About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Tim Geithner Deathwatch. Geithner "Out Of The Loop," Resignation Talk Begins

"The more troubling part of the letter, though, is Tim Geithner's description of his own approval of the bonuses. He says he registered "strong objections" and then asked for a written legal analysis of why the bonuses had to paid."
 

Geithner Caves on AIG Bonuses, Defends Liddy

Posted Mar 18, 2009 10:32am EDT by Henry Blodget

Tim Geithner is now completely on the defensive.  In a long letter to Nancy Pelosi, he explained how and why he approved the AIG bonuses (troubling) and described a plan to "recoup" them. The letter will not likely stop the growing chorus of criticism that may well drive Geithner out of office.

Geithner's new plan will not "recoup" the bonuses at all: It will merely reduce the amount of the next taxpayer handout to AIG from $30 billion to $29.835 billion.  This is not likely to quell the outrage: What most people are angy about is that AIG paid $165 million of taxpayer money in "retention" bonuses to executives who blew up the firm (many of whom aren't at the company anymore).

The more troubling part of the letter, though, is Tim Geithner's description of his own approval of the bonuses. He says he registered "strong objections" and then asked for a written legal analysis of why the bonuses had to paid.  This does not sound like the behavior a man who has the balls necessary to stand up to the many constituencies that want to roll right over him right now (which is the kind of man we need during this crisis).  It sounds like the behavior of a man who is already thinking of how to defend a decision he knows is a bad one. 

What Tim Geithner should have said, in our opinion, was "No."

We're also not encouraged by Geithner's defense of AIG CEO Liddy in the penultimate paragraph (people are being unjustifiably mean to him, apparently). Edward Liddy is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. By now, he should be able to look after himself.  (More)
 Excerpted from Yahoo News at: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/211012/Geithner-Caves-on-AIG-Bonuses,-Defends-Liddy

 

For more coverage, including Geithner's AIG letter to Nancy Pelosi, go to The Business Insider. See also:

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Neil Barofsky, the special inspector-general of the TARP, turns up the heat on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner" AFP

In testimony to the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, Barofsky said he would "act aggressively to recover the taxpayer's money" if wrongdoing is found at American International Group itself.
 
US bailout auditor probes Treasury over AIG bonuses

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US government's chief overseer of bank bailout funds announced Thursday a probe into the Treasury's handling of hugely controversial bonuses paid by bailed-out insurer AIG.

The announcement by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector-general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, turned up the political heat on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner amid Republican calls for his resignation.

In testimony to the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, Barofsky said he would "act aggressively to recover the taxpayer's money" if wrongdoing is found at American International Group itself.

"We're launching an audit that, as part of a larger review of executive compensation practices, will include a thorough review of the process through which Treasury decided to authorize and approve such payments," he said.

The probe will cover "who knew what, how, when and why," he said, arguing that a November agreement between the Treasury and AIG "included specific reference (to) retention payments."

Barofsky said he was also cooperating with a separate investigation by New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and with the Department of Justice into "options available to recover taxpayer money."

Republicans on the House of Representatives subcommittee pressed Barofsky on whether Geithner knew of the impending payouts worth 165 million dollars when he approved an extra 30 billion dollars in bailout money for AIG this month.

"The audit that I announced in my opening statement will have the answer to that question, whether he knew," the inspector-general said.   (More from: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gqB-pPGI2056LmjgwxkeB2gxmc5g )
 


Rep. Mike Castle Asks Critical Questions About Treasury's Role in AIG Bonus Scandal
AIG CEO Acknowledges That Geithner Attended AIG Board Meetings as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York


Washington, Mar 18 -

During a Financial Services Committee hearing today Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) asked some very important questions of AIG CEO Edward Liddy about the role of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his staff in the scandal that gave AIG executives millions in taxpayer-funded bonuses.  Liddy acknowledged that Geithner and his staff attended AIG board meetings while Geithner was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  Following is the Q&A from today’s hearing:



REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CASTLE (R-DE):  The Federal Reserve has been a participant at your board meetings – I’m not sure if they have a vote – but they’ve been a participant at your board meetings and other significant meetings in terms of reviewing policy since that time in October?


 


AIG CEO EDWARD LIDDY:  Yes.  Absolutely yes.  And it goes well beyond that.  It goes to participation in all the things that lead up to board meetings or committee meetings.


 


REP. CASTLE:  And there has been it’s been a variety of people either outside that they’ve brought in or people from the Federal Reserve are participating at these meetings.  Is that correct? 


 


LIDDY:  Yes sir.


 


REP. CASTLE:  And you indicated that you assumed that they had shared that information – in testimony earlier today – that you assumed they shared that information with Treasury and with Congress and all that – is that correct?


 


LIDDY:  Yes.  As I mentioned –


 


REP. CASTLE:  Not correct that’s what happened, but correct that was an assumption you made?


 


LIDDY:  Yes.  I had a conversation with Treasury Secretary Geithner about a week ago and he indicated to me that he had only become aware of the situation about a week prior to that and we have tried to keep the staffs of various members of Congress apprised of all the situations and be very responsive to any queries you may have.  I think we’ve done a good job of that.  You’ll be the judge of that. 


 


REP. CASTLE:  Treasury Secretary Geithner was the head of the New York Federal Reserve and his people were participating in the meetings that you had thereafter.  Would he not have known from then or was he even a participant in the meetings at least until he became Secretary of the Treasury?


 


LIDDY:  You know, you really – I don’t know.  You’d really have to ask the Federal Reserve that as to how much there was in the chain of command that would have gone up all the way to Mr. Geithner.  I don’t know the answer to that. 


 


REP. CASTLE:  Did he participate when he was still in the Federal Reserve in New York? 


 


LIDDY:  In several, yes.  Although once he was nomin- as a potential Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, he recused himself of those situations. 


 


REP. CASTLE:  Now you indicated that the Federal Reserve could say yay or nay at these various meetings.  I assume these are probably board meetings or some subset of the board, executive type meetings or whatever.  Do they actually have the right to say yay or nay on decisions such as bonuses or whatever or do you just assume that they were there and they could have said something if they wanted to.  How do you interpret their powers? 


 


LIDDY:  I asked them.  I generally asked them if they are ok or if they have a comment on it which is my way of making certain that if there’s a different point of view that should be heard or should be voiced that there’s an opportunity for it to be heard.


 


REP. CASTLE: And they did not say nay as far as these bonuses were concerned?


 


LIDDY: No - there was great angst over the payment of these bonuses on all of our parts, believe me, including the Federal Reserve’s, and the judgment – I’m sorry to be repetitive – the judgment we made was the risk was too great that we would lose all the progress we made if we didn’t pay these bonuses.


 


REP. CASTLE: I request Mr. Chairman – and I guess I close here – would it be possible to ask if Mr. Liddy or those working with him could submit a list and a chronology of the meetings that occurred at which the Fed was available there and who was there and the basic outline of what was discussed at that meeting?


 


CHAIRMAN kanjorski: Could you submit that in writing?


 


REP. CASTLE: Could you submit that in writing? I’m not asking you to do it now.


 


LIDDY: We don’t have it available to us right now…


 


REP. CASTLE: Could you go back and after several days be able to submit something of that nature looking at your minutes or whatever?


 


LIDDY: Yes.


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ridiculous Obama Compares Big Banks And AIG To Suicide Bombers

"Here's the problem," Mr. Obama said, "It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger.  You don't want them to blow up.  But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger."   Obama    (ABC News article below)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. President, Do the employees and the families of the "Big Banks and AIG" deserve execution by piano wire wrapped around their necks while 9/11 Admitted Guilt Terrrorists of 3,000 lives made carnage deserve better?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
In reference to the above article "chuck the tv out" had this comment along with the photo:
 
OFFENSIVE S.O.B.

THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK IN THE HEAD.



I CANNOT SAY HOW MUCH THESE CREEPS SICKEN ME.
If we had any republican party at all, this would be news for the next 2 weeks.
Comment 13 posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:37:45 PM by chuck the tv out  at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2209989/posts
 

President Obama Compares Big Banks, AIG, to Suicide Bombers

March 18, 2009 10:46 PM Jake Tapper and Sunlen MillerAt his town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., Wednesday evening, President Obama compared embattled insurer AIG and other large failing banks to a suicide bomber. ''A lot of people say, 'Well, why not just let the banks fail?''' (Snip) ''Here's the problem,'' Mr. Obama said, ''It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But ...

