer is going to fine us $80,000.’ ”
Allen, 35, took a job at Matsu Alabama to get his life together. After dropping out of high school, he’d worked briefly at McDonald’s, then sold marijuana for a living. When he turned 30, with three kids younger than 6 and his wife working at Walmart, Allen decided dealing dope was no way to raise a family. “They’d see cars pulling up, hear people talking, and ask, ‘Daddy what are you doing? You ain’t got no job.’ I wanted to better myself.”
He applied at Surge Staffing, a temp agency that was hiring workers for Matsu. Allen’s dad, who’d worked at the facility for a few weeks after a 30-year career making furniture at Steelcase Inc., told him to stay away—the Matsu plant was too dangerous. “Don’t let the monster eat you up,” he told his son.
Allen took a $9-an-hour job on the overnight shift as a janitor. He passed up higher-paying positions on the assembly line, because “the machines scared him,” says Adam Wolfsberger, the former manager at Surge Staffing who hired Allen. The only training he received was where to find the mop and broom, Wolfsberger says.
He stood there for an hour, his flesh burning inside the heated press. When emergency crews finally freed him, his right hand was severed at the wrist
On April 2, 2013, after Allen had been on the job for about six weeks, a plant supervisor ordered him to put down his broom. He assigned him to work the rest of the shift on one of the metal-stamping presses instead and admonished him not to tell anyone about the job switch. Matsu was producing only 60 percent of its parts quota and could have been fined $20,000 by Honda for every minute its shortfall held up the company’s assembly line, according to a deposition by the plant’s general manager at the time, Robert Todd, in a workers’ compensation suit filed by Allen in state court in Huntsville.
Allen testified in the case that his only operating instructions came from a co-worker who told him: “Get these blanks out of the bin. You load them in the machine, and you make sure you get back.” Stepping back was essential, not only to avoid injury but to clear the vertical safety beam, or light curtain, which is supposed to deactivate the machine if a worker is standing too close when an operator cycles it on.
At about 4 a.m., Allen, wiry and 5 feet 9 inches, was leaning inside the machine with his arms extended upward, loading metal bolts. Suddenly the die, which stamps the metal parts, slammed onto his arms. “It felt like the whole world was coming down on me,” he says. The press operator hadn’t noticed him working inside the machine, and Allen’s frame was so slight that the safety beam missed him.
He stood there for an hour, his flesh burning inside the heated press. Someone brought a fan to cool him off. “I was just talking to myself about what my daddy had told me,” Allen says. When emergency crews finally freed him, his left hand was “flat like a pancake,” Allen says, and parts of three fingers were gone. His right hand was severed at the wrist, attached to his arm by a piece of skin. A paramedic cradled the gloved hand at Allen’s side all the way to the hospital. Surgeons removed it that morning and amputated the rest of his right forearm to avert gangrene several weeks later.
Matsu, it turned out, had known for years that Press 10, where Allen was dragooned into working, was dangerous. Three years earlier a press operator on the plant’s safety committee reported a near miss on an identical machine after the light curtain failed to pick up a worker. The safety committee recommended fixes to the vertical beam, but nothing was done, according to testimony in the court case. In 2012 a worker on that same press had his hand crushed. In response, Todd, the general manager, recommended installing horizontal beams to eliminate the blind spot in the vertical light curtains of both machines. It would have cost $6,000 to $7,000, Todd testified. John Carney, the company’s vice president for operations at the time, rejected the proposal. Instead, he told Todd to install a safety bar, for $150, Todd testified. It failed to protect Allen.
After Allen’s injury, Surge Staffing gathered its 80 or so Matsu workers for a meeting, says Wolfsberger, the former Surge manager. That’s when the agency learned the plant had provided no hands-on training, routinely ordered untrained temps to operate machines, sped up presses beyond manufacturers’ specifications, and allowed oil to leak onto the floor. “Upper management knew all that. They just looked the other way,” says Wolfsberger, who left Surge in 2014 and now manages a billiards parlor. “They treated people like interchangeable parts.”
An administrative law judge with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission approved a $103,000 fine against Matsu, ruling that Allen’s injuries resulted from its “conscious disregard or plain indifference” to his safety. Matcor-Matsu did not respond to phone messages and emailed questions, nor did its attorney, John Coleman. After the commission’s 2015 decision, Coleman told the Birmingham News the judge was mistaken and that Allen was trained but didn’t follow the rules. Allen sued the company and reached a multimillion-dollar settlement out of court. He and his wife purchased 15 acres and a big house with a fish pond near the Tennessee River, prepaid their kids’ college tuition, and bought a bright-green Buick Roadmaster. “I’d rather have my arm back any day,” Allen says.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 17, 2017 at 6:55 PM||comments (0)|
"Four hundred of the 420 counties ARC operates in voted for Trump in November's election". This is the epitome of the "American Dream(Myth)" white America believes in. If it was'nt for government assistance their is no middle class. The sad part is they don't even know it's A"WELFARE PROGROM" ie FHA ring a bell! By JJP
Trump seeks to ax Appalachia economic programs, causing worry in coal country
PAINTSVILLE, Kentucky (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating funding for economic development programs supporting laid-off coal miners and others in Appalachia, stirring fears in a region that supported him of another letdown on the heels of the coal industry’s collapse.
The 2018 budget proposal submitted to Congress by the White House on Thursday would cut funds to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the U.S. Economic Development Administration. The Washington-based organizations are charged with diversifying the economies of states like West Virginia and Kentucky to help them recover from coal’s decline.
The proposed cuts would save the federal government $340 million and come as the Republican president seeks to slash a wide array of federal programs and regulations to make way for increased military spending.
But they are perceived by some in Appalachia as a betrayal of his promises to help coal miners.
"Folks that live in Appalachia believe that the ARC belongs to them," said federal ARC Co-Chair Earl Gohl, bemoaning the proposed cut. "It's really their organization."
Republican Congressman Hal Rogers, who represents eastern Kentucky's coal counties, said he would fight to restore the funding when Congress negotiates the budget later this year.
“It's true that the president won his election in rural country. I would really like to see him climb aboard the ARC vehicle as a way to help us help ourselves," Rogers said.
Four hundred of the 420 counties ARC operates in voted for Trump in November's election.
The 52-year old agency has run more than 650 projects in Appalachia's 13 states between 2011 and 2015 costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Its programs, some launched under Democratic former President Barack Obama, are expected to create or retain more than 23,670 jobs and train and educate over 49,000 students and workers, the organization said.
Trump vowed during his campaign that the White House would put American coal miners back to work, in part by cutting environmental regulations ushered in by Obama, mainly aimed at curbing climate change but characterized by Trump as hampering the industry.
However, many industry experts and coal miners doubt that rolling back regulation alone can revive the coal mining industry, which faces stiff competition from abundant and cheap natural gas in fueling U.S. power generation.
Rigel Preston, a 38-year old former surface miner, said ARC programs helped him land a job as a paid intern at technology company Interapt after he lost his benefits.
He said that, while he and many members of his family in eastern Kentucky hope Trump will deliver on his promise to revive the coal industry, he believed the region's future lay elsewhere.
"From my experience from the coalfield, I know that that is a finite job and coal will run out eventually," Preston said.
Preston was among several former miners and other east Kentuckians at an event in Paintsville this week held by Interapt and ARC to announce Interapt's plan to hire another hundred people from the region this summer.
Interapt last year launched a program called TechHire Eastern Kentucky, supported by ARC, which provides 36 weeks of paid training in code and paid internships.
Interapt Chief Executive Ankur Gopal, a 37-year-old tech entrepreneur, expanded his Louisville-based company out to eastern Kentucky with the vision of lifting that part of his home state out of economic stagnation.
"There is a skilled workforce and opportunity that can be found here in eastern Kentucky," Gopal said. "This is not just a bunch of people that are waiting for coal mines to reopen."
ARC has worked on economic development in Appalachia since its founding in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty." In recent years it has focused on helping states in the region deal with the coal industry's sharp decline and the loss of 33,000 coal mining jobs between 2011 and 2016.
So far, ARC has had no official contact from the president's transition teams, said co-chair Gohl, an Obama appointee who remains in the job.
The cuts to its funding were recommended to the administration by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank. Nick Loris, an energy fellow at the foundation, said the work that ARC and the Economic Development Administration do should be devolved to state and local governments "to encourage transparency and reduce duplicative federal spending."
States have said their budgets are already strapped.
In addition to all of West Virginia and part of Kentucky, the ARC covers parts of Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 17, 2017 at 6:40 PM||comments (0)|
The "Hidden Hand" of the international banking cabal os specking! By JJP
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin warns Congress on debt ceiling
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sent a letter this week to Congress warning that the United States is about to reach its legal borrowing limit by next Thursday.
That's because the current debt ceiling suspension expires at the end of Wednesday, March 15.
Since Congress will almost certainly not act in time to raise the ceiling or extend the suspension, Mnuchin will have to start an official juggling act to ensure the country can continue to keep paying all its bills in full and on time. After the current suspension expires, the debt ceiling should reset a little north of $20 trillion next Thursday.
"At that time, Treasury anticipates that it will need to start taking certain extraordinary measures in order to temporarily prevent the United States from defaulting on its obligations," Mnuchin wrote in a March 8 letter to leaders in the House and Senate.
He didn't specify how long "temporarily" will last. The Bipartisan Policy Center and Congressional Budget Office, however, have recently estimated that all the measures combined are likely to be exhausted sometime this fall.