Then there is the little matter of Bill Ayers
 
Self Proclaimed 70s Terrorist Bomber Ayers: Obama was 'family friend'
Ayers describes Barack Obama as 'family friend' in new afterword to 2001 book, From the Chicago Sun Times, November 13, 2008:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gun Hating Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns

"President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology. "

EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane

Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/17/guns-on-a-plane-obama-secretly-ends-program-that-l/

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

 
Comment:
Donnie writes:

Its Part Of The Plan

No secret that they MUST disarm the people in order to gain total control and enslavement,and to make way for the BLUE SHIRTS.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rise In AIG's (AIG) Stock Today Pays The Debated Bonuses 19x Over

"Today's rise in market value is about $4 billion. So, with the U.S. taxpayer's 80% ownership in AIG, today's rise equals about $3.2 billion in appreciation for the U.S. taxpayer. That is more than 19x the $165 million in bonus amount being debated."

Is some kind of AIG stock manipulation going on?
  
RISE IN AIG'S (AIG) STOCK TODAY PAYS THE DEBATED BONUSES 19X OVER 
March 18, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Outrage expressed by Obama, Summers and Geithner must be feigned -- or they don't know what they are doing

"Goldman and AIG both lied about their positions last September. And Hank Paulson and other major financial elites involved in the AIG bailout knew it also." That is the story we should be following -- but few are paying attention."   Steve Clemons 
 
"While many are criticizing the gross and wrong AIG taxpayer-funded bonuses of senior executives, the truth is that that kind of corruption is relatively small time -- even at $165 million -- and was predictable. The outrage expressed by Obama, Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithner must be feigned -- or they don't know what they are doing in the positions they have acquired. But what is serious is that Goldman Sachs executives seem to have lied or at best seriously misled the media and public during the early stages of the AIG financial crisis stating that their firm did not have significant exposure to AIG's collapsing financial position. "

But after AIG published its roster of financial distributions, Goldman Sachs comes in on the top of the list at $12.9 billiion.

Treasury Secretary Paulson and former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin both served as top executives at Goldman Sachs -- and in the end, they wouldn't let Goldman collapse despite allowing Lehman Brothers to die.

Rubin and Paulson have had major conflicts of interest that make Tim Geithner's tax manipulations while an IMF employee look pathetically insignficant. Tom Daschle's rides in a town car, Killifer's failure to pay taxes on domestic help, and others who have avoided government because of the very high hurdles Obama has set for those who join his team simply pale in comparison to what we have learned about Bob Rubin's ties to Citibank, Goldman and the Treasury; Hank Paulson to both Treasury and Goldman -- and which have implications as well for their chief acolytes Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner.

AIG and Goldman both lied about their positions last September. And Hank Paulson and other major financial elites involved in the AIG bailout knew it also.

That is the story we should be following -- but few are paying attention.

And we should remember that the great economic genius of the early United States, Alexander Hamilton -- the man who hatched the great Bank of New York -- possessed just 'one share' of that bank.

We should be re-reading about Alexander Hamilton's life and deeds. Soon it is easy to see how he would have been fairly disgusted by those who have recently held his position and pretended to carry on his brand of national interest public service.

-- Steve Clemons  Excerpt of Alexander Hamilton's Scorn: Reflecting on AIG, Goldman, Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin
Tim Geithner and Robert Rubin Lunching at Four Seasons. Geithner getting instructions? By Gabrielle Cusumano at 4:57 PM on 3/16/2009 ...
gabriellecusumano.blogtownhall.com/.../tim_geithner_and_robert_rubin_lunching_at_four_seasons_geithner_getting_instru... - 44k -
 
Obama's economic team shows influence of Robert Rubin - with a difference   at:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reason For Outrage Towards Congress: Rangel Pushed for an AIG Donation; Insurer Pushed for a Tax Cut

Now House Tax Chairman Opposes Using Tax Code To Recoup AIG Bonuses March 17, 2009
 
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Charlie Rangel [hearts] AIG

John Aravosis (DC) · 3/17/2009 05:07:00 PM ET · Excerpted from: http://www.americablog.com/2009/03/charlie-range-hearts-aig.html


It's been really tough for AIG the past few months, what with getting an $85bn bailout from the US taxpayer, and now another $165 million in bonuses. Life is tough.

But fret not. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, is coming to the rescue of the little-guy billionaires over at AIG. Rangel, whose committee oversees taxes, is going to make sure that we don't "unfairly" use the tax law to stop AIG from wasting taxpayer money. (I'm sure Rangel's sudden interest in defending the fat-cats at AIG has nothing to do with the fact that he's a congressman from New York City, and gosh, where is Wall Street?)

Anyway, Rangel thinks it's very very very unfair to use the US tax code to get those bonuses back:
"It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon," said Rangel, who spoke to a handful of reporters outside his office.

"Is this an indictment or a bill?" asked Rangel. "Are they naming people? I mean, are they naming the taxpayers?"

Rangel said he sympathizes with the effort, but not the means it takes. "There's no way that good thinking Americans should reward people when they've been complicit in wrong doing," he said. "But as a former federal prosecutor, as I recall, it was the criminal code that you dealt with, not internal revenue."
First off, a political weapon? I have no idea what the politics are of the folks at AIG. I do know that I just lent them $85bn of my money and I just caught them wasting it. So, what Rangel is saying is that it's wrong to stop bailed out companies, now and in the future, from giving exorbitant bonuses. It's "political." It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not the right thing to do, it's simply "political." That's a new one.

Second, as a lawyer myself, this notion of using the criminal code to punish legal behavior is new to me. Maybe prosecutions work differently in New York. But last time I checked, it was perfectly legal for AIG to give huge bonuses to its employees. The problem is, it was also obscene. I checked with my own financial expert who buys and sells big companies, he says it's pretty much common knowledge that when you take over a company, by bailing it out, you put provisions in place to stop them from granting these kid of bonuses. That was Congress' job, to stop the bonuses in the first place. And last time I checked, Charlie Rangel was a congressman. So what happened? (A reader pointed out that AIG's initial bailout came from the Fed, last September, during the Bush administration. So the initial blame is Bush's - fair enough.)

So where does this leave us? Now the Republicans can legitimately blame the House Democrats for blocking the American taxpayers from making sure the bailout monies are spent responsibly. Possibly the most idiotic, tone deaf political move in a generation. The Republicans wanted their issue? Charlie Rangel just handed it to them. Talk about obscene.   Excerpted from: http://www.americablog.com/2009/03/charlie-range-hearts-aig.html
 
 
 
 
"The measure, known as the “subpart F active financing exception,” would benefit a broad coalition of American companies, including hundreds of financial services firms, and according to estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Taxation Committee would cost the Treasury $3.97 billion in revenue in 2009 and 2010. A.I.G., which Congressional records indicate spent more than $9.5 million on lobbying in 2008, had its own lobbyists and three outside firms pushing to extend the measure."   Rangel Pushed for an AIG  Donation; Insurer Pushed for a Tax Cut  New York Times
 
January 3, 2009

Rangel Pushed for a Donation; Insurer Pushed for a Tax Cut

On April 21, 2008, Representative Charles B. Rangel met with officials of the American International Group, the now-troubled insurance giant, to ask for a donation to a school of public service that City College of New York was building in his honor.

Mr. Rangel had already helped secure a $5 million pledge for the project from a foundation controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, one of the company’s largest shareholders and its former chief executive. And C.C.N.Y. officials, according to the school’s own records, had high hopes for A.I.G. — a donation of perhaps as much as $10 million.

The company has never made a contribution. But less than a month after Mr. Rangel met with its officials, the company turned to the congressman for help: A senior A.I.G. executive who had attended the fund-raising meeting wrote  Mr. Rangel’s exchange with A.I.G. last spring appears to be at odds with the public statements he has made since his fund-raising for the school became an issue. When his approach to A.I.G. was first reported in The Washington Post in July, Mr. Rangel said that he could not recall any issues his committee might have considered in which A.I.G. had an interest.

“I can’t think of one piece of legislation that impacts them, and there has never been a time that they’ve raised any legislation to me,” the paper quoted Mr. Rangel as saying. Indeed, in Mr. Rangel’s formal submission to the House ethics committee, asking it to review his use of Congressional stationery in soliciting money for the school, he wrote, “So far as I am aware, none of those whom I wrote had any pending requests into my office, lobbied me regarding any legislation before my committee, or asked me for assistance on legislation in which they had a special interest.”

Mr. Rangel, who had opposed the tax change A.I.G. was seeking — part of a much bigger piece of legislation — ultimately allowed it to be added to a bill he sponsored. Mr. Rangel’s aides, and fellow Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, say that he agreed to the bill only after being persuaded by other members of Congress that it would help an array of American companies weather the economic uncertainty.
 
After Mr. Rangel’s office was asked in recent days about the letter from A.I.G., Janice Mays, counsel to the Ways and Means Committee, said a search of the committee’s records had not turned up a copy of it. But she said Mr. Rangel had already changed his mind about the tax provision before A.I.G. says it sent him the letter.

Federal statutes and House ethics rules forbid members of Congress from asking for anything of value from a person or company with business before them.

Ms. Mays said those rules did not prohibit members of Congress from raising money for nonprofit organizations, even from people or companies with interests before the government. And she said Mr. Rangel’s representation to the ethics committee last summer concerned only those instances in which he had written to potential donors on Congressional stationery, not those he might have met with personally in seeking donations.

A review of Congressional records indicate that A.I.G. had interests in a number of issues before Mr. Rangel — both prior to Mr. Greenberg’s gift and the congressman’s solicitation of A.I.G., and afterward.

Records kept by the Clerk of the House of Representatives indicate that during the past two years, A.I.G. has paid lobbyists to push for changes in at least 10 bills that have been handled by the Ways and Means Committee, including the $700 billion bailout bill that passed in October to stabilize the financial markets.

A.I.G. lobbyists, the records show, pushed for legislative items that would lower taxes on various life insurance products, offer foreign tax credits to multinational corporations and lower the corporate tax rate. The company’s financial services arm hired lobbyists to oppose a push to tax private equity income at a higher rate and to shape new reporting requirements for investment firms.

And because A.I.G. does business around the globe, the company also lobbied on trade issues, which are handled by the Ways and Means Committee.

The available public record shows that A.I.G. prevailed in some of its lobbying efforts and failed in others.

Asked two weeks ago to provide a detailed accounting of Mr. Rangel’s dealings with A.I.G. officials and lobbyists regarding legislation during the past two years, the congressman’s spokesman and lawyer have said they are unable to complete such a time-consuming task during the holidays. And they challenged the fairness of the request.

The New York Times this week sought a response from Mr. Rangel himself about whether, in general terms, he had any reservations about seeking the money and meeting with A.I.G. officials, and a major shareholder, given what the record suggests were the company’s interests before his committee.

Ms. Mays wrote on Friday: “The law expressly permits members of Congress to engage in fund-raising activity on behalf of nonprofits such as C.C.N.Y. and recognizes that donations will inevitably coincide with legislative activity.”

Ms. Mays said the $10 million figure contained in C.C.N.Y. records as the possible size of an A.I.G. contribution represented “an appropriate request” at that time “given the company’s other support for nonprofit educational activities.”

Mr. Norton, the A.I.G. spokesman, said there was no connection of any kind between Mr. Rangel’s bid for a donation and the company’s lobbying on the tax matter.

A.I.G., one of the world’s 20 largest corporations, has been at the center of several public crises during the past year.

In September, the company received an $85 billion federal bailout when its possible bankruptcy threatened to further undermine the teetering economy. Two months later, after an intensive lobbying effort involving the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, terms of that financial rescue were enhanced and the amount of federal money involved swelled to $150 billion.

Details of the bailout have been negotiated primarily by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. Mr. Rangel’s aides have said he played no role in the bargaining. Democratic Congressional leaders who have been consulted by the Treasury Department about how much government assistance A.I.G. should receive and how the bailout should be structured said the congressman’s aides were correct.

“To say that Chairman Rangel has had minimal involvement in the bailout negotiations would be overstating things,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Greenberg, who has clashed publicly and in lawsuits with the executives who succeeded him after he was forced out of A.I.G. in 2005, has been highly visible as the company’s problems have made it a ward of the federal government.

Mr. Greenberg has not returned repeated telephone calls over the past month requesting an interview about his dealings with Mr. Rangel and his donation to C.C.N.Y. A spokesman for C. V. Starr, the investment fund headed by Mr. Greenberg, said last week that Mr. Greenberg was out of the country and could not be reached.

Mr. Rangel’s spokesman on the Ways and Means Committee declined to say whether the congressman had spoken with Mr. Greenberg about his strategy to persuade federal officials to revise the tax-funded rescue plan, but said in an e-mail message, “The bailout appears to have done nothing to benefit Mr. Greenberg as a shareholder, with the value of A.I.G. stock dropping from $60 at the beginning of the year to $1.50 a share.”

At a news conference last summer, Mr. Rangel said that he and Mr. Greenberg had forged a friendship based on their service in the Korean War, during which both men were awarded a Bronze Star for valor.

So in July 2006, when Mr. Rangel wrote to 100 philanthropic organizations seeking support for the C.C.N.Y. project, one was sent to an administrator at the Starr Foundation, where Mr. Greenberg serves as the chairman. The foundation did not make a donation in 2006, according to C.C.N.Y. officials. In March 2007, two months after Mr. Rangel had been elevated to Ways and Means chairman, he wrote a letter directly to Mr. Greenberg, using his Congressional stationery.

By the end of the year, Mr. Greenberg had pledged $5 million, by far the largest contribution to a project that has raised $11 million to date.

Ms. Mays said the Starr Foundation had a “well-established record of charitable giving,” and was “a logical potential source of funding for C.C.N.Y.”

In 2008, Mr. Rangel participated in a meeting with officials at A.I.G., to ask for their support. Mr. Norton, the A.I.G. spokesman, said that the purpose of the meeting was to ask whether A.I.G. would make a financial contribution to C.C.N.Y., although he did not know whether a specific dollar figure was discussed. Mr. Rangel and the C.C.N.Y. officials left the meeting without a commitment.

But several weeks later, in a letter dated May 13, Edward T. Cloonan, the highest-ranking A.I.G. official who attended the fund-raising meeting with Mr. Rangel, wrote to the congressman asking him to support the extension of a tax provision designed to help American-based multinational companies lower their obligation to the I.R.S., which was set to expire. Mr. Rangel, who had announced plans to add an array of “tax extenders” to an energy bill he was preparing to introduce that month, opposed extending the specific measure Mr. Cloonan and A.I.G. were lobbying for.

The measure, known as the “subpart F active financing exception,” would benefit a broad coalition of American companies, including hundreds of financial services firms, and according to estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Taxation Committee would cost the Treasury $3.97 billion in revenue in 2009 and 2010. A.I.G., which Congressional records indicate spent more than $9.5 million on lobbying in 2008, had its own lobbyists and three outside firms pushing to extend the measure.

By early May 2008, concern about the damage that American businesses would suffer if the tax break was allowed to expire had grown so great that Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee held two meetings to ask Mr. Rangel to extend it.

Representative Joseph Crowley, a Democrat from Queens, said he pressed the issue because it helped Citigroup, a major employer in his district. At least two committee caucus meetings to discuss many aspects of the legislation followed — on May 7 and May 13 — and Mr. Rangel relented, Mr. Crowley said, and agreed to extend the measure for one year.

“While Chairman Rangel opposed extending the provision this year, a majority of the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee supported doing so and the chairman listened to his membership,” Congressman Crowley said in an e-mailed statement.

On the date of the second caucus meeting, Mr. Cloonan wrote to Mr. Rangel, according to Mr. Norton. “We urge the Ways and Means Committee to include the tax provision commonly known as subpart F exception for active financing income in the current round of tax extenders legislation,” the letter said, according Mr. Norton.Mr. Crowley’s spokeswoman said the congressman was unaware A.I.G. had written Mr. Rangel about the matter and had thought that “due to other distractions, A.I.G. was not active in lobbying the issue.”

The spokeswoman, Angela Barranco, in a statement Friday, said Mr. Rangel had changed his mind after the May 7 meeting. Mr. Rangel’s aides say that a document dated May 12 from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation indicated that he had signed off on the provision.

Mr. Rangel included the provision in the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which was introduced on May 14 and which passed the House a week later, then stalled in the Senate over the summer.