If lawmakers haven't acted by then, the Treasury Department will no longer be able to pay all the country's bills because it will have run out of borrowing authority. And there won't be enough revenue plus cash on hand to cover all legal obligations.
Those obligations -- approved over the years by both parties -- include paying bondholders, federal contractors, Social Security recipients, tax filers owed refunds and a vast array of other parties for services rendered and benefits due.
That's why it's wrong to assert, as some do, that raising the debt ceiling is a "license to spend more." It's more like a license to continue paying what the country already owes.
Defaulting on any set of obligations could hurt the economy and markets to varying degrees, depending on who gets stiffed and for how long.
Typically no party in the majority wants that kind of crisis on their watch. So it's not surprising that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday told Politico that Congress would raise the debt ceiling. "The government will not default," McConnell said.
But that doesn't mean the path will be easy. Conservatives or Democrats -- seeking leverage -- may decide to make any number of demands in exchange for their support to raise or suspend the ceiling.
In any case, lawmakers will have several opportunities between now and the fall to deal with the issue. They have to pass two budgets -- one for the rest of this fiscal year and one for next year. And, if they get far enough on health reform or tax reform, they could work in a provision in those bills.
And Mnuchin very well may prod them again.
"As I said in my confirmation hearing, honoring the full faith and credit of our outstanding debt is a critical commitment," he wrote. "I encourage Congress to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity so that we can proceed with our joint priorities."
|Posted by Jerrald J President on March 17, 2017 at 6:35 PM||comments (0)|
The clock is ticking!!!! By JJP
Debt ceiling returns, creating new headache for GOP
The legal limit on how much the United States government can borrow returns on Thursday, potentially setting up an intense political battle in Congress.
Lawmakers will have until sometime this autumn to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury runs out of ways to make essential payments, putting the nation at risk of its first-ever debt default.
The debt limit is a major test for the Trump administration and Republican congressional leaders who’ve sought major spending cuts before previous increases in the debt ceiling.
The White House and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are pushing lawmakers to raise the ceiling as soon as possible, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Congress will “obviously” increase the limit.
But the highly charged political atmosphere, demands from fiscal conservatives, record high debt levels and the perpetual wild card that is Trump all make a quick and easy increase in the borrowing limit unlikely.
Democrats have warned that Republicans shouldn’t count on their votes.
“We're not going to get what we want. We understand that. But if they think they're going to get everything they want, then they're going to have to get it with their votes,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
The debt ceiling was temporarily suspended in November 2015 through a budget deal negotiated by President Obama and then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). That deal waived the debt ceiling until March 15, retroactively approving all borrowing up to that time.
Mnuchin urged congressional leaders last week to raise the debt ceiling “at the first opportunity,” while the Treasury takes extraordinary measures to pay bills without adding to the country’s roughly $20 trillion debt. Those measures include stopping payments into certain government funds, halting certain bond sales and selling government-held securities.
“There’s some expenses associated with it,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan debt watchdog Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It’s a little ponzi scheme with government trust funds, but in the end, everyone remains whole.”
The Treasury can likely delay the need to raise the debt ceiling until October or November, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. At that point, Treasury will have exhausted extraordinary measures and would need to borrow more money to pay the country’s bills.
Lawmakers have squabbled over raising the debt ceiling, with the stakes escalating in recent years. The 2011 standoff over led to the creation of the sequester: automatic cuts touching every part of the federal budget, a policy now loathed by both parties for different reasons.
Republicans have previously demanded spending cuts or entitlement reforms for raising the debt ceiling, and leaders have been mum about what they’d seek this time around.
Trump has “expressed a commitment to work with Congress to raise the debt limit and to address the growing national debt,” a White House spokesperson told The Hill on Tuesday. “The President’s team is also looking into a variety of ways in which to ensure that our commitments are kept.” The spokesperson declined to go into detail.
With meager majorities in the House and Senate, the GOP can afford few defections to pass the debt limit increase on their own. Democratic leaders have warned Republicans not to attach unreasonable or unrelated measures to the debt ceiling, or they wouldn’t support it.
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). "[But] we're going to have to have some of our Republican colleagues step up to the plate on this issue."
Hoyer said "if there is a clean debt limit extension, I think Democrats would be inclined not to vote against it. But that's a big if."
“The problem will be that the hardliners will be more inclined or as inclined as the people who shut down the government last time,” said Hoyer. "If those hardliners continue in that position, then they'll be responsible for shutting down the government."
Several fiscal hawks said they wouldn’t support raising the debt ceiling without measures to reduce spending and the debt. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said he’d support a hike only “if there is a real path to balance ... but we have typically not shown the intestinal fortitude to do just that.”
Meadows’ Freedom Caucus colleague Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) called the “debt ceiling is a leverage point in forcing conversation about where do we go from here” and said he wouldn’t vote for an increase without cuts.
"If our prescription is simply to keep on doing what we've been doing, I think that we're going to see one heck of a financial storm coming,” Meadows said.
The GOP’s ideological divide could be complicated by Trump. His only formal debt relief plan is a combination of ambitious economic growth promises and budget cuts with major impacts for government agencies but minor effects on the debt.
MacGuineas said Trump “has been all over the map when it comes to debt.”
“He kind of assumed the debt as a metric of his success or failure,” MacGuineas, but “he has yet to put forth any policies that would put us on a more responsible course.”
Observers and analysts ultimately expect Congress to raise the ceiling. Moody’s Investor Services expects the federal government to raise the debt ceiling before risking a default, and Fitch Ratings said Wednesday a debt ceiling crisis is less likely this year than in years past.
A former senior Senate aide said financial markets have come to expect contentious debt ceiling showdowns and trust the government to find a deal.
“Everybody warns about the debt ceiling but nothing ever happens, and until you see some sort of impact, someone calling in the money that they owe us,” said the former aide. “Cooler heads prevail under some sort of deal.”
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 25, 2017 at 8:05 PM||comments (0)|
Dr Alan Greenspan was Chairman
of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to
2006 and has advised government
agencies, investment banks, and
hedge funds ever since. Here, he
reveals his deep concerns about
economic prospects in the developed
world, his view on gold’s important
role in the monetary system and
his belief in gold as the ultimate
Chairman of the Federal
Reserve from 1987 to 2006
In recent months, concerns about
stagflation have been rising.
Do you believe that these concerns
We have been through a protracted period of stagnant
productivity growth, particularly in the developed world,
driven largely by the aging of the ‘baby boom’ generation.
Social benefits (entitlements in the US) are crowding out
gross domestic savings, the primary source for funding
investment, dollar for dollar. The decline in gross domestic
savings as a share of GDP has suppressed gross nonresidential
capital investment. It is the lessened investment
that has suppressed the growth in output per hour globally.
Output per hour has been growing at approximately ½%
annually in the US and other developed countries over
the past five years, compared with an earlier growth rate
closer to 2%. That is a huge difference, which is reflected
proportionately in the gross domestic product and in
people’s standard of living.
As productivity growth slows down, the whole economic
system slows down. That has provoked despair and a
consequent rise in economic populism from Brexit to
Trump. Populism is not a philosophy or a concept, like
socialism or capitalism, for example. Rather it is a cry of
pain, where people are saying: Do something. Help!
At the same time, the risk of inflation is beginning to rise.
In the United States, the unemployment rate is below 5%,
which has put upward pressure on wages and unit costs
generally. Demand is picking up, as manifested by the
recent marked, broad increase in the money supply, which
is stoking inflationary pressures. To date, wage increases
have largely been absorbed by employers, but, if costs
are moving up, prices ultimately have to follow suit. If you
impose inflation on stagnation, you get stagflation.
The Federal Reserve’s gold vault.
Gold Investor | February 2017
Gold: The ultimate insurance policy
As inflation pressures grow, do
you anticipate a renewed interest
Significant increases in inflation will ultimately increase the
price of gold. Investment in gold now is insurance. It’s not
for short-term gain, but for long-term protection.
I view gold as the primary global currency. It is the only
currency, along with silver, that does not require a counterparty
signature. Gold, however, has always been far more
valuable per ounce than silver. No one refuses gold as
payment to discharge an obligation. Credit instruments and
fiat currency depend on the credit worthiness of a counterparty.
Gold, along with silver, is one of the only currencies
that has an intrinsic value. It has always been that way. No
one questions its value, and it has always been a valuable
commodity, first coined in Asia Minor in 600 BC.
Over the past year, we have
witnessed Brexit, Trump’s election
victory, and a decisive increase in
anti-establishment politics. How
do you think that central banks
and monetary policy will adjust to
this new environment?
The only example we have is what happened in the 1970s,
when we last experienced stagflation and there were
real concerns about inflation spiraling out of control. Paul
Volcker was brought in as chairman of the Federal Reserve,
and he raised the Federal Fund rate to 20% to stem the
erosion. It was a very destabilising period and by far the
most effective monetary policy in the history of the Federal
Reserve. I hope that we don’t have to repeat that exercise
to stabilise the system. But it remains an open question.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has greater problems
than the Federal Reserve. The asset side of the ECB’s
balance sheet is larger than ever before, having grown
steadily since Mario Draghi said he would do whatever it
took to preserve the euro. And I have grave concerns about
the future of the Euro itself. Northern Europe has, in effect,
been funding the deficits of the South; that cannot continue
indefinitely. The eurozone is not working.
In the UK, meanwhile, it remains unclear how Brexit will
be resolved. Japan and China remain mired in problems as
well. So, it is very difficult to find any large economy that
is reasonably solid, and it is extremely hard to predict how
central banks will respond.