But in September, after the House of Representatives rejected the first attempt to pass a $700 billion bill intended to stave off the collapse of the banking system, leaders in the Senate revived Mr. Rangel’s bill as part of a compromise that won approval in both houses. .   (More)  Excerpted from NYT at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/nyregion/03rangel.html?_r=2&em=&pagewanted=print

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and Congress Knew Months Ago About AIG Bonus Payouts

"For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts."     (See Dodd Amendment below)
 
 
 Excerpted from The Hill at: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-dodd-clash-on-executive-compensation-2009-02-15.html
 
Obama, Dodd clash on executive pay
Posted: 02/15/09 02:22 PM [ET] Excerpted from The Hill at: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-dodd-clash-on-executive-compensation-2009-02-15.html
 
President Obama and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee are at odds on how to rein in the salaries of top executives whose companies are being propped up by the federal government.

A senior presidential adviser indicated on Sunday that Obama wants Congress to change the executive compensation provisions passed in the economic stimulus legislation on Friday.
            
Details of the limits on pay to executives of bailed-out banks didn’t emerge widely until after the bill passed. Administration officials worry the strict compensation limits will impede lending because smaller banks won’t want to take the bailout money, or won’t keep it for long.

The provision was authored by Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), who ran for president in 2008. Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod said administration officials plan to talk to Dodd about changes.

“We're going to work with [the Senate] to come up with a good approach,” Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday." On NBC’s "Meet the Press" later, he added, “We’re going to have a dialogue with Chairman Dodd.”

The Obama plan, announced before the stimulus passed, would cap the entire compensation at $500,000 — with anything above that coming from restricted stock. The language that Dodd put in the stimulus bill goes further by limiting executive bonuses on banks that receive funds from the government's $700 billion financial rescue package.

Administration officials fear that the congressional provision will still allow multi-million dollar paychecks, as long as they aren’t called bonuses, because it has no limit on base pay.

But most of the administration's concern stems from the Dodd's move to trump Obama's compensation provisions by seeking more aggressive restrictions.

Dodd is not backing down. In an interview with the AP, Dodd said his provisions are needed, especially if Obama asks Congress for more money to bolster the financial sector.

"It will never happen as long as the public perceives that there are people getting rich," Dodd told AP. "Save their pay or save capitalism."Despite the White House misgivings about the compensation limits, they appear to be getting something much of the rest of the bill lacks -- bipartisan support.

Republican Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina both voiced support for the provision during Sunday morning television appearances.

“We should protect the taxpayers here. And I believe this provision in the stimulus bill is going in the right direction, as far as protecting the taxpayers,” Shelby said on CBS’s Face the Nation.

“The reason that we're doing things about CEOs ... is because people were burned on TARP I,” Graham said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC.

Enjoying the breach in Democratic unity on “This Week,” Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) noted the disagreement between fellow guest Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Obama.

“I look forward to the debate between Chuck Schumer and President Obama on this issue,” King quipped.

Schumer made it plain that he and other Democratic senators did not share the concerns of the administration about banks not wanting to take or keep bailout dollars.

“I disagree with the administration in this sense,” Schumer said. “I have no problem if companies want to get out of this program and get out of the program quickly, that's their business and that's their right. And I think that's just fine.”

Axelrod acknowledged the differences, but sought to minimize them.

“Obviously, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner and [Obama economic adviser Larry] Summers had concerns about that, and they expressed those concerns,” Axelrod said. “But those concerns are at the margins, and the goal is one we share.”

The disagreement about compensation is not expected to prevent Obama from signing the stimulus bill. He is expected to sign it Tuesday in Denver, making the pay provisions law. So any changes would have to be in new legislation.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) indicated where the legislative debate over executive compensation might play out. Frank, whose committee is looking at a rewrite of financial regulation, wants to give shareholders more control over setting executive pay, a legislative provision commonly called “say on pay.”

Rangel:

January 3, 2009
Rangel Sought $10 Million Contribution From AIG, Then Approved Subpart F Exception Benefiting AIG

From the New York Times (Rangel Pushed for a Donation; Insurer Pushed for a Tax Cut):  Embattled House Ways & Means Chair Charles Rangel sought a $10 million donation from AIG for a school of public service that City College of New York was building in his honor and later changed his position and approved the subpart F active financing exception (worth millions annually to AIG) that was later enacted as part of the $700 billion bailout bill. For more, see American SpectatorGothamist, and UPI.  

SPIN METER: Cue the Washington outrage

WASHINGTON – Cue the outrage.

For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.

The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.

Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner — but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.

While administration officials insisted Tuesday that neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, the problem wasn't new. AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep prized employees.

Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. "There was outrage brewing already," Cummings said. "I'm saying (to Liddy), 'Be a good citizen. ... Do something about this.' "

Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility of making changes to the company plans — scaling them back, delaying them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG's bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said.

In January, Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans and take steps against excessive payments.

"I at that point realized that we were going to have a backlash with regard to these bonuses," Kanjorski said in an AP interview. In a meeting with Liddy later that month, he said he told the AIG chief that "all hell would break loose if we didn't find a way to inform the public ... and that we should take every step to put that information out there so we wouldn't have the shock."

Around the same time, Congress and Obama's team were passing up an opportunity to put in place strict laws to revoke bonuses from recipients of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. In February, the Senate voted to add such a proposal to the economic recovery bill that cleared Congress, but in final closed-door talks on the measure, that provision was dropped in favor of limits that affect only future payments.

"There was a lot of lobbying against it and it died," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who proposed the measure with Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. He said Obama's team is sending mixed messages on what will and won't be tolerated on bonuses, with the president coming out strongly against excessive Wall Street rewards but top officials not following through.

"The president goes out and says this is not acceptable, and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," Wyden said. "They need to put this to bed once and for all."

Last Wednesday, an apparently tense conversation between Geithner and Liddy brought the matter to a head. Geithner had learned of the bonus payments the previous day, said a Treasury Department official familiar with the government's dealings with AIG.

Liddy, in a letter to Geithner on Saturday, referred to their "open and frank conversation" over the retention payments on March 11. "I admit that the conversation was a difficult one for me," Liddy wrote.   More at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/aig_what_did_they_know/print
 

To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble to Undo Protections They Approved  Excerpted from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/recover-aig-bonuses-lawmakers-scramble-undo-protections-approved/

Though Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd is among those leading the charge on retrieving AIG bonuses, an amendment he added to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month created a roadblock to getting that money back.  FOXNews.com

Congressional leaders are scrambling to think up creative ways to recover at least some of the $165 million in bonuses that bailed-out American International Group is paying executives -- but they could be their own worst enemy. 

Though Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is among those leading the charge on retrieving the bonuses, an amendment he added to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month created a roadblock to getting that money back. 

The amendment, meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, also included an exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009."     Excerpted from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/recover-aig-bonuses-lawmakers-scramble-undo-protections-approved/
 
  • Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections in the 'Dodd ...

    Mar 17, 2009 ... Dodd floated the idea of taxing AIG bonuses, but his amendment has been kind ... The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama ...
    www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/ - 18 hours ago - Similar pages -
  • The ChamberPost: Key Vote Alert - The Dodd Amendment to H.R. 1424

    by Bruce Josten // 3 Oct 2008, 1:35pm - US Chamber Hails Passage of Financial Rescue Bill //10:54pm Update: Senate shows leadership, now back to the House.
    www.chamberpost.com/2008/10/key-vote-alert.html - 39k -
    Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
  • Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (submitted 1/24/2008) (proposed 2/5/2008). AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil ...
    thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP3907: - 6k - Cached - Similar pages -
  • Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To strike title II. TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S6299. STATUS: 7/8/2008: Amendment SA 5064 proposed by Senator Dodd. ...
    thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP05064: - 6k -More results from thomas.loc.gov »
  • U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote 

    May 15, 2007 ... Question: On the Amendment (Coburn Amdt. No. 1089 ). Vote Number: 164, Vote Date: .... Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay, Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay ...
    www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00164 - 52k -

     
  • U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

    Question: On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 ). Vote Number: 15, Vote Date: February 12, 2008, 11:03 AM. Required For Majority: 1/2, Vote Result: ...
    www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015 - 51k
     
  •  Diane writes:

    Obama and Geithner

    Of course these guys knew about the bonuses. Geithner knows that these companies pay the bulk of their compensation in the form of bonuses. Dodd is the most disingenuous of all. He knew exactly what he was doing. When are the American people going to wake up. This attempt to show outrage is typical of this administration. Each time these guys get in front of a camera they lie. We had better get out in force and start to let this group know that we are watching everything they do. We had better stop this spending spree now. We are already in trouble with this national debt but if we don't stop it now we will never recover.
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Finance Crapola: Citi's Parsons Plays Ball With Obama, And AIG's Liddy Didn't.