I view gold as
Gold Investor | February 2017 13
Gold: The ultimate insurance policy
Although gold is not an official
currency, it plays an important role
in the monetary system. What role
do you think gold should play in
the new geopolitical environment?
The gold standard was operating at its peak in the late
19th and early 20th centuries, a period of extraordinary
global prosperity, characterised by firming productivity
growth and very little inflation.
But today, there is a widespread view that the 19th century
gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the
wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortable!
It wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics.
World War I disabled the fixed exchange rate parities and
no country wanted to be exposed to the humiliation of
having a lesser exchange rate against the US dollar than it
enjoyed in 1913.
Britain, for example, chose to return to the gold standard
in 1925 at the same exchange rate it had in 1913 relative
to the US dollar (US$4.86 per pound sterling). That was a
monumental error by Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of
the Exchequer. It induced a severe deflation for Britain in
the late 1920s, and the Bank of England had to default in
1931. It wasn’t the gold standard that wasn’t functioning;
it was these pre-war parities that didn’t work. All wanted
to return to pre-war exchange rate parities, which, given
the different degree of war and economic destruction
from country to country, rendered this desire, in general,
Today, going back on to the gold standard would be
perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard
were in place today we would not have reached the
situation in which we now find ourselves. We cannot afford
to spend on infrastructure in the way that we should. The
US sorely needs it, and it would pay for itself eventually in
the form of a better economic environment (infrastructure).
But few of such benefits would be reflected in private cash
flow to repay debt. Much such infrastructure would have to
be funded with government debt. We are already in danger
of seeing the ratio of federal debt to GDP edging toward
triple digits. We would never have reached this position
of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard,
because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal
policy never gets out of line.
Today there is a
widespread view that
the 19th century gold
standard didn’t work.
I think that’s like
wearing the wrong size
shoes and saying the
shoes are uncomfortable!
Significant increases in
inflation will ultimately
increase the price of gold.
Investment in gold now
is insurance. It’s not for
short-term gain, but for
Gold Investor | February 2017 14
Do you think that fiscal policy
should be adjusted to aid monetary
I think the reverse is true. Fiscal policy is much more
fundamental policy. Monetary policy does not have the
same potency. And if fiscal policy is sound, then monetary
policy becomes reasonably easy to implement. The very
worst situation for a central banker is an unstable fiscal
system, such as we are experiencing today.
The central issue is that the degree of government
expenditure growth, largely entitlements, is destabilising
the financial system. The retirement age of 65 has changed
only slightly since President Roosevelt introduced it in
1935, even though longevity has increased substantially
since then. So, the first thing we have to do is raise the
retirement age. That could cut expenditure appreciably.
I also believe that regulatory capital requirements for banks
and financial intermediaries need to be much higher than
they are currently. Looking back, every crisis of recent
generations has been a monetary crisis. The non-financial
part of the US economy was in good shape before 2008,
for example. It was the collapse of the financial system that
brought down the non-financial part of the economy. If you
build up enough capital in the financial system, the chances
of serial, contagious default are much decreased.
If we raised capital requirements for commercial banks,
for example, from the current average rate of around
11% to 20% or 30% of assets, bankers would argue
that they could not make profitable loans under such
circumstances. Office of the Controller of the Currency
data dating back to 1869 suggests otherwise. These data
demonstrate that the rate of bank net income to equity
capital has ranged between 5% and 10% for almost all
the years of the data’s history, irrespective of the level of
equity capital to assets. This suggests we could phase in
higher capital requirements overtime without decreasing
the effectiveness of the financial system. To be sure there
would likely be some contraction in lending, but, arguably,
those loans should, in all likelihood, never have been made
in the first place.
Against a background of ultra-low
and negative interest rates, many
reserve managers have been
large buyers of gold. In your view,
what role does gold play as a
When I was Chair of the Federal Reserve I used to testify
before US Congressman Ron Paul, who was a very strong
advocate of gold. We had some interesting discussions.
I told him that US monetary policy tried to follow signals
that a gold standard would have created. That is sound
monetary policy even with a fiat currency. In that regard,
I told him that even if we had gone back to the gold
standard, policy would not have changed all that much.
The very worst situation
for a central banker
is an unstable fiscal
system, such as we are
Gold: The ultimate insurance policy
Gold Investor | February 2017 15
The Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 25, 2017 at 7:05 PM||comments (0)|
If there is only $1.5 Trillion dollars in circulation. Can anyone tell me how in the world the US government is $20Trillion dollars in debt. To a private corporation I may add. By JJP
How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
There was approximately $1.5 trillion in circulation as of January 11, 2017, of which $1.46 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 25, 2017 at 6:55 PM||comments (0)|
Can you say "Hocus Pocus", this is crazy to think a private cartel creates money out of thin air on a printing press or computer. Yet for some strange reason we don't understand why where "BROKE"! Wake up... By JJP
How Currency Gets into Circulation
There is about $1.2 trillion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation.
The Federal Reserve Banks distribute new currency for the U.S. Treasury Department, which prints it.
Depository institutions buy currency from Federal Reserve Banks when they need it to meet customer demand, and they deposit cash at the Fed when they have more than they need to meet customer demand.
As of July 2013, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $1.2 trillion dollars. The amount of cash in circulation has risen rapidly in recent decades and much of the increase has been caused by demand from abroad. The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States.
Meeting the Variable Demand for Cash
The public typically obtains its cash from banks by withdrawing cash from automated teller machines (ATMs) or by cashing checks. The amount of cash that the public holds varies seasonally, by the day of the month, and even by the day of the week. For example, people demand a large amount of cash for shopping and vacations during the year-end holiday season. Also, people typically withdraw cash at ATMs over the weekend, so there is more cash in circulation on Monday than on Friday.
To meet the demands of their customers, banks get cash from Federal Reserve Banks. Most medium- and large-sized banks maintain reserve accounts at one of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, and they pay for the cash they get from the Fed by having those accounts debited. Some smaller banks maintain their required reserves at larger, "correspondent," banks. The smaller banks get cash through the correspondent banks, which charge a fee for the service. The larger banks get currency from the Fed and pass it on to the smaller banks.
When the public's demand for cash declines—after the holiday season, for example—banks find they have more cash than they need and they deposit the excess at the Fed. Because banks pay the Fed for cash by having their reserve accounts debited, the level of reserves in the nation's banking system drops when the public's demand for cash rises; similarly, the level rises again when the public's demand for cash subsides and banks ship cash back to the Fed. The Fed offsets variations in the public's demand for cash that could introduce volatility into credit markets by implementing open market operations.
The popularization of the ATM in recent years has increased the public's demand for currency and, in turn, the amount of currency that banks order from the Fed. Interestingly, the advent of the ATM has led some banks to request used, fit bills, rather than new bills, because the used bills often work better in the ATMs.
Maintaining a Cash Inventory
Each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks keeps an inventory of cash on hand to meet the needs of the depository institutions in its District. Extended custodial inventory sites in several continents promote the use of U.S. currency internationally, improve the collection of information on currency flows, and help local banks meet the public's demand for U.S. currency. Additions to that supply come directly from the two divisions of the Treasury Department that produce the cash: the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which prints currency, and the United States Mint, which makes coins. Most of the inventory consists of deposits by banks that had more cash than they needed to serve their customers and deposited the excess at the Fed to help meet their reserve requirements.
When a Federal Reserve Bank receives a cash deposit from a bank, it checks the individual notes to determine whether they are fit for future circulation. About one-third of the notes that the Fed receives are not fit, and the Fed destroys them. As shown in the table below, the life of a note varies according to its denomination. For example, a $1 bill, which gets the greatest use, remains in circulation an average of 5.9 years; a $100 bill lasts about 15 years.
The Federal Reserve orders new currency from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which produces the appropriate denominations and ships them directly to the Reserve Banks. Each note costs about four cents to produce, though the cost varies slightly by denomination.
Virtually all of currency notes in use are Federal Reserve notes. Each Federal Reserve Bank is required by law to pledge collateral at least equal to the amount of currency it has issued into circulation. The bulk of the collateral pledged is in the form of U.S. Government securities and gold certificates owned by the Federal Reserve Banks.
Making U.S. Currency More Secure
In late 1996, the Treasury began issuing a series of Federal Reserve notes containing new features that make the notes harder to counterfeit. The Treasury introduced the modified notes in order of decreasing denomination—the $100 bill appeared in March 1996, the $50 bill in October 1997, the $20 bill in September 1998, and the $10 and $5 bills in May 2000. The most noticeable modification was a larger, slightly off-center portrait that incorporates more detail, thereby making the bill harder to counterfeit. For the benefit of persons with impaired vision, the back of the modified $50, $20, $10 and $5 bills features numerals larger than those on older currency.
In October 2003, the United States issued a newly redesigned $20 note with enhanced security features and subtle background colors of blue, peach and green. A new $50 note was issued on September 28, 2004. On March 2, 2006, the new $10 note entered circulation. On March 13, 2008, the new $5 note entered circulation. The $100 note is also slated to be redesigned, but a timetable for its introduction is not yet set.
Putting Coins into Circulation
The procedures for putting coins into circulation are similar to those for currency. The U.S. Mint produces coins in Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco, and ships them to the Federal Reserve Banks and to authorized armored carriers, which supply banks that need coins to meet the public's demand.
The distribution of coins differs from that of currency in some respects. First, when the Fed receives currency from the Treasury, it pays only for the cost of printing the notes. However, coins are a direct obligation of the Treasury, so the Reserve Banks pay the Treasury the face value of the coins. Second, large banks in some Federal Reserve Districts participate in a Direct Mint Shipment Program, and receive coins directly from the Mint. In the New York area, there also is an arrangement under which banks that need coins buy them from banks that have a surplus. To promote the arrangement, the New York Fed stands ready to match banks that have excess coins with those that need coins.July 2013
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 25, 2017 at 6:45 PM||comments (0)|
The wheels keep on turning, Greece continues it's plunge into the financial abyss. Stop borrowing money, and print your own fiat currency(PAPER). By JJP
‘From bad to worse’: Greece hurtles towards a final reckoning
With another bailout set to bring more cuts, quitting the euro is back on the agenda
Dimitris Costopoulos stood, worry beads in hand, under brilliant blue skies in front of the Greek parliament. Wearing freshly pressed trousers, polished shoes and a smart winter jacket – “my Sunday best” – he had risen at 5am to get on the bus that would take him to Athens 200 miles away and to the great sandstone edifice on Syntagma Square. By his own admission, protests were not his thing.
At 71, the farmer rarely ventures from Proastio, his village on the fertile plains of Thessaly. “But everything is going wrong,” he lamented on Tuesday, his voice hoarse after hours of chanting anti-government slogans.
“Before there was an order to things, you could build a house, educate your children, spoil your grandchildren. Now the cost of everything has gone up and with taxes you can barely afford to survive. Once I’ve paid for fuel, fertilisers and grains, there is really nothing left.”
Costopoulos is Greece’s Everyman; the human voice in a debt crisis that refuses to go away. Eight years after it first erupted, the drama shows every sign of reigniting, only this time in a new dark age of Trumpian politics, post-Brexit Europe, terror attacks and rise of the populist far right.
“I grow wheat,” said Costopoulos, holding out his wizened hands. “I am not in the building behind me. I don’t make decisions. Honestly, I can’t understand why things are going from bad to worse, why this just can’t be solved.”
As Greece hurtles towards another full-blown confrontation with the creditors keeping it afloat, and as tensions over stalled bailout negotiations mount, it is a question many are asking.
The country’s epic struggle to avert bankruptcy should have been settled when Athens received €110bn in aid – the biggest financial rescue programme in global history – from the EU and International Monetary Fund in May 2010. Instead, three bailouts later, it is still wrangling over the terms of the latest €86bn emergency loan package, with lenders also at loggerheads and diplomats no longer talking of a can, but rather a bomb, being kicked down the road. Default looms if a €7.4bn debt repayment – money owed mostly to the European Central Bank – is not honoured in July.
Amid the uncertainty, volatility has returned to the markets. So, too, has fear, with an estimated €2.2bn being withdrawn from banks by panic-stricken depositors since the beginning of the year. With talk of Greece’s exit from the euro being heard again, farmers, trade unions and other sectors enraged by the eviscerating effects of austerity have once more come out in protest.
From his seventh-floor office on Mitropoleos, Makis Balaouras, an MP with the governing Syriza party, has a good view of the goings-on in Syntagma. Demonstrations – what the former trade unionist calls “the movement” – are a fine thing. “I wish people were out there mobilising more,” he sighed. “Protests are in our ideological and political DNA. They are important, they send a message.”
This is the irony of Syriza, the leftwing party catapulted to power on a ticket to “tear up” the hated bailout accords widely blamed for extraordinary levels of Greek unemployment, poverty and emigration. Two years into office it has instead overseen the most punishing austerity measures to date, slashing public-sector salaries and pensions, cutting services, agreeing to the biggest privatisation programme in European history and raising taxes on everything from cars to beer – all of which has been the price of the loans that have kept default at bay and Greece in the euro.
In the maelstrom the economy has improved, with Athens achieving a noticeable primary surplus last year, but the social crisis has intensified.
For men like Balaouras, who suffered appalling torture for his leftwing beliefs at the hands of the 1967-74 colonels’ regime, the policies have been galling. With the IMF and EU arguing over the country’s ability to reach tough fiscal targets when the current bailout expires in August next year, the demand for €3.6bn of more measures has left many in Syriza reeling. Without upfront legislation on the reforms, creditors say, they cannot conclude a compliance review on which the next tranche of bailout aid hangs.
“We had an agreement,” insisted Balaouras, looking despondently down at his desert boots. “We kept to our side of the deal, but the lenders haven’t kept to their side because now they are asking for more. We want the review to end. We want to go forward. This situation is in the interests of no one. But to get there we have to have an honourable compromise. Without that there will be a clash.”
It had been hoped that an agreement would be struck on Monday at what had been billed as a high-stakes meeting of euro area finance ministers. On Friday, EU officials announced that the deadline had been all but missed because there had been little convergence between the two sides.
With the Netherlands holding general elections next month, and France and Germany also heading to the polls in May and September, fears of the dispute becoming increasingly politicised have added to its complexity. Highlighting those concerns, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, attempted to end the rift that has emerged between eurozone lenders and the IMF over the fund’s insistence that Greece can only begin to recover if its €320bn debt pile is reduced substantially.
In talks with Christine Lagarde, the Washington-based IMF’s managing director, Merkel agreed to discuss the issue during a further meeting between the two women to be held on Wednesday. The IMF has steadfastly refused to sign up to the latest bailout, arguing that Greek debt is not only unmanageable but on a trajectory to become explosive by 2030. Berlin, the biggest contributor of the €250bn Greece has so far received, says it will be unable to disburse further funds without the IMF on board.
The assumption is that the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, will cave in, just as he did when the country came closest yet to leaving the euro at the height of the crisis in the summer of 2015. But the 41-year-old leader, like Syriza, has been pummelled in the polls. Persuading disaffected backbenchers to support more measures, and then selling them to a populace exhausted by repeated rounds of austerity, will be extremely difficult. Disappointment has increasingly given way to the death of hope – a sentiment reinforced by the realisation that Cyprus and other bailed-out countries, by contrast, are no longer under international supervision.
In his city centre office, the former finance minister Evangelos Venizelos pondered where Greece’s predicament was now. “[We are] at the same point we were several years ago,” he joked. “The only difference is that anti-European sentiment is growing. What was once a very friendly country towards Europe is becoming increasingly less so, and with that comes a lot of danger, a lot of risk.”
When historians look back they, too, may conclude that Greece has expended a great deal of energy not moving forward at all.
The arc of crisis that has swept the country – coursing like a cancer through its body politic, devastating its public health system, shattering lives – has been an exercise in the absurd. The feat of pulling off the greatest fiscal adjustment in modern times has spawned a slump longer and deeper than the Great Depression, with the Greek economy shrinking more than 25% since the crisis began.
Even if the latest impasse is broken and a deal is reached with creditors soon, few believe that in a country of weak governance and institutions it will be easy to enforce. Political turbulence will almost certainly beckon; the prospect of “Grexit” will grow.
“Grexit is the last thing we want, but we may arrive at a point of serious dilemmas,” said Venizelos. “Whatever deal is reached will be very difficult to implement, but that notwithstanding, it is not the memoranda [the bailout accords] that caused the crisis. The crisis was born in Greece long before.”
Like every crisis government before it, Tsipras’s administration is acutely aware that salvation will come only when Greece can return to the markets and raise funds. What happens in the weeks ahead could determine if that is likely to happen at all.
Back in Syntagma, Costopoulos the good-natured farmer ponders what lies ahead. Like every Greek, he stands to be deeply affected. “All I know is that we are all being pushed,” he said, searching for the right words. “Pushed in the direction of somewhere very explosive, somewhere we do not want to be.”
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 25, 2017 at 6:25 PM||comments (0)|
The next shoe to fall!!! By JJP
How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear
A dubious trade leads to a criminal trial for Europe’s most important bank.
On Dec. 1, 2008, most of the world’s banks were still panicking through the financial crisis. Lehman Brothers had collapsed. Merrill Lynch had been sold. Citigroup and others had required multibillion-dollar bailouts to survive. But not every institution appeared to be in free fall. That afternoon, at the London outpost of Deutsche Bank, the stolid-seeming, €2 trillion German powerhouse, a group of financiers met to consider a proposal from a team led by a trim, 40-year-old banker named Michele Faissola.
The scion of an Italian banking family, Faissola was the head of Deutsche’s global rates unit, a division that created and sold financial instruments tied to interest rates. He’d been studying the problems of one of Deutsche’s clients, Italy’s Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which, as the crisis raged, was down €367 million ($462 million at the time) on a single investment. Losing that much money was bad; having to include it in the bank’s yearend report to the public, as required by Italian law, was arguably much worse. Monte dei Paschi was the world’s oldest bank. It had been operating since 1472, not long after the invention of the printing press, when the Black Death was still a living memory. If investors were to find out the extent of its losses in the 2008 credit crisis, the consequences would be unpredictable and grave: a run on the bank, a government takeover, or worse. At the Deutsche meeting, Faissola’s team said it had come up with a miraculous solution: a new trade that would make Paschi’s loss disappear.
The bankers in the room had seen some financial sleight of hand in their day, but the maneuver that Faissola’s staffers proposed was audacious. They described a simple trade in two parts. For one half of the deal, Paschi would make a sure-thing, moneymaking bet with Deutsche Bank and use those winnings to extinguish its 2008 trading losses. Of course, Deutsche doesn’t give away money for free, so for the second half of the deal, the Italians would make a bet that was sure to lose. But while the first transaction was immediate, the second would play out slowly, over many years. No sign of the €367 million sinkhole would need to show up when Paschi compiled its yearend financial reports.