    "Citi having a bumper top line is nothing to get excited about. " Tyler Durden
    Citi stock has gone from a dollar to a buck forty in a few days. The VP-leaked memo is just part of this war to save the bank. Remember, the US gov't has already agreed to back stop $306B of their bad assets." Venn Data in "Comments"
      Good read on the purposefully leaked Citi (C) memo today from Financial Times. The Brits make a good point about Citi's so called bumper revenues, which a) are not bumper at all based on historical standards and b) are to be expected as increased revenues always accompany volatile markets, especially in f/x and cash equities. The main thing Citi did not provide info on is the impact of writedowns, which one can bet their bottom dollar will be large to quite large.

    Citi having a bumper top line is nothing to get excited about. That “profitable” remains unquantified gives no comfort as to what extent writedowns have eaten into that haul. Provided the global economy keeps deteriorating, and house prices sink lower, balance sheets may fail even harsh stress-tests. It remains a brave investor who believes that this time bank revenues can overwhelm the writedown bogeymen.

    The FT also has a beef with two other concepts brought up in the letter: that depositors and investors are, contrary to fact, not fleeing in droves, and that Citi has a strong capital position. Of course, the $81 bn in TCE only materializes assuming the government extracts its pounds of flesh, which would not have been necessary if the asset side of the business wasn't an ice cube next to a flamethrower.

    Another question is how much of this blockbuster revenue was due to the Smith Barney brokerage? Citi was forced to sell half of this unit about a month ago, and thus any associated revenues have to be chopped in half for a true pro forma representation, else Citi is double counting the income statement and balance sheet benefits.

    As more impairments have to be taken, higher and higher trances of the capital structure will likely become equitization candidates and thus sources of incremental stock dilution. Lastly, to assume that BofA  and Wells Fargo are immune from C's cancer, is as naive as rampant stock purchasing based on a 1 page letter of unsubstantiated propaganda.    (Continue at: http://seekingalpha.com/article/125338-financial-times-debunks-citi-s-memo )

     Citi memo

    Published: March 10 2009 14:10 | Last updated: March 10 2009 14:10

    If management e-mails actually “communicated” anything they would be banned. Risks of a leak means workers are subjected to anodyne words on how valued they are or that their company is uniquely positioned to cope with the challenges ahead. On Tuesday, however, a short memo from chief executive Vikram Pandit to staff at Citigroup set the entire US banking sector alight. Having dropped below a dollar last week, Citi’s share price rallied 35 per cent. What did the memo say? Three nuggets in particular seemed to dazzle investors. First that Citi was profitable in January and February and the quarter was looking the rosiest since the third quarter of 2007. Apparently, Citi made $19bn in revenues in the first two months of the year. Second, Mr Pandit calmed fears that depositors as well as clients were fleeing in their droves. Finally, the memo stressed Citi’s strong capital position.

    But investors should not lose their heads. The headline-grabbing revenue number, of course, does not include costs or writedowns. Besides, Citi exceeded $20bn in adjusted revenues for eight quarters up until the end of September. Even in the nightmare final quarter of last year, revenues excluding writedowns were still a respectable $13.4bn.

    So Citi having a bumper top line is nothing to get excited about. That “profitable” remains unquantified gives no comfort as to what extent writedowns have eaten into that haul. That is the problem. In volatile markets, flow businesses such as foreign exchange or cash equities will always do well. And all banks are benefiting from short-rates being close to zero. But provided the global economy keeps deteriorating, and house prices sink lower, balance sheets may fail even harsh stress-tests. It remains a brave investor who believes that this time bank revenues can overwhelm the writedown bogeymen

     
    Citi shakes up board to try and quiet Congressional critics

    Citi also, as expected, announced several new independent directors to its board.  http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/16/news/newsmakers/citi.pandit.fortune/index.htm

    In addition to Grundhofer, the bank nominated three other candidates -- former Bank of Hawaii (BOH) chief Michael O'Neill, onetime Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Anthony Santomero and ex-Pimco executive William Thompson.

    The move comes as the bank's newly appointed chairman, Dick Parsons, seeks to recast Citi in a form more palatable to regulators and legislators. Taxpayers could own as much as 36% of Citi following the latest restructuring of the government's bailout of the bank, which was announced Feb. 27.
     
    Parsons took over as chairman earlier this year for investment banker Win Bischoff. He promised to "reconstitute" the board at Citi, which has been sharply criticized in Congress for its poor supervision of management and its compensation excesses.

    Among the directors departing Citi recently have been Robert Rubin, the former Goldman Sachs executive and Clinton administration Treasury Secretary.

    Rubin made more than $100 million over a decade as the bank's chairman and senior counselor but declined responsibility for the bubble-era missteps of Pandit's predecessor, former CEO Chuck Prince.       (continue at: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/16/news/newsmakers/citi.pandit.fortune/index.htm )

    Citi's Pandit hits paydirt

    The taxpayer-backed bank says its CEO made $10.8 million last year. Citi also announces a shakeup to its board.

    Colin Barr, senior writer

    New York-based Citi, like many other banks that have received taxpayer funding, has come under fire for its spending on executive compensation and other perks.

    But since Citi (C, Fortune 500) took its first round of exceptional federal aid last November, the bank has been trying to show it's being more responsible. Pandit said late last year he plans to take just $1 a year in salary until the bank returns to profitability.

    Still, the bank disclosed in a regulatory filing Monday that Pandit received $958,333 in salary last year, up from the $250,000 he received in 2007. Pandit did not receive a cash bonus, however.

    The lion's share of Pandit's overall compensation comes from the 1 million restricted shares and 3 million stock options Citi granted Pandit on Jan. 22, 2008, as a signing bonus and special retention award following his December 2007 appointment as CEO.

    Pandit joined Citi in July 2007,   (continued at: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/16/news/newsmakers/citi.pandit.fortune/index.htm

     
    Politico

    Citi's Parsons attends W.H. meeting
    By: Jonathan Martin
    February 23, 2009 05:57 PM EST
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19204.html

    The incoming chairman of Citigroup, Richard Parsons, showed up at the White House Monday, fueling talk that the federal government might take a massive ownership stake in the troubled banking behemoth.

    Parsons’ appointment was to see Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama’s closest West Wing confidants.

    Parsons got through the main gate a little before 6 p.m. A White House official confirmed the meeting but declined to offer details.

    "He was here to meet with Valerie - something she often does with business leaders," said the official.

    News of Parsons' White House visit started a buzz among financial services executives in Washington, where several said Monday night that they expected an announcement of a Citigroup deal as early as Tuesday. One executive told POLITICO that the White House is telling industry players that the
    Parsons visit is "a friendly meeting."

    The federal government is reportedly in talks to take as much as a 40 percent ownership stake in Citigroup, whose stock price has been battered by speculation that the government might seek to “nationalize” major banks to stabilize the financial services sector.

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday reiterated Obama’s belief in the importance of a privately held banking system – even as the Treasury Department signaled that it’s open to the kind of deal reportedly being discussed by Citi. A unusual joint statement by the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and other regulators Monday also signaled the government’s willingness to do what’s needed to keep the nation’s banking system operating efficiently...(more at:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19204.html )
     
     
    *The New York Post is reporting that Richard Parsons, former Time Warner head and new chairman of Citigroup, wisely decided to take Amtrak to Washington when he and other Wall Street moguls were summoned to a meeting Wednesday with President Obama. Citigroup, which was bailed out with $45 billion in taxpayer money, just canceled the purchase of the latest jet for its fleet, a $50 million Dassault Falcon. Parsons showed he's much savvier than the heads of the Big Three automakers, who all flew private when they came to Washington for a bailout. http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur50504.cfm

    Parsons takes over as Citi chairman

    The former Time Warner CEO has the unenviable task of trying to fix the troubled financial titan.

    By Colin Barr, senior writer

    NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Citigroup, the struggling financial titan that recently announced plans to split in two, is shaking up its board again.

    The New York-based company named Richard Parsons its chairman.

    Parsons, who was chairman and CEO of Time Warner (TWX, Fortune 500) earlier this decade, after its troubled merger with AOL, and until recently was Citi's (C, Fortune 500) lead director, will succeed Sir Win Bischoff. Parsons was also previously CEO of the New York-based thrift Dime Bancorp. (Time Warner is the parent company of CNNMoney.com and Fortune.)

    The news comes just days after Citi, which has received some $350 billion in federal capital and loan guarantees over the past six months, announced a $8.3 billion fourth-quarter loss and set plans to separate its core banking business from some risky assets and other operations.