The audience for the proposal that day was Deutsche’s global market risks assessment committee, a top-level panel that reviews transactions with legal, regulatory, and reputational considerations. Respectively, that means asking: Is a given trade within the law? Is it within the looser framework of industry rules and standards? And even if so, can Deutsche pull it off without maiming its brand—its basic ability to operate as a trustworthy member of the global financial system?
To at least one member of the committee, the possibilities of Faissola’s trade seemed wondrous. “This is fantastic,” said Jeremy Bailey, Deutsche’s European chairman of global banking, according to testimony of an executive who later recounted the exchange for an internal disciplinary panel. “You can book a [profit] in front and spread losses over time?” Bailey added. “We should do it for Deutsche Bank.”
Ivor Dunbar, the meeting’s chairman, curbed Bailey’s enthusiasm. “We are not discussing [our] balance sheet here,” he said. (Bailey, through a spokesman, denies he made the remarks.)
Outside the room, one of Faissola’s longtime colleagues was raising questions about the deal. William Broeksmit, a managing director who specialized in risk optimization, was concerned about the winner-loser construction. A Chicago-born son of a United Church of Christ minister, Broeksmit had decades earlier been a pioneer in interest rate swaps, the financial instruments that had rewritten the possibilities—and profitability—of investment banking. But Broeksmit, 53, was also against reckless derivative deals, which is how he viewed Faissola’s proposal, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Eleven minutes after the meeting began, Broeksmit e-mailed one of its attendees with a warning about the Paschi trade and its “reputational risks.”
The message had no effect. When the meeting ended after almost 90 minutes, Faissola got a go-ahead—setting in motion a scandal that has resulted in a criminal trial now under way in Milan. A judge there has accused Deutsche Bank and five former executives, including Faissola and Dunbar, of colluding with Paschi to falsify its accounts in 2008. (None of Deutsche’s top managers at the time has been accused of wrongdoing. Faissola declined to comment for this article, as did both banks. Dunbar didn’t respond to requests for comment.)
Eight years after the financial crisis, the stakes could hardly be higher. Being the biggest bank in Germany makes Deutsche the most important bank in Europe, and the Paschi trial is an uncomfortable reminder that its operations, already with barely enough capital to meet industry standards, are threatened by persistent scandal. Deutsche is also facing investigations into whether it helped clients launder billions out of Russia. This month the bank agreed to pay $7.2 billion to resolve a U.S. probe into its subprime mortgage business, admitting it misled investors. Deutsche has paid more than $9 billion in further fines and settlements related to claims of tax evasion; violating sanctions against Iran, Libya, Syria, Myanmar, and Sudan; rigging the $300 trillion Libor market; and other alleged breaches of the law.
The strain has intensified concerns about Deutsche’s balance sheet, which contains one of the world’s largest pots of most-difficult-to-quantify risk. The bank says it’s trimmed some of its exposure, as John Cryan, who became chief executive officer in 2015, attempts to clean up his predecessors’ messes. But if Deutsche ever requires government help, such as a bailout, the effects could be catastrophic for more than shareholders. In recent years, as the euro community has faced one solvency problem after another in Greece, Portugal, and elsewhere, Germany’s Angela Merkel has been chief scold. She’s insisted on fiscal pain for irresponsible actors and pushed for banking rules that keep taxpayers from picking up the bills again for reckless financiers. Her government coming to the aid of Deutsche Bank after lecturing others on restraint would be the ultimate euro zone irony. In a worst-case scenario, it could trigger a furor that finally brings down the continent’s currency, already made fragile by Brexit, refugees, and the rise of nationalist politicians.
The bank’s deal with Paschi is a microcosm of how Deutsche’s embrace of derivatives, questionable accounting, and slow-walking of regulators have eroded the market’s trust to the point that no one really knows how close the company is to the edge. What exactly happened in the days surrounding the December 2008 meeting in London is key to the Italian prosecution. The German financial-markets regulator, known as BaFin, already tried to get to the bottom of the matter, commissioning an independent audit in January 2014.
The ensuing report has never been made public, but Bloomberg Businessweek obtained a copy. It shows that auditors asked Faissola what happened that afternoon in London. Other participants recalled details and dialogue, the report says, but Faissola drew a blank about the event he’d helped run. Broeksmit wasn’t interviewed. On Jan. 26, 2014, the day before the audit began, his body was found at his London home, hanging from a dog leash.
Founded in 1870, Deutsche Bank was for most of its existence content to take deposits and make loans; in the 1920s it participated in the founding of the airline Lufthansa and the merger of automakers Daimler and Benz. Then, in the 1980s and ’90s, Deutsche watched as rival lenders in London and across the U.S. turbocharged profit growth by snapping up boutique investment banks and hiring or building teams to sell higher-margin financial products. To join the bonanza, Deutsche in 1995 hired one of its leaders from Merrill Lynch: Edson Mitchell, a redheaded chain smoker from Maine who was nurturing a team of future financial leaders. His crew included Broeksmit, the swaps innovator, and Anshu Jain, a prodigy at selling such risky, fee-laden products to hedge funds. Three years later, Deutsche made an even more emphatic attempt to buy its way into investment banking’s culture and profits, acquiring Bankers Trust—a New York derivatives house notorious for its cowboy culture—for about $10 billion.
If longtime Wall Streeters gawked at first at the German interloper, they quickly recognized that Deutsche had adopted their aggression and then some: Mitchell and his deputies expanded Deutsche’s London-based investment banking operation until it made half the bank’s revenue by the turn of the century.
Mitchell didn’t live to see Deutsche complete its transformation into a financial omnivore. Three days before Christmas 2000, he was riding in a small Beechcraft Super King Air 200 plane along the coast of Maine toward his vacation home in Rangeley. The wreckage was found the next morning, not far from the summit of Beaver Mountain. He was 47. Afterward, Jain took over as head of global markets. One of his deputies was Faissola.
Faissola represented the next generation in Deutsche’s investment banking push. He was born in 1968 in Sanremo, the coastal town whose legendary song contest launched the tune Volare, and his uncle was president of the Italian banking association. While running Deutsche’s global rates division in London for Jain, Faissola built his own fortune, at times earning tens of millions of pounds a year. He drew the jealousy of British co-workers because, as a foreigner, he was able to legally avoid U.K. tax on his bonuses. Faissola’s town house in Chelsea featured an indoor pool.
In the first years of the millennium, Deutsche bankers chased new sources of riches around the globe. People who piled into uncharted areas or pushed the rules were rewarded handsomely. Starting in 2005, Deutsche traders in Europe, North America, and Asia manipulated a benchmark interest rate to benefit their own derivative bets, according to an indictment made public last year in federal court in New York City. Deutsche’s most profitable derivatives trader earned a bonus of almost £90 million (then $130 million) in 2008 alone. Deutsche bankers also increased their bonuses in the runup to the crisis by creating and selling to clients mortgage securities that were marketed as high-quality investments but were in fact loaded with home loans destined to go bust. For clients, Deutsche became a go-to bank when they wanted risk and complexity.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM||comments (0)|
Federal Reserve Policy Statement on
Rental of Residential Other Real Estate Owned Properties
In light of the large volume of distressed residential properties and the indications of
higher demand for rental housing in many markets, some banking organizations may choose to
make greater use of rental activities in their disposition strategies than in the past. This policy
statement reminds banking organizations and examiners that the Federal Reserve’s regulations
and policies permit the rental of residential other real estate owned (OREO) properties to thirdparty
tenants as part of an orderly disposition strategy within statutory and regulatory limits.1
This policy statement applies to state member banks, bank holding companies, nonbank
subsidiaries of bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, non-thrift
subsidiaries of savings and loan holding companies, and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign
banking organizations (collectively, banking organizations).2
The general policy of the Federal Reserve is that banking organizations should make
good-faith efforts to dispose of OREO properties at the earliest practicable date. Consistent with
this policy, in light of the extraordinary market conditions that currently prevail, banking
organizations may rent residential OREO properties (within statutory and regulatory holdingperiod
limits) without having to demonstrate continuous active marketing of the property,
provided that suitable policies and procedures are followed. Under these conditions and
circumstances, banking organizations would not contravene supervisory expectations that they
show “good-faith efforts” to dispose of OREO by renting the property within the applicable
holding period. Moreover, to the extent that OREO rental properties meet the definition of
community development under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations, they
would receive favorable CRA consideration.3
In all respects, banking organizations that rent
OREO properties are expected to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 14, 2017 at 7:50 PM||comments (0)|
This is what America deserve's, you think your broke now? Wait till they implement this "Legislation"! By JJP
King Introduces National Right To Work Act
labor law on their citizens and their economy. However, the fact remains that Congress created this problem in the first place by making forced unionization the default position for all states. Since Congress created this problem, it is Congress’s responsibility to correct it. The National Right to Work Act does so by simply erasing the forced-dues clauses in federal statute -- without adding a single letter to federal law.”
To view the full bill text, click here.