    According to news reports, regulators have been pressing Citi to shake up its board in the wake of billions of dollars of losses over the past 18 months.

    "I look forward to continuing to work with the board and management of Citi in my new capacity as we continue to strengthen the company's core franchise and build value for our shareholders," Parsons said in a statement released after the market closed Wednesday.

    The shakeup gives CEO Vikram Pandit a new partner atop Citi, whose stock has come under renewed pressure this week as investors worry about the bank's exposure to rising credit costs and the prospect of yet another round of federal aid.

    Even after a 31% rally Wednesday, Citi's market capitalization is just $20 billion - a mere fraction of the value the institution held only a year ago.

    "With his proven record of turning around Dime Bancorp and Time Warner, as well as his work with a wide range of government regulators, Dick is ...(Continue at: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/21/news/newsmakers/citi.parson.fortune/ )
     
    AIG GAME PLAYING   (Notice the Dates) 


    Why AIG Wasn't Allowed to Fail

    AIG's Blackmail Note   

    AIG'S BLACKMAIL NOTE  http://seekingalpha.com/article/126213-aig-s-blackmail-note

    In case anyone's wondering what leverage AIG has over the government that lets it pay people bonuses for creating the largest losses in U.S. corporate history, here you are:

    Aig Systemic 090309

     
     
     
     
    Also
     
    AIG signs $85-bn deal with Fed

    Posted online: Sep 25, 2008 at 2335 hrs

    New York, Sep 24American International Group Inc said late on Tuesday it signed a˜definitive agreement for up to $85 billion in borrowings from the US Federal Reserve, the main part of a rescue by the central bank that will see it take a 79.9% stake in the giant insurer.

    AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy said in a statement the facility was the company's best alternative in the current market environment. Under the terms of the agreement, AIG has to pay back the loan from, among other things, asset sales and new debt or share issues. In the statement, AIG made it clear how onerous the terms of the two-year loan will be. Not only will it pay 8.50 percentage points over 3-month LIBOR, putting the current rate at well over 11% , but it will also pay commitment fees.

    There will be an initial gross commitment of 2 % of the total loan facility, and subsequently a fee on undrawn amounts of 8.5 % a year. The interest and the fees will be added to the balance outstanding, the company said.

    "We are pleased to have finalized the terms of the facility, and are already developing a plan to sell assets, repay the facility and emerge as a smaller but profitable company," Liddy said in the statement.  (continue from this excerpt at:  http://www.financialexpress.com/news/AIG-signs-85bn-deal-with-Fed/365462/ )

     Feds bolster AIG with $30B more
    By: Lisa Lerer
    March 3, 2009 04:31 AM EST
      http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C9C17A06-18FE-70B2-A8123896ED2CB98D

    The Obama administration defended its decision to rescue mega-insurer American International Group on Monday, arguing that the bailout was a necessary dose of monetary medicine to prevent a deeper economic downturn.

    But Wall Street saw symptoms of a spreading illness.

    Stocks plunged across the globe Monday, while the Dow dropped below 7,000 for the first time since 1997, closing at 6,763.29, down 299.64 points, or 4.2 percent. The slide reflected growing concerns about the depth of the crisis, as AIG reported a fourth-quarter loss of $61.7 billion the largest quarterly loss for a company.

    It's a pretty strong reminder that the U.S. Treasury is still all that stands between the current market environment and future systemic financial problems, said Christopher Garman, head of the financial analysis firm Garman Research.

    As the market tanked, the Obama administration explained the necessity of pouring as much as $30 billion in new bailout cash into AIG on top of $150 billion in direct aid and loans that the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have extended to the company since September.

    The Treasury Department and others felt that the systemic risk of doing nothing was simply unacceptable, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.Today's actions further continue allowing the process of the orderly restructuring of AIG.

    AIG executives insisted that the steps were necessary to help the company's restructuring.

    AIG is executing one of the most extensive corporate restructuring programs in history at a time when the global economy and capital markets are in turmoil, the company's CEO, Edward Liddy, said in a press release. While we have made meaningful progress, we have concluded, along with Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that additional tools are needed to enable success.

    The AIG deal comes just days after the Treasury Department bumped its stake in Citigroup to 36 percent, up from 8 percent, by taking more common stock. In that deal, the government didn't add more bailout money.

    Recent polls highlight the political risk for the administration in another bailout. Fifty-four percent of Americans prefer stopping government rescues instead of giving additional funds to homeÂowners, or banks and auto companies, according to a February survey by Rasmussen Reports

    But some analysts say companies such as AIG and Citigroup have such huge operations so closely intertwined with the world's economy that the U.S. government and President Barack Obama have little choice but to help them.

    In AIG's case, government regulators and Wall Street analysts believe the global financial system could not withstand the sudden collapse of the company, which underwrote many of the risky subprime mortgage investments by financial firms. AIG provides insurance to more than 30 million policyholders and 100,000 different entities, including small businesses, cities, pension plans and Fortune 500 companies.

    If AIG fell, analysts assert, it could cause a domino effect across the financial system. Banks, financial firms and other AIG trading partners would have to write down the value of their securities a loss some fear could make those companies insolvent, as well.

    The new infusion of government cash and a decision by the government to lower the interest rate on an earlier $60 billion loan should allow AIG to avoid ratings downgrades that would have forced it to pay more than $7 billion in collateral to trading partners, according to a November SEC filing by (continued at: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C9C17A06-18FE-70B2-A8123896ED2CB98D

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "President Barack Obama was the third-ranking recipient collected $31,750 from Stanford company employees"

    "On the whole, Democrats benefited more from Stanford. Of the $2.4 mn in donations tied to the firm since 2000, 65% was directed towards Democrats, says the Center for Responsive Politics."
     

    February 20th, 2009

    Stanford’s Favorite Politicians

    by Elizabeth MacDonald     Excerpted from: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?s=schumer

    Which Politicians Benefited the Most?

    On the whole, Democrats benefited more from Stanford. Of the $2.4 mn in donations tied to the firm since 2000, 65% was directed towards Democrats, says the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Of the nearly $1 million donated by Standford and his wife, Susan, 78% was directed to Democrats, says the Center for Responsive Politics.

    According to the report, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was the top recipient of Stanford funds with $965,500, although all House and Senate campaign operations benefited from donations. The Republican National Committee also received $161,000.The Individual Politicians Who Benefited From Stanford.
     
    So who are the individual politicians the US district court judge could claw back political donations from?

    Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla), benefited the most, and now says he will give to charity his $45,900 in donations he received from Stanford’s operations.

    President Barack Obama was the third-ranking recipient among lawmakers, with $31,750 collected from Stanford company employees during his presidential bid, while $4,600 was from Stanford himself, says the says the Center for Responsive Politics. President Obama’s campaign says it will give the $4,600 campaign donation to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, reports indicate.  
    The president’s rival, Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, was the fifth highest recipient with $28,150. Sen. McCain announced he would donate the money he received from Stanford to charity.Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who served prison time for his role in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, received $28,200 (this includes contributions to Ney’s candidate committee and leadership political action committee).

    Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who reportedly flew on Stanford’s jet, collected $20,100 from the company between the 2000 and 2006 election cycles.Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) got $27,500 from Stanford’s operations, says the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) got $17,000. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) received $8,500, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) $7,300, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received $6,900.

    So far, only Nelson, the President, and McCain are giving their donations to charity. None of the politicians so far have said they will give the money back to investors.
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    How Long Can The Bounce Last? Important Investment Advice Here

    I am convinced we'll see a drop of as much as 1,500 points over a day or two, which will exhaust the urge to sell. I am looking for a bottom of 5,890 in the Dow and that should equate to 2,285 in the Transports. Once we see this wash out, then you can buy and expect to make money to the upside for a reasonable period. If we bottom in early March, I would look for the rally to last six months and maybe run as high as the 9,005 level and maybe even 9,913.

    Of course, such a rally will convince everyone that we have a new bull market and it's safe to get back in the water again. Mark my words, they will be wrong!! There will be a second leg down in this bear market that will take the Dow Jones Industrial Average down to 4,123 and maybe even as low as 2,450. The next leg down will not stop until the PER for the Dow hits 7 and the average dividend for the Dow exceeds six percent.
     
    Currently the PER is at 18 and the average dividend is around three percent, so you can see we have a long ways to go. Before we can buy though, we need to see a wash out and that should begin within a week or so. My advice is to fasten your seatbelts because it will get ugly.    http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/orlandini022209.html
        (More highlights from "Over The Cliff" article below)
     
    The editorials at this website: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials.html?page=1 give straight talk about what's happening to the economy and some good advice too, which I believe could prove invaluable to the individual swimming or sinking in todays turbulent economic waters.   G.C. 
     