List of Original Cosponsors:
Barr, Andy [KY-6]
Barton, Joe [TX-6]
Black, Diane [TN-6]
Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7]
Bishop, Rob [UT-1]
Blum, Rod [IA-1]
Brat, Dave [VA-7]
Brooks, Mo [AL-5]
Buck, Ken [CO-4]
Bucshon, Larry [IN-8]
Clawson, Curt [FL-19]
Collins, Doug [GA-09]
Comstock, Barbara [VA-10]
Conaway, Michael [TX-11]
Crawford, Rick [AR-1]
Cramer, Kevin [ND-AL]
Culberson, John [TX-07]
DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4]
Duncan, Jeff [SC-3]
Duncan, John [TN-2]
Fincher, Stephen [TN-08]
Fleischmann, Chuck [TN-3]
Foxx, Virginia [NC-5]
Franks, Trent [AZ-8]
Gibbs, Bob [OH-7]
Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6]
Gosar, Paul [AZ-4]
Graves, Tom [GA-14]
Griffith, Morgan [VA-9]
Harper, Gregg [MS-3]
Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4]
Hudson, Richard [NC -8]
Huizenga, Bill [MI-2]
Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1]
Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2]
Jolly, David [FL-13]
Jordan, Jim [OH-4]
Johnson, Sam [TX-3]
LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1]
Lamborn, Doug [CO-5]
Long, Billy [MO-7]
Loudermilk, Barry [GA-11]
Lummis, Cynthia [WY-AL]
Marchant, Kenny [TX-24]
Massie, Thomas [KY-4]
McHenry, Patrick [NC-10]
McClintock, Tom [CA-4]
Meadows, Mark [NC-11]
Moolenaar, John [MI-4}
Mullin, Markwayne [OK-2]
Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5]
Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1]
Nugent, Richard [FL-11]
Palmer, Gary [AL-06]
Palazzo, Steven [MS-4]
Perry, Scott [PA-4]
Pearce, Steve [NM-2]
Pittenger, Robert [NC-9]
Pitts, Joseph [PA-16]
Pompeo, Mike [KS-4]
Ratcliffe, John [TX-4]
Roby, Martha [AL-2]
Rooney, Thomas [FL-17]
Salmon, Matt [AZ-5]
Schweikert, David [AZ-6]
Scott, Austin [GA-8]
Sessions, Pete [TX-32]
Smith, Adrian [NE-3]
Tipton, Scott [CO-3]
Weber, Randy [TX-14]
Westmoreland, Lynn [GA-3]
Williams, Roger [TX-25]
Wilson, Joe [SC-2]
Womack, Steve [AR-3]
Yoho, Ted [FL-3]
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 14, 2017 at 7:40 PM||comments (0)|
The fiduciary rule was set to take effect in April 2017. Its specific requirement is that financial advisers — who can be paid referral fees by asset managers for directing client money into their funds — must put their clients' interests ahead of theirs. This is who President Trump cares about! By JJP
Trump has signed an order that could roll back a rule intended to protect Main Street's retirement money
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order on the Obama administration's landmark retirement savings rule, setting in motion a potential repeal of a recently passed standard that would have made it harder for financial advisers to give conflicted advice.
The so-called fiduciary rule, which is slated to go into effect in April and will likely now be delayed, requires advisers to put their clients' interests ahead of theirs. The rule has long drawn rebuke from Wall Streeters and some of those who are close to Trump.
"The rule is a solution in search of a problem," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Friday in a televised news conference.
"We're directing the Department of Labor to review this rule," Spicer added, saying that the department, which passed the rule, had "exceeded its authority" and represented a type of government overreach the president intended to stop.
Trump signed the executive order around 1:30 p.m. Eastern on Friday. (You can read a full copy of the order here.)
Earlier on Friday, White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn told CNBC in a TV interview that the fiduciary rule limited customers' choices in financial products.
"I don't think you protect investors by limiting choices," said Cohn, who previously was Goldman Sachs' COO.
"We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers," Cohn told The Wall Street Journal. "This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn't eat it because you might die younger."
Those who supported the rule have come out against Trump's move.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren took aim at the executive order, saying it would "make it easier for investment advisers to cheat you out of your retirement savings."
Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president at AARP, a nonprofit representing retirees with nearly 38 million members, said in a statement, "For many Americans, today's executive order means they will continue to get conflicted financial advice that costs more and reduces what they are able to save for retirement."
What's the fiduciary rule?
It's a simple enough concept: A financial adviser should be legally required to put their clients' best interests ahead of their own.
But it's actually not the law. The Department of Labor — which concerns itself with such matters because of its oversight of workers' welfare and retirement — decided last year to change that by establishing the fiduciary rule over retirement accounts. That drew rebukes from Wall Street lobbyists and one of Trump's most flamboyant backers, financier Anthony Scaramucci.
Former President Barack Obama speaking during his last press conference at the White House.REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
The fiduciary rule was set to take effect in April 2017. Its specific requirement is that financial advisers — who can be paid referral fees by asset managers for directing client money into their funds — must put their clients' interests ahead of theirs.
Currently, brokers, financial advisers, and other finance professionals don't legally have to act in a client's best interest, with few exceptions, such as those who are registered as investment advisers with the Securities and Exchange Commission or in individual states. Those who are registered in this way often advertise it — it's seen as good business.
Those who aren't registered, like brokers, just have to prove that the investment is suitable, not necessarily the best option, for their client — no matter that that fund might be more expensive and provide a better commission for the adviser.
"It's kind of like if you let doctors be part of the drug companies directly and prescribe their own medicine," Blaine Aikin, executive chairman of fi360, a fiduciary consultancy in Pittsburgh, told Business Insider last year. "Unfortunately, we have a system where we've not established clarity between the sales side of financial services and the profession of financial advice."
A summary of the kinds of conflicted payments advisers can receive, according to an Obama White House report.Obama administration
The conflicts of interest inherent in using advisers who aren't serving in clients' best interests may go unnoticed by those who use them and are unaware they are signing into a conflicted relationship.
Conflicted advice costs retirement savers about $17 billion a year, according to a 2015 report from the Obama administration. Despite objections, the administration pushed ahead with a rule change in April 2016, giving fund managers a year to figure out how they would comply.
Advisers could still receive commissions under the new rule, but they have to provide a contract promising to put a client's interests first — the "best-interest contract exemption" — and receive no more than reasonable compensation. Firms would also have to clearly disclose all their compensation and incentive arrangements.
Wall Street firms worried about this exemption because it opens them up to litigation if their clients believe their advisers have not acted in their best interest. "Retirement investors will have a way to hold them accountable," the Labor Department says.
To be clear, this rule applies only to retirement accounts like 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts, not to regular taxable accounts, with which advisers can rely on the weaker suitability standard. Still, there's big money at stake. Americans invest $7 trillion in 401(k)s and $7.8 trillion in IRAs, according to the industry's lobby group, ICI.
When it was first raised, the rule prompted rebuttals from the financial industry. Some argued that they would face increased compliance costs and that those costs would price out smaller brokers who wouldn't be able to service smaller accounts.
Scaramucci, now one of Trump's advisers, has been one of the rule's most vocal critics. He also had a lot at stake. SkyBridge Capital, a fund-of-hedge-funds he founded and recently sold, would likely have been hurt by the rule since the firm oversees retirement money, and gets a bulk of its assets via financial advisers at banks.
The fiduciary rule could put this very model of using a bank's army of financial advisers as a sales force for hedge funds at risk, especially at funds-of-funds that often end up in retirement accounts, industry lawyers previously told Business Insider.
Wall Street firms have also been fearful of another secondary effect that would hit them where they are already hurting. The rule was expected to accelerate a shift toward passively managed funds, like exchange-traded and index funds, because it's easier to prove that such products, which are much cheaper, are in a retirement saver's best interest. That has already been a big issue for Wall Street, as index funds have eaten into the share of actively managed funds.
The fiduciary rule may live on anyway
For all the concerns about what Trump could do to the rule, it might be too late for him to do much to undercut the change. That's because Wall Street firms have already made the move to comply with the new standard, creating an industry shift unlikely to bend, experts say.
"Pragmatically, it's very difficult to step back from a rule that's so obviously needed," Jack Bogle, founder of the index provider Vanguard Group, which is known for its low-cost offerings and is likely to benefit from the change, previously told Business Insider.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 14, 2017 at 7:30 PM||comments (0)|
Gangster Capitalism on Steroids! By JJP
Wall Street, America’s New Landlord, Kicks Tenants to the Curb
On a chilly December afternoon in Atlanta, a judge told Reiton Allen that he had seven days to leave his house or the marshals would kick his belongings to the curb. In the packed courtroom, the truck driver, his beard flecked with gray, stood up, cast his eyes downward and clutched his black baseball cap.
The 44-year-old father of two had rented a single-family house from a company called HavenBrook Homes, which is controlled by one of the world’s biggest money managers, Pacific Investment Management Co. Here in Fulton County, Georgia, such large institutional investors are up to twice as likely to file eviction notices as smaller owners, according to a new Atlanta Federal Reserve study.
“I’ve never been displaced like this,” said Allen, who said he fell behind because of unexpected childcare expenses as his rent rose above $900 a month. “I need to go home and regroup.”
The Colony home previously occupied by Juliana Spence.Photographer: Melissa Golden/Redux for Bloomberg
Hedge funds, large investment firms and private equity companies helped the U.S. housing market recover after the crash in 2008 by turning empty foreclosures from Atlanta to Las Vegas into occupied rentals.
Read More: How Homeowner Pain Became Wall Street’s Rental Empire
Now among America’s biggest landlords, some of these companies are leaving tenants like Allen in the cold. In a business long dominated by mom-and-pop landlords, large-scale investors are shifting collections conversations from front stoops to call centers and courtrooms as they try to maximize profits.
“My hope was that these private equity firms would provide a new kind of rental housing for people who couldn’t -- or didn’t want to -- buy during the housing recovery,” said Elora Raymond, the report’s lead author. “Instead, it seems like they’re contributing to housing instability in Atlanta, and possibly other places.”
American Homes 4 Rent, one of the nation’s largest operators, and HavenBrook filed eviction notices at a quarter of its houses, compared with an average 15 percent for all single-family home landlords, according to Ben Miller, a Georgia State University professor and co-author of the report. HavenBrook -- owned by Allianz SE’s Newport Beach, California-based Pimco -- and American Homes 4 Rent, based in Agoura Hills, California, declined to comment.
Colony Starwood Homes initiated proceedings on a third of its properties, the most of any large real estate firm. Tom Barrack, chairman of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration committee, and the company he founded, Colony Capital, are the largest shareholders of Colony Starwood, which declined to comment.
Diane Tomb, executive director of the National Rental Home Council, which represents institutional landlords, said her members offer flexible payment plans to residents who fall behind. The cost of eviction makes it “the last option,” Tomb said. The Fed examined notices, rather than completed evictions, which are rarer, she said.
“We’re in the business to house families -- and no one wants to see people displaced,” Tomb said.
According to a report last year from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, a record 21.3 million renters spent more than a third of their income on housing costs in 2014, while 11.4 million spent more than half. With credit tightening, the homeownership rate has fallen close to a 51-year low.
In January 2012, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke encouraged investors to use their cash to stabilize the housing market and rehabilitate the vacant single-family houses that damage neighborhoods and property values.
Now, the Atlanta Fed’s own research suggests that the eviction practices of big landlords may also be destabilizing. An eviction notice can ruin a family’s credit and make it more difficult to rent elsewhere or qualify for public assistance.
In Atlanta, evictions are much easier on landlords. They are cheap: about $85 in court fees and another $20 to have the tenant ejected, according to Michael Lucas, a co-author of the report and deputy director of the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation. With few of the tenant protections of places like New York, a family can find itself homeless in less than a month.
In interviews and court filings, renters and housing advocates said that some investment firms are impersonal and unresponsive, slow to make necessary repairs and quick to evict tenants who withhold rent because of complaints about maintenance. The researchers said some landlords use an eviction notice as a “routine rent-collection strategy.”
Aaron Kuney, HavenBrook’s former executive director of acquisitions, said the companies would rather keep their existing tenants as long as possible to avoid turnover costs.
But “they want to get them out quickly if they can’t pay,” said Kuney, now chief executive officer of Piedmont Asset Management, a private equity landlord in Atlanta. “Finding people these days to rent your homes is not a problem.”
The Atlanta Fed research, based on 2015 court records, marks an early look at Wall Street’s role in evictions since investment firms snapped up hundreds of thousands of homes in hard-hit markets across the U.S.
Researchers found that evictions for all kinds of landlords are concentrated in poor, mostly black neighborhoods southwest of the city. But the study found that the big investors evicted at higher rates even after accounting for the demographics of the community where homes were situated.
Tomb, of the National Rental Home Council, said institutional investors at times buy large blocks of homes from other landlords and inherit tenants who can’t afford to pay rent. They also buy foreclosed homes whose occupants may refuse to sign leases or leave.
Those cases make the eviction rates appear higher than for smaller landlords, according to Tomb, whose group represents Colony Starwood, American Homes 4 Rent and Invitation Homes. The largest firms send notices at rates similar to apartment buildings, which house the majority of Atlanta renters.
Not all investment firms file evictions at higher rates. Invitation Homes, a unit of private equity giant Blackstone Group LP that is planning an initial public offering this year, sent notices on 14 percent of homes, about the same as smaller landlords, records show. In Fulton County, Invitation Homes works with residents to resolve 85 percent of cases, and less than 4 percent result in forced departures, according to spokeswoman Claire Parker.
The Fed research doesn’t say why many institutional investors evict at higher rates. It could be because their size enables them to negotiate less expensive legal rates and replace renters more quickly than mom-and-pop operators.
“Lots of small landlords, when they have good tenants who don’t cause trouble, they’ll work with someone who has lost a job or can’t pay for the short term,” said David Reiss, a Brooklyn Law School professor who specializes in residential real estate.
The most important business stories of the day.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
Enter your email
After a two-year acquisition frenzy that ended in 2014, companies shifted their focus to reining in expenses related to maintaining and managing thousands of homes spread out across many states. In November, Colony Starwood told analysts it had reduced property-management costs by 25 percent in the third quarter from a year earlier. For example, about a quarter of the 26,000 service calls received at the company’s national service-dispatch center were resolved using troubleshooting or “robust self-help tools.”
Juliana Spence tangled with Colony over the cost of maintaining her house in DeKalb County, Georgia, where she also operated a small daycare center. A broken pipe under her dishwasher pushed her monthly water charge over $400, she said, and a faulty air-conditioner resulted in an $800 electric bill.
Juliana SpencePhotographer: Melissa Golden/Redux for Bloomberg
The company gave her an $1,800 credit, Spence said, but she still fell behind on her rent. Colony evicted her last year. It made “Band-Aid” repairs, leaving underlying problems to fester, she said. Colony declined to discuss individual customers.
“They do makeup work,” said Spence, 41, who has five kids. “They made the walls look nice. They put some new appliances in. But the gut of the house is the same.”
In Fulton County, Georgia, the focus of the Fed’s study, evictions are so common that tenants arrive every Tuesday and Thursday to plead their cases. Few have lawyers. They file into the courtroom, many holding their children’s hands as they wait to hear from a judge.
The unluckiest show up for late afternoon sessions. Legal-aid lawyers call it “the calendar of death.” These renters have run out of options. A judge tells them, en masse, they will have seven days to leave their homes.
The notorious AC unit of the Colony home previously occupied by Juliana Spence.Photographer: Melissa Golden/Redux for Bloomberg
On a December weekday afternoon, April Brooks tried to work out a deal with Colony Starwood, her landlord. Raising her three young children on her own, she lived in a boxy, brick house on top of a hill, near the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. A toy train and school bus lay on her front stoop.
Brooks took off time from her warehouse job and, in a sweatshirt and dreadlocks, arrived at Fulton County’s Magistrate Court for her mediation session. She didn’t know why Colony wanted her to leave. A Section 8 housing voucher, sent directly to her landlord, paid her $1,000-a-month rent.
Court papers gave a cryptic reason for Brooks’ removal: “Landlord seeks possession. Tenant holdover.”
“This is super hard,” said Brooks, who couldn’t find another landlord willing to accept her housing voucher.
She feared the next stop for her and her three kids: the streets.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 14, 2017 at 7:15 PM||comments (0)|
Do you really think the collapse of 2008 wasn't an "Inside Job"? This was theft to the 10th power. By JJP
Wall Street is evicting Americans from their homes
The housing collapse during the Financial Crisis keeps on giving. On Friday, Invitation Homes, a creature of private-equity firm Blackstone, and largest landlord of single-family rental homes in the US, filed with the SEC to raise up to $1.5 billion in an IPO. Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, BofA Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, and RBC Capital Markets are the joint bookrunners and get to cash in on the fees.
Invitation Homes, founded in 2012, now owns 48,431 single-family homes, according to the filing. It bought them out of foreclosure and turned them into rental properties, concentrated in 12 urban areas. Revenues for the nine months through September 30 rose 11.4% to $655 million, producing a net loss of $52 million. It lists $9.7 billion in single-family properties and $7.7 billion in debt.
Blackstone was a pioneer in the post-Financial Crisis buy-to-rent scheme, including issuing the first rent-backed structured securities in November 2013. The collateral for the $479-million deal was rental income from 3,207 homes. Blackstone paid rating agencies Moody’s, Kroll, and Morningstar to rate the bonds; so nearly 60% of the debt was rated AAA. Other tranches carried lower ratings. The overall cost of capital to Blackstone from the securitization of these rents was about 2.01%. Cheap money! Thank you hallelujah QE and ZIRP.
Rent-backed securities have since become a common funding mechanism.
Other players in the buy-to-rent scheme have already gone public. American Homes 4 Rent, which owns about 48,000 rental houses in 22 states, went public in August 2013. It has produced a net loss every year since, sports negative EPS of -25 cents and a negative PE ratio of -84.
Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust was spun off from Starwood Property Trust Inc. and started trading in February 2014. In 2016, it merged with Thomas Barrack’s Colony Capital and changed its name to Colony Starwood Homes. Colony is now the third-largest single-family landlord. It too has lost money every year since going public, has negative EPS of -47 cents and a negative PE ratio of -62. Colony founder Barrack is now chairman of Trump’s inauguration committee.
But there’s a drawback: 32% of Colony’s properties in Atlanta and adjacent suburbs have eviction filings, by far the highest rate among the Wall Street landlords, according to a study by the Atlanta Fed on the impact of Wall Street landlords on surging “housing instability.”
The report doesn’t name names, but Ben Miller, co-author of the report, filled in the blanks for Bloomberg. Next in line in eviction rates: American Homes 4 Rent, HavenBrook, owned by Pimco, and Invitations Homes. The percentage of properties with eviction filings in Atlanta by the largest Wall-Street landlords:
Screen Shot 2017 01 09 at 11.15.20 AM
The report indicated that eviction rates in some other cities are lower. But this being the Atlanta Fed, it focused on Atlanta, one of the hotbeds of the buy-to-rent scheme. And it focused on single-family rentals because Wall Street’s muscling into this space is new and perhaps a generational shift in the US housing market.
So how did this Wall Street landlord nirvana – and the ensuing “housing instability” – come about after the housing bust? The report blames the Fed, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke:
In unwinding their bank-owned properties, the GSEs [Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, etc.], U.S. Treasury, and Federal Reserve innovated new structured transactions for disposing of hundreds of thousands of bank-owned homes, also known as real estate owned (REO). The Federal Reserve was the first to suggest that private equity firms were the one group with cash on hand to invest in foreclosed homes (Bernanke, 2012).