     
    Over The Cliff by Enrico Orlandini   

    DAILY REPORT  (Orlandini's predictions made on 02/22/09)   Excerpted from: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/orlandini022209.html     (from page 2  ( http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials.html?page=2    )  of  all website's published editorials)

     

    If you ever wanted to live in a period that you "can tell your grandchildren about", you've got your wish. We have embarked on the financial equivalent of the Ice Age and when it's all said and done, there won't be a dinosaur left. Just about everybody I know, including a large majority of my clients, have been in denial. Furthermore, almost no one is prepared for the monetary tempest that is hitting the mainland as I type. To be perfectly honest about it, I don't know if it's possible to prepare yourself for what's happening now; it's not like you can go to your local library and check out a handbook on financial collapse. Many people are under the impression that we are in for a severe recession, whereas I believe we are already knee deep in the worst depression to hit in the last one hundred years. No one will escape unscathed. There is a faction in Washington DC that thinks they can somehow alter the course of events, but they are sadly mistaken. The bear market that is gripping the world has been manipulated for years and it is about to take its pound of flesh.


     
     
     
     
     
     
    What matters is the bear is in charge and we are headed lower. When you look at the weekly charts for both the Dow and Transports, you should really focus on just how the indexes are rolling over. Look at how each successive blue trend line is closer to vertical. That tells me that we are entering the final or blow-off stage, of this leg down in our bear market. Notice I said "leg down" but I did not say an end to the bear market. I am convinced that we'll make some sort of buyable bottom once we see a 1000 point down day that actually exhausts the urge to sell. For months I have been pointing toward the Lowry's buying

     

    power/selling pressure statistics and saying that sellers are far from done. On Tuesday we saw yet another 90% down day and selling pressure hit a new high on Friday, while buying pressure made a new low. Bottoms do not look like this. I truly wish the idiots who came out on Bloomberg on Thursday and Friday, advising people to buy stocks, would look at Lowry's. They might learn something!

    I am convinced we'll see a drop of as much as 1,500 points over a day or two, which will exhaust the urge to sell. I am looking for a bottom of 5,890 in the Dow and that should equate to 2,285 in the Transports. Once we see this wash out, then you can buy and expect to make money to the upside for a reasonable period. If we bottom in early March, I would look for the rally to last six months and maybe run as high as the 9,005 level and maybe even 9,913. Of course, such a rally will convince everyone that we have a new bull market and it's safe to get back in the water again. Mark my words, they will be wrong!! There will be a second leg down in this bear market that will take the Dow Jones Industrial Average down to 4,123 and maybe even as low as 2,450. The next leg down will not stop until the PER for the Dow hits 7 and the average dividend for the Dow exceeds six percent. Currently the PER is at 18 and the average dividend is around three percent, so you can see we have a long ways to go. Before we can buy though, we need to see a wash out and that should begin within a week or so. My advice is to fasten your seatbelts because it will get ugly.
     

    One of life's mysteries continues to be the behavior of the US dollar and Friday was no exception. I believe I grasp the reason behind the move off of the March 2008 lows, as that can be attributed to the demand for dollars

    needed to service a massive dollar denominated debt load around the world. This demand is fueled by a deflationary fire that will not be extinguished by printing countless quantities of fiat currencies as Mr. Bernanke so foolishly believed. His flip remark about having a printing press, and knowing how to use it, will keep him up many nights over the coming years.

    The Fed continues to print money and issue credit for people who can't qualify and can't pay what they presently owe. I believe this will go down in financial history as one of the worst policy decisions since Nero decided to fiddle while Rome burned around him. Credit is not the solution. Debt elimination is the only solutions. Incomes are shrinking by the minute so debt must be reduced to the point where present income can support a payment, and only then will income begin to stabilize. The only way to eliminate debt is to write it off. Let the banks sink! Don't give them more money that will never see the light of day in the US economy. The US must write down/off bad mortgages so the economy bottoms, and then the rest of the world must begin to write off US debt as it will never be paid. If Bernanke prints the paper to pay it, it will destroy the US economy, the dollar, and take the rest of the world with it. If he doesn't, the US and the world will fall deeper into a bottomless deflation. Either way he's a dead man. Write debt down now, go to a gold standard that everyone lives by, and in five years you'll have a decent world economy.

    Meanwhile the question is whether or not the dollar will continue to rally over the short run in spite of the nasty downside reversal we saw on Friday. The March US Dollar contract rallied early on to reach an intraday high of 88.39 (above the previous day's intraday high), and then fell down to an intraday low of 86.34 in just minutes. It finally closed the day at 86.70,

     

    and that was below the previous day's intraday low. Hence the downside reversal. Usually reversals are an indication of lurking problems and when I put that together with the fact that we had several sessions over the last week or so where the Dow, the dollar, and the bond all fell, I begin to wonder what's brewing. On the positive side the secondary trend is up (the primary trend is bearish) and we did see a new closing high of 88.33 on Wednesday so that is bullish. The major obstacle to any further upside movement will be very strong resistance at 89.78 which was tested back in

     

     

     

    November. If this recent reaction turns out to have produced a lower high, then the dollar should begin to unravel pretty soon (count in days and not weeks), but I still think it's too early. On the other hand, the Point & Figure chart for the US Dollar Index has a bearish price target of 67.00 and that is as unbiased as you can get. This week should bring clarity.

    Finally we come to gold, the one thing just about everyone loves to hate. I have rarely seen such a negative environment in the sense that everyone is talking about the coming correction. Dennis Gartman was on Bloomberg Friday saying he likes gold but won't buy more until he sees a correction. Richard Russell said more than a weak ago that he thought gold was running out of steam, and I get e-mails every hour on the hour from clients telling me gold is now beginning a correction that will take it down X%. Honestly, I just ignore it all and try to listen to the market. On Friday the April gold rallied 25.70 to end the session at 1,002.20, a new closing high for this leg up. The intraday high for the April contract was 1,007.70 and above the 1,004.90 resistance, but what is even more important was the fact that spot gold closed at 993.20 and still below the critical 999.40 resistance level that ended the last rally a year ago. Most current "wisdom"

     

    thinks we'll see some sort of reaction to the downside here, but I never subscribed to current wisdom. It's the same conventional wisdom that said

     

    gold can't rally with the US dollar, but it has. Conventional wisdom and four dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    I am convinced that both gold and silver will continue to rally, with some volatile reactions thrown in for good measure, to much higher levels than most think possible. I have maintained my 1,372.80 price target for this spring for quite some time and see no reason to change. Likewise I see silver hitting a minimum of 24.60 and it could even go higher. Silver is by far the cheapest commodity out there, and I continue to buy each dip. You

     

    can easily see in the weekly chart that silver is lagging gold and has yet to break out, although the recent close above the 50-wma is a bullish indicator. I see silver's real tests coming first at 15.63 and then at 16.20 (red/green horizontal line). Never forget that silver will act as money at some point in the future, just as gold will.

    I want to conclude with a few well chosen words about gold stocks. The HUI, posted below, has acted very well in spite of the decline in the Dow and that is a major change from previous behavior. A positive change like

     

    this is always a bullish indicator. This bullishness is also reflected in the following Point & Figure:

     

    You can see that there is a bullish price target of 380.00 and that is still well above Friday's close of 321.45. I don't want to give the impression that any of this will be easy, because it won't. There are going to be violent, even scary reactions, and they'll serve to chase out all but the most resilient bulls. I believe this bull market in gold will leave most gold bulls broke because they buy too high and bail at precisely the wrong time. The only way to deal with this particular market is to buy and sit tight. Also, you have to watch what you buy. I recommend Buenaventura, Goldcorp, Golden Star, Newmont, Royal Gold, and Silver Wheaton, and I avoid juniors like the plague. The juniors are a tough game and I don't even try to play. I stick to the blue chips, a few of which even pay dividends, and just try to sit tight.