In 2012, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), conservator of the GSEs, issued a pilot to develop structured transactions that could be used to sell its REO homes in bulk. The private market followed by developing and standardizing financial instruments to allow broader market investment in converting foreclosed homes into single-family rentals. Rental housing, traditionally the purview of mom-and-pop landlords, caught the attention of large financial firms.
Nationwide, an estimated 350,000 homes were purchased by institutional investors from 2011 to 2013, and these were spatially concentrated in cities like Atlanta with high numbers of bank-owned homes and the prospect of future home price appreciation. Today there is high concentration in the single-family rental business, with an estimated 170,000 single-family rental homes owned by the seven largest firms.
“My hope was that these private equity firms would provide a new kind of rental housing for people who couldn’t – or didn’t want to – buy during the housing recovery,” Elora Raymond, the report’s lead author, told Bloomberg. “Instead, it seems like they’re contributing to housing instability in Atlanta, and possibly other places.”
Evictions are cheap in Atlanta: about $85 in court fees and another $20 to have the tenant ejected, report co-author Michael Lucas told Bloomberg, which added: “With few of the tenant protections of places like New York, a family can find itself homeless in less than a month.”
The report points at the broader implications beyond poor neighborhoods: While “evictions are highly correlated with neighborhood characteristics such as education levels, change in the employment-population rate, and racial composition,” Wall Street landlords still filed for evictions at higher rates than smaller landlords after accounting for “property and neighborhood characteristics.” Why? The report:
One possible reason large corporate landlords backed by institutional investors may have higher eviction filing notices is that they may routinely use eviction notices as a rent collection strategy.
In interviews and court filings, renters and housing advocates said that some investment firms are impersonal and unresponsive, slow to make necessary repairs and quick to evict tenants who withhold rent because of complaints about maintenance.
“They want to get them out quickly if they can’t pay,” explained Aaron Kuney, a former executive of HavenBrook and now CEO of PE landlord Piedmont Asset Management in Atlanta. “Finding people these days to rent your homes is not a problem.”
Then there’s the expense of housing, which has soared, thanks to the Fed’s efforts to “heal” the housing market. According to the report, 53.4% of renters were “cost burdened in Atlanta” in 2014. More generally, homeownership has declined to a 51-year low, and “demand for rentals has caused urban rents to increase sharply”:
During the 2010 to 2014 period, low-cost rentals in Atlanta declined by more than 15%. Gentrification, or the influx of wealthier residents accompanied by rising property prices and the displacement of existing, lower-income residents, can be a factor in evictions.
The effect of evictions is “housing instability or insecurity”:
Families with insecure or unstable housing may move frequently, suffer eviction, or otherwise be at increased risk of homelessness.
Evictions can result in personal loss of property, trigger job loss, and lead to underperforming schools and poor student outcomes. Even an eviction filing that is resolved can mar a tenant’s credit record and bar that person from renting elsewhere or accessing public assistance.
At the neighborhood level, high eviction rates are associated with poor housing conditions, high rates of school turnover, and neighborhood and community instability.
But it’s not just Atlanta, according to the Atlanta Fed: “There is increasing documentation of an ensuing high rate of evictions in U.S. cities, partly due to tenants’ inability to afford higher rents.”
So is the Fed having second thoughts about its efforts to encourage Wall Street to muscle into the single-family home market in big urban areas, drive up housing costs around the country, and turn rents in to a finanzialized product? I doubt it. Bernanke, the engineer of all this, has moved on; and the Fed, credited with “healing” the housing market, never has second thoughts about its actions.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on February 14, 2017 at 5:50 PM||comments (0)|
In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries. Don't forget Nobel Peace Prize Winner.. How many people do you think "DIED" from these "Humanitarion BOMBS"! By JJP
How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?
As President Obama enters the final weeks of his presidency, there will be ample assessments of his foreign military approach, which has focused on reducing U.S. ground combat troops (with the notable exception of the Afghanistan surge), supporting local security partners, and authorizing the expansive use of air power. Whether this strategy “works”—i.e. reduces the threat posed by extremists operating from those countries and improves overall security and governance on the ground—is highly contested. Yet, for better or worse, these are the central tenets of the Obama doctrine.
In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,028 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015.
Most (24,287) were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This number is based on the percentage of total coalition airstrikes carried out in 2016 by the United States in Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the counter-Islamic State campaign. The Pentagon publishes a running count of bombs dropped by the United States and its partners, and we found data for 2016 using OIR public strike releases and this handy tool.* Using this data, we found that in 2016, the United States conducted about 79 percent (5,904) of the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, which together total 7,473. Of the total 30,743 bombs that the coalition dropped, then, the United States dropped 24,287 (79 percent of 30,743).
To determine how many U.S. bombs were dropped on each Iraq and Syria, we looked at the percentage of total U.S. OIR airstrikes conducted in each country. They were nearly evenly split, with 49.8 percent (or 2,941 airstrikes) carried out in Iraq, and 50.2 percent (or 2,963 airstrikes) in Syria. Therefore, the number of bombs dropped were also nearly the same in the two countries (12,095 in Iraq; 12,192 in Syria). Last year, the United States conducted approximately 67 percent of airstrikes in Iraq in 2016, and 96 percent of those in Syria.
Sources: Estimate based upon Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2011-2016 Airpower Statistics; CJTF-Operation Inherent Resolve Public Affairs Office strike release, December 31, 2016; New America (NA); Long War Journal (LWJ); The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ); Department of Defense press release; and U.S. Africa Command press release.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on January 30, 2017 at 9:35 PM||comments (0)|
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Self Explanatory By JJP
Massachusetts sheriff offers prison inmates to build Trump's wall
A Massachusetts county sheriff has proposed sending prison inmates from around the United States to build the proposed wall along the Mexican border that is one of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's most prominent campaign promises.
"I can think of no other project that would have such a positive impact on our inmates and our country than building this wall," Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said at his swearing-in ceremony for a fourth term in office late Wednesday.
"Aside from learning and perfecting construction skills, the symbolism of these inmates building a wall to prevent crime in communities around the country, and to preserve jobs and work opportunities for them and other Americans upon release, can be very powerful," he said.
Hodgson, who like Trump is a Republican, said inmates from around the country could build the proposed wall, described by Trump as a powerful deterrent to illegal immigration.
Trump, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, insisted during his campaign that he would convince the Mexican government to pay for the wall, though Mexican officials have repeatedly said they would not do so.
The United States has a long history of prison labor, with advocates of the idea saying that putting inmates to work can help them learn skills that prepare them for their return to society after completing their sentences. Opponents contend that inmates are not fairly compensated.
The federal prisons system operates some 53 factories around the United States that produced about $500 million worth of clothing, electronics, furniture and other goods in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, according to its financial statements.
Still, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts said Hodgson's proposal could violate prisoners' rights.
"The proposal is perverse, it's inhumane and very likely unconstitutional," ACLU staff counsel Laura Rotolo said in a phone interview. "It certainly has nothing to do with helping prisoners in Massachusetts or their families. It's about politics."
In response to a request by the Trump transition office, the Department of Homeland Security last month identified more than 400 miles (644 km) along the U.S.-Mexico border where new fencing could be erected, according to a document seen by Reuters.
The document contained an estimate that building that section of fence would cost more than $11 billion.
|Posted by Jerrald J President on January 30, 2017 at 9:25 PM||comments (0)|
Yet some in America think the guy elected President will change course and do something different are crazy. The hats his supportes wore were made in Bangladesh, Vietnam and China. make America great again LOL. By JJP
Chinese billionaire Jack Ma says the US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure
Jack Ma, Chairman of Alibaba Group at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Alibaba's Jack Ma: Today technology can empower small businesses
Wednesday, 18 Jan 2017 | 12:30 PM ET | 02:31
Alibaba founder Jack Ma fired a shot at the United States in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Ma was asked by CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin about the U.S. economy in relation to China, since President-elect Donald Trump has been talking about imposing new tariffs on Chinese imports.
Ma says blaming China for any economic issues in the U.S. is misguided. If America is looking to blame anyone, Ma said, it should blame itself.
"It's not that other countries steal jobs from you guys," Ma said. "It's your strategy. Distribute the money and things in a proper way."
He said the U.S. has wasted over $14 trillion in fighting wars over the past 30 years rather than investing in infrastructure at home.
To be sure, Ma is not the only critic of the costly U.S. policies of waging war against terrorism and other enemies outside the homeland. Still, Ma said this was the reason America's economic growth had weakened, not China's supposed theft of jobs.
In fact, Ma called outsourcing a "wonderful" and "perfect" strategy.
"The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization," Ma said. "The past 30 years, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, they've made tens of millions — the profits they've made are much more than the four Chinese banks put together. ... But where did the money go?"
He said the U.S. is not distributing, or investing, its money properly, and that's why many people in the country feel wracked with economic anxiety. He said too much money flows to Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Instead, the country should be helping the Midwest, and Americans "not good in schooling," too.
"You're supposed to spend money on your own people," Ma said. "Not everybody can pass Harvard, like me." In a previous interview, Ma said he had been rejected by Harvard 10 times.
Along those lines, Ma stressed that globalization is a good thing, but it, too, "should be inclusive," with the spoils not just going to the wealthy few.
"The world needs new leadership, but the new leadership is about working together," Ma said. "As a business person, I want the world to share the prosperity together."