    In conclusion, I wish I could say something really intelligent to reinforce what I see coming, but I have the feeling I've already said too much. I get a lot of "hate mail" saying I'm anti-American, but the folks that send me that stuff have no idea what the America I grew up in was like. Hell, I could leave the house for a week and leave the door wide open. All that would happen is some neighbor would come along and close it for me. Try that in today's world. What's more, I don't even know who my neighbor is. I have been warning you for years about the collapse, and now its here. If the Dow were to fall down to the 1982 low of 776.92, could you imagine what that world would be like? Social unrest and chaos would be the name of the game and whoever is President would more than likely rule from a bunker and use martial law. Almost always improvement comes at a cost, but we're used to getting things for free. That day has gone. Back in the late 50's and early 60´s, we built bomb shelters in the back yard, in case of nuclear attack. You might dig out some of the old blue prints as it may come in handy.


    info@dtanalysis.com
    Dow Theory Analysis SAC
    February 22, 2009


    1 Although this is the all-time closing high, it is an unconfirmed false break high and some consider the July 2007 top as the end of the bull market. I am in that camp although I use the false break top for calculations.

    2 These are prices for the March Dow futures contract while the prices for the Transports are the "spot" or cash prices.

    3 These are prices for the March US Dollar futures contract.

     
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Tim Geithner and Robert Rubin Lunching at Four Seasons. Geithner getting instructions?

    The lunch took place on March 3, just coincidentally the day before Geithner's testimony to the Senate Finance Committee.

    Tim Geithner Spotted Lunching with Bob Rubin and Pete Peterson, Sadly, This is not a Joke

    By: Janushka Thursday March 5, 2009 8:16 am
    0
    diggs
     digg it

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was spotted at the Four Seasons lunching with disgraced Citigroup director and father of the credit crisis Robert Rubin and Pete "old ladies can eat cat food" Peterson.

    The lunch took place on March 3, just coincidentally the day before Geithner's testimony to the Senate Finance Committee.

    Indeed, yesterday we were slumming at the Four Seasons in New York. Among the dinosaurs we observed grazing in the tall grass of this Midtown Manhattan refuge for the transactional class was former C director Robert Rubin, former New York Fed Chairman Pete Peterson and Treasury Secretary Geithner, who apparently was there to get new instructions from his sponsors.

    Before Geithner arrived for lunch, Peterson reportedly asked one NY real estate mogul: "How much of that toxic paper is there?" Now we may know where Geithner gathers his market intelligence -- over a luncheon table in New York with his owners. Next time we are going to bring the flip-cam.
     
    Found and excerpted from Oxtown Gazette at: http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4021
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Obama & Dems Outraged? "Before the Fall, AIG Payouts Went to Washington" Open Secrets.Org

    "Barack Obama, Chris Dodd,  Max Baucus, and John McCain, were largest recipients." Center for Responsive Politics

    Before the Fall, AIG Payouts Went To Washington  by Massie Ritsch   (Can't copy article here but it is a must read with Congress members names and AIG contributions over the years) http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/before-the-fall-aig-payouts-we.html  
     
    Twenty-eight current members of Congress reported owning stock in AIG last year, worth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million.
     
     
    Name Total Contributions all cycles
    Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $280,238
    Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
    Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
    Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $107,332
    McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
    Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
    Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
    Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn) $75,400
    Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $59,515
    Lieberman, Joe (I-Conn) $57,900
    Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $53,582
    Giuliani, Rudolph W (R-NY) $50,250
    Lazio, Rick A (R-NY) $48,600
    Ensign, John (R-Nev) $44,569
    Bayh, Evan (D-Ind) $43,700
    Larson, John B (D-Conn) $43,000
    Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-Del) $41,350
    Baker, Richard (R-La) $41,032
    Torricelli, Robert G (D-NJ) $39,000
    D'Amato, Alfonse M (R-NY) $38,750
    Carper, Tom (D-Del) $37,213
    Bush, George (R-Texas) $34,000
    Roth, William V Jr (R-Del) $33,400
    Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $31,800
    Smith, Bob (R-NH) $31,750
    Shelby, Richard C (R-Ala) $31,250
    Reed, Jack (D-RI) $30,600
    Castle, Michael N (R-Del) $29,350
    Ackerman, Gary (D-NY) $27,750
    Grassley, Chuck (R-Iowa) $27,750
    Specter, Arlen (R-Pa) $27,450
    Gephardt, Richard A (D-Mo) $27,250
    Hagel, Chuck (R-Neb) $27,250
    Clinton, Bill (D-Ark) $27,000
    Foley, Mark (R-Fla) $26,650
    Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) $26,000
    Murkowski, Frank H (R-Alaska) $25,700
    Zimmer, Dick (R-NJ) $25,397
    Crapo, Mike (R-Idaho) $24,500
    Kyl, Jon (R-Ariz) $24,400
    Dole, Bob (R-Kan) $24,250
    Nelson, Ben (D-Neb) $23,200
    Molinari, Susan (R-NY) $21,650
    Collins, Susan M (R-Maine) $21,542
    Dunn, Jennifer (R-Wash) $21,250
    Romney, Mitt (R-Mass) $20,850
    Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' (R-Mo) $20,750
    Farrell, Diane Goss (D-Conn) $20,550
    Zeliff, Bill (R-NH) $20,427
    Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $20,270
    Paxon, Bill (R-NY) $20,150
    Reynolds, Tom (R-NY) $19,750
    Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $19,200
    Kolbe, Jim (R-Ariz) $18,550
    Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $18,500
    Chafee, Lincoln D (R-RI) $18,150
    Berman, Howard L (D-Calif) $18,000
    Bennett, Robert F (R-Utah) $17,700
    Bowles, Erskine B (D-NC) $17,600
    Frist, Bill (R-Tenn) $17,300
    Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $17,000
    Hastert, Dennis (R-Ill) $16,549
    Gore, Al (D-Tenn) $15,750
    Swett, Dick (D-NH) $15,500
    Nelson, Bill (D-Fla) $15,412
    Frost, Martin (D-Texas) $15,250
    Jeffords, James M (R-Vt) $15,250
    Corker, Bob (R-Tenn) $15,150
    Davis, Tom (R-Va) $15,000
    Chafee, John H (R-RI) $14,757
    Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-Colo) $14,650
    Gregg, Judd (R-NH) $14,500
    Portman, Rob (R-Ohio) $14,300
    Durbin, Dick (D-Ill) $14,000
    Matsui, Robert T (D-Calif) $14,000
    Israel, Steve (D-NY) $13,950
    Burton, Dan (R-Ind) $13,650
    Coverdell, Paul (R-Ga) $13,600
    Abraham, Spencer (R-Mich) $13,500
    Kennedy, Edward M (D-Mass) $13,500
    Murkowski, Lisa (R-Alaska) $13,500
    Andrews, Michael Allen (D-Texas) $13,400
    McConnell, Mitch (R-Ky) $13,200
    Cornyn, John (R-Texas) $13,000
    Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D-NY) $13,000
    Faircloth, Lauch (R-NC) $12,875
    Fowler, Wyche Jr (D-Ga) $12,760
    Chocola, Chris (R-Ind) $12,500
    Houghton, Amo (R-NY) $12,500
    Kanjorski, Paul E (D-Pa) $12,500
    White, Rick (R-Wash) $12,490
    King, Pete (R-NY) $12,343
    Feinstein, Dianne (D-Calif) $12,250
    Grams, Rod (R-Minn) $12,150
    Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $12,000
    Frisa, Daniel (R-NY) $11,825
    Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $11,700
    Rockefeller, Jay (D-WVa) $11,500
    Weiner, Anthony D (D-NY) $11,500
    METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations were made during the A election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission. Figures for the current election cycle are based on data released on February 09, 2009.

    Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=A
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    CINCINNATI: Thousands Rally Downtown Against Government Spending

    "I bet there's 5,000 people here and they're mad, just as I'm mad."   See video at web site http://www.wlwt.com/news/18937373/detail.html )

    Thousands Rally Downtown Against Government Spending

    UPDATED: 11:25 pm EDT March 15, 2009 Excerpted from: http://www.wlwt.com/news/18937373/detail.html

    Thousands of Tri-State residents gathered Sunday on Fountain Square in downtown Cincinnati to voice their opposition to government spending bills recently signed by President Barack Obama.

     The group called itself the Cincinnatti , modeled after the Boston Tea Party of 1773.

     Many of the demonstrators carried signs with slogans that said "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage" or "Stop spending my allowance." Some even wore tea bags on their hats to make their point.

     Cincinnati  police estimated the crowd at 4,000 people. Many who spoke with News 5 Sunday afternoon said they're angry, including Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.

     "I bet there's 5,000 people here and they're mad, just as I'm mad.  (This is an excerpt only)

    More at: http://www.wlwt.com/news/18937373/detail.html
     
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive