Tuesday, January 24, 2017

BURGERNOMICS: HERE’S A BIG MAC INDEX UPDATE



January 18,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, our friends at Park Wealth Management reminded us that the Economist invented the Big Mac index in 1986 as an entertaining way to assess whether currencies were at the “correct” levels. The index reflects the idea that countries’ exchange rates should balance so the same product (in this case, a hamburger) costs the same in two different countries when the price is denominated in the same currency. After updating the index on January 11, 2017, The Economist reported the “all-meaty” dollar was stronger than usual: “The dollar is now trading at a 14-year high in trade-weighted terms. Emerging-world economies may struggle to pay off dollar-denominated debts. American firms may find themselves at a disadvantage against foreign competition. And, American tourists will get more burgers for their buck in Europe.”

A Big Mac in the United States cost about $5.06 last week. In the Euro area, the price was about $4.06 and in Britain $3.73. A Big Mac is cheapest in Russia ($2.15) and most expensive in Switzerland ($6.35). Here are the prices of a Big Mac (a.k.a. the Maharaja Mac in India) in a few other locales:



It should be noted the Big Mac index is not a perfect measurement tool. The price of a burger should be less in countries with lower labor costs and more in countries with higher labor costs.

When prices are adjusted for labor (using gross domestic product per person), the Brazilian real is the world’s most overvalued currency, followed by Pakistan and Thailand. The most undervalued currencies include Egypt, Malaysia, and Hong Kong.

Park Wealth Management is located at 216 East Ridgewood Ave , 2nd Floor Ridgewood NJ 07450 201 689-2020

Saturday, January 14, 2017

House Acts to Requires Cost Benefit Analysis of all SEC Regulations


January 13,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog


WASHINGTON - The House approved bipartisan legislation on Thursday to ensure that the benefits of proposed regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) justify the costs to jobs, economic growth, and capital formation.

The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Financial Services Committee member Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), passed 243-184.

“Ill-advised laws like the Dodd-Frank Act empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to callously hand down crushing regulations without adequately considering what impact those regulations have on jobs,” said Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). “The true cost of Washington red tape includes the jobs not created, the small businesses not started and the dreams of our children not fulfilled.”

Under the bill, before issuing a regulation the SEC will be required to:

identify the nature and source of the problem its proposed regulation is meant to address; utilize the SEC’s Chief Economist to assess the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation to ensure the benefits justify the costs; identify and assess available alternatives; and ensure that any regulations are consistent and written in plain language.

Further, the legislation requires the SEC to engage in a retrospective review of its regulations every five years and conduct post-adoption impact assessments of major rules.

Thursday, January 05, 2017

Consumer confidence climbed in December to the highest level in 13 years


December 28,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog


Ridgewood NJ, Consumer confidence climbed in December to the highest level since August 2001. Americans were more upbeat about the economic outlook than at any time in the past 13 years, according to a report Tuesday from the New York-based Conference Board.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Trump Names “Corporate Raider” Carl Icahn as Special Advisor to the President on Regulatory Reform


December 22,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, President-elect Donald J. Trump today announced that Carl Icahn has agreed to serve as a special advisor to the President on issues relating to regulatory reform. Over the course of six decades, Mr. Icahn has distinguished himself as one of America’s most successful businessmen and investors. Mr. Icahn was one of President-elect Trump’s earliest supporters, and his intimate knowledge of what businesses need to grow and thrive makes him a trusted voice in developing President-elect Trump’s America First economic agenda. Icahn will be a leader in helping American entrepreneurs shed job-killing regulations that stifle economic growth.

“Carl was with me from the beginning and with his being one of the world’s great businessmen, that was something I truly appreciated,” said President-elect Trump. “He is not only a brilliant negotiator, but also someone who is innately able to predict the future especially having to do with finances and economies. His help on the strangling regulations that our country is faced with will be invaluable.”

“I am proud to serve President-elect Trump as a special advisor on regulatory reform,” said Mr. Icahn. “Under President Obama, America’s business owners have been crippled by over $1 trillion in new regulations and over 750 billion hours dealing with paperwork. It’s time to break free of excessive regulation and let our entrepreneurs do what they do best: create jobs and support communities. President-elect Trump is serious about helping American families, and regulatory reform will be a critical component of making America work again.”

Mr. Icahn is a New York City native and grew up in Far Rockaway, Queens. After receiving a degree in philosophy from Princeton University in 1957, he attended medical school at New York University and then joined the Army. Carl began his career on Wall Street in 1961. In 1968, he formed Icahn & Co., and has gone on to become one of the most well-known and influential investors in America, holding substantial or controlling positions in numerous American companies over the years, including RJR Nabisco, Texaco, Philips Petroleum, Western Union, Gulf & Western, Viacom, Revlon, Time Warner, Motorola, Chesapeake Energy, Dell, Netflix, Apple, and eBay. His efforts have improved the competitiveness of American companies in a wide range of industries, including real estate, telecommunications, transportation, industrial services, oil refining and manufacturing.

Carl has been deeply involved in many charitable endeavors for years. In 2012, in recognition of Carl’s gift of $200 million, the Mount Sinai School of Medicine was renamed the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Institute of Genomics was renamed the Icahn Genomics Institute. The School of Medicine also established the Icahn Scholars Program to attract world-class physician-scientists. He also funded the Icahn Medical Institute Building at Mount Sinai Hospital and the Institute of Genomics, a genomics and multi-scale biology research program. Carl serves as a trustee on the boards of the School of Medicine and Mount Sinai Hospital.

In the realm of education, Carl established seven Icahn Charter Schools in The Bronx borough of New York City. The mission of the schools is based on the belief that all students deserve a rigorous academic program through which they will increase their capacity to learn. At Choate Rosemary Hall, a premiere boarding school located in Wallingford, Connecticut, where he previously served on the board of trustees, he endowed the Icahn Scholars Program, which has awarded a large number of scholarships to underprivileged students.

Carl has also made significant donations to the Randall’s Island Sports Foundation, where he previously served as a trustee, for the construction of Icahn Stadium, a track and field stadium located on Randall’s Island. In addition, he has served as a trustee on the board of Lincoln Center.

Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity and will not be serving as a federal employee or a Special Government Employee and will not have any specific duties.

Trump Nominates former Chairman of NYMEX and West Point Grad Vincent Viola as Secretary of the Army


December 23,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, President-elect Donald J. Trump today announced he intends to nominate former U.S. Army infantry officer and current Virtu Financial Founder and Executive Chairman Vincent “Vinnie” Viola as Secretary of the Army.

As Secretary of the Army, Viola will combine a deep background in national security affairs with an impressive track record of leading and managing high-performing teams within the military and the private sector. Viola is a West Point graduate and U.S. Army veteran. He was trained as an Airborne Ranger infantry officer and served in the 101st Airborne Division. Viola has long been engaged with national security issues even after his military service.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, Viola worked tirelessly to support the Army philanthropically in the areas of counterterrorism, cybersecurity and leadership development, including helping to found the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. He has also founded multiple high-value companies, including Virtu Financial, and chaired the New York Mercantile Exchange. Viola’s business experience makes him well positioned to help guide a Fortune 10-sized company, the U.S. Army, to accomplish its broad mission in the most innovative and efficient way possible.

“I am proud to have such an incredibly accomplished and selfless individual as Vincent Viola as our Secretary of the Army,” said President-elect Donald J. Trump. “Whether it is his distinguished military service or highly impressive track record in the world of business, Vinnie has proved throughout his life that he knows how to be a leader and deliver major results in the face of any challenge. He is a man of outstanding work ethic, integrity, and strategic vision, with an exceptional ability to motivate others. The American people, whether civilian or military, should have great confidence that Vinnie Viola has what it takes to keep America safe and oversee issues of concern to our troops in the Army.”

“It is an honor to be nominated to serve our country as President-elect Trump’s Secretary of the Army,” said Viola. “If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to provide our President with the land force he will need to accomplish any mission in support of his National Defense Strategy. A primary focus of my leadership will be ensuring that America’s soldiers have the ways and means to fight and win across the full spectrum of conflict. This great honor comes with great responsibility, and I will fight for the American people and their right to live free every day.”

Viola is living proof of the American dream. He was born and raised in an Italian immigrant family in Brooklyn, and his father worked a truck driver. Viola was inspired to join the military after witnessing his father’s service in the U.S. Army in World War II. Viola was the first member of his family to attend college, and after graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1977, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army that same year. After graduating from the Infantry Officer Basic Course and Ranger School, Viola reported to duty with the 101st Airborne Division. Viola remained a member of the U.S. Army Reserve after the completion of his active duty service. In 1983, he received his J.D. from New York Law School.

In the 1980s, Viola worked as a trader on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and also founded the first of many business ventures, including Pioneer Futures and the Independent Bank Group. After a long and influential career, Viola was appointed Chairman of NYMEX in March 2001.

Viola’s leadership of NYMEX on and after 9/11 resulted in the board of Exchange recognizing his actions with a citation that included this statement: “His heroic leadership served as a beacon to thousands of Exchange members and staff, providing us with the fortitude to resume operations and preserve the efficiency of the American economy and global energy and metals markets in the face of this great tragedy.” In 2008, Viola founded Virtu Financial, a global leader in electronic market making, and took the company public in 2015.

Viola has also been deeply involved in a number of philanthropic causes. Viola has endowed the Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. Chair in Catholic Theology at Fordham University and is a major supporter of the Catholic Leadership Institute and its mission to provide world-class leadership formation to bishops, priests and deacons. He is also the owner of the NHL’s Florida Panthers.

Viola lives in New York City with his wife Teresa. They have three adult sons.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

House Financial Services Committee Chair Issues Warning on SEC refusal to stop “midnight regulations”


December 14,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) issued the following statement concerning SEC Chair Mary Jo White’s refusal to stop “midnight regulations” in the waning days of the Obama Administration:

“The press is characterizing Chair White’s decision to try to rush through a mountain of midnight regulations as ‘defying Republicans,’ but in reality she’s defying the will of the American people and good government. Such midnight rulemaking is neither conducive to sound policy nor consistent with the principles of democratic accountability. The American people chose a new direction for our country, and the incoming Trump Administration and Congress should have the opportunity to review pending regulations and fully assess their costs and benefits. As the clock runs down on the Obama Administration, Chair White and all other regulators who may be tempted to hastily impose another pile of complicated regulations on our economy should know that Congress will scrutinize their actions and – if appropriate – overturn them.”

Mary Jo White has already announced plans to step down as chair of the powerful Securities and Exchange Commission before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.White’s term at the helm of the SEC hadn’t been scheduled to expire until June 2019.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Banks to Donald Trump: Don’t Kill Dodd-Frank



pic CEO of JP Morgan Jamie Dimon

Bankers admit they love the guaranteed bailouts, lack of competition and regulated margins of Dodd-Frank
December 10, 2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Big banks have an unexpected message for President-elect Donald Trump: Don’t trash the Dodd-Frank Act.“We’re not asking for wholesale throwing out Dodd-Frank,” J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief James Dimon said at a financial-services conference this week where he and other big-bank executives spoke, often addressing potential regulatory changes for the first time since the election.

During his presidential campaign, Republican Donald Trump said he would "get rid of" Dodd-Frank — the sweeping legislation passed in 2010 to address problems underlying the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Dodd-Frank a 2200 page monstrosity , was passed by congress like Obamacare without anyone reading the legislation , that is except for former NJ Congressmen Scott Garrett.

Dodd-Frank turned banks into utilities and did nothing to solve the ills that caused the banking crisis in 2008 ,it basically institutionalized the bad behavior that created the problem, put the bad debt in suspended animation and put taxpayers on the hook with its "too big to fail" provisions creating "Bailout Nation".Too big to fail also implies the corollary to big to really succeed.

Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan called "too big to fail" legislation a "moral hazard" , giving bankers the excuse to engage in activities that would otherwise risk their livelihoods, feeling confident in ever larger government ie taxpayer bailouts.

Some in Washington have called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, the legislation passed in 2010 that imposed new constraints on banks and created new agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A proposal that would effectively replace Dodd-Frank, by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has gained momentum since the election.

The Trump team has talked about dismantling the law, although it has yet to state clearly whether this would involve a repeal of Dodd-Frank. Bank stocks have soared about 20% since the election, partly on the belief President-elect Donald Trump in some way will lighten banks’ regulatory load.

While banks favor a paring back of regulation, they tend to think in practical terms, rather than ideologically. And their core message seems to be: Make regulation simpler and less costly but don’t return banking to the Wild West days that preceded the financial crisis.

In many ways that is understandable. Banks have spent half a dozen years and hundreds of millions of dollars to adapt to the new landscape. This has caused them to exit businesses such as proprietary trading, rejig their corporate structures to make them safer and focus more on clients’ needs. While tearing up Dodd-Frank would seem to unshackle banks, starting with a new regulatory playbook would upend their new business models and divert management.

One of the biggest concerns for banks is that things don’t get worse. “The first thing I would ask for is nothing new, no new rules,” Citigroup Inc. finance chief John Gerspach said at the conference. “If you haven’t figured out yet how all the existing rules work together, don’t put on anything else.”

Banks acknowledge benefits to the new rules, noting they have helped improve the way firms manage risks and view their businesses. U.S. bankers have also said that having been forced to hold more capital, and build it quickly after the financial crisis, made their firms far stronger than troubled European peers.

So what would the big banks like to see changed?

Stress Tests—These annual exercises conducted by the Federal Reserve have become hugely important because they govern the amount of capital banks can return to shareholders, either through buybacks or dividends.

Banks want these to be based more on objective criteria and they want to have more of a view into the testing process and the Fed’s decision-making. And they should take less time and money to comply with, bankers say.

Bill Demchak, CEO of PNC Financial Services Group Inc., said his bank could theoretically get all the benefits of the stress-testing process with “60% of the effort.” He said that to comply with the tests, “you bring the place to a grinding halt once a year.”

The Volcker Rule— Banks say they aren’t eager to get back into the business of speculating on market moves using their own balance sheets. But they want the process around the Volcker Rule to be less burdensome and administered by fewer than five agencies.

Changes in this area could “probably make it easier to make markets” and improve liquidity, likely benefiting investors and other issuers, said Mr. Dimon.

“You have active market-marking in lumber, rebar, chicken, pork, cotton; we need it in financial instruments, it’s not different,” he said. "I do think a little more liquidity could be good.”

Mr. Gerspach said Citigroup would like less paperwork. “We don’t want to do proprietary trading,” he said. “But I also would love to work with regulators to lessen the burden of proving that we’re not engaging in proprietary trading.”

Capital and Liquidity—Banks say there are so many new rules relating to so many areas of their balance sheets that they too often run the risk of working against each other. And it isn’t clear when enough capital really is enough.

Wells Fargo chief Timothy Sloan cited differences between rules about how much capital a bank must hold and the amount of liquid assets a firm has to keep on hand. The intersections of these rules, bankers argue, hampers lending.

Bankers would also like more clarity around how much capital is enough for banks. Regulators have applied various capital surcharges to the biggest banks and these can change as regulations evolve.

“It’s getting certainty around the ability to have access to your capital return once you’ve met all the hurdles and whether those hurdles move up or down because of various people’s point of view,” said Bank of America Corp. chief Brian Moynihan.

J.P. Morgan’s Mr. Dimon said that regulators’ authority should be “cut back a little bit. It should be more prescriptive in exactly what they’re trying to accomplish.”

For all that, bankers are taking a wait-and-see stance before making any big changes to their businesses. “I think the difference going into 2017 is that we do have hope,” Citigroup’s Mr. Gerspach said. “But…we can’t build a plan on hope.”

The fact that the culprits of the Financial Crisis in 2008 are now opposing the repeal of Dodd-Frank is further evidence that things need to change dramatically . The entire financial sector of the economy has been moribund under Dodd-Franks government imposed socialism . A vital and growing financial sector is paramount to an active and growing economy .

Thursday, October 27, 2016

2008 Financial Crisis Tour Now More Relevant than Ever


October 27,2016
one small voice

15 Broad , the 2008 Financial crisis tour is now more relevant than ever . In the final quarter of 2016 we have Deutsche Bank in serious trouble due to fines levied against it for misrepresenting CDO's ,collateralized debt obligations to clients when they were clearly toxic assets .

Quick summary:

$14 Billion fine by US Government. Deutsche Bank is worth approximately $15B...so this fine will kill it.

Trying to reach a settlement for a lower fine. Goldman Sachs was settled for $5B. Bank of America paid $16B, JPMorgan paid $13B.

Fine is from charges of selling toxic asset CDOs when certain people in bank knew that the stuff wasn't good.

Andrew Laun the owner of Wall Street Experience tours traded CDO's for Deutsch Bank. His trading desk told clients to short this stuff. See "The Big Short" if you haven't. Ryan Gosling plays Andrew Laun's boss Greg Lippmann...

Book the 2008 Financial Crisis Tour now : https://www.thewallstreetexperience.com/

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Rep.Scott Garrett : The CFPB has oversized influence on the U.S. economy because it alone decides which financial products you are allowed to buy


October 18,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, after a federal appeals court delivered a strong rebuke to the government’s new “consumer-finance watchdog”, declaring the agency’s unusual independence to be unconstitutional, and ordering its powers be curbed. Rep. Scott Garrett gave us his take on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) . In an email Garret spelled out the issues:

“This week, a federal court found that one of the most secretive Washington bureaucracies violates the constitutionally-mandated system of checks and balances designed to protect Americans from abuses of government authority. The court decided that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional because of its toxic combination of immense power and little accountability. As Chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee that is responsible for making sure our country has competitive and robust capital markets, I have worked with my colleagues on solutions to restructure the CFPB in a way that protects consumers while holding Washington accountable to We the People. The CFPB has oversized influence on the U.S. economy because it alone decides which financial products you are allowed to buy. Everything from mortgages, to car loans, to retirement savings, the CFPB’s current structure allows it to unilaterally infringe on the economic choices of every American.

With a single, politically appointed head and its ability to bypass Congress to get funding, the CFPB acts as a rogue federal bureaucracy. And while the CFPB has an important mission, it’s unacceptable to allow a single government agency to control how Americans can spend their own money.

In fact, in his decision on this case, Judge Brett Kavanaugh said, “Other than the President, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power.” As someone who has been an outspoken critic of this agency’s unchecked power, I completely agree.

To implement consumer protections that actually put people and families first, a complete re-organization of this bureaucracy is needed. I recently supported the Financial CHOICE Act, a bill that would transform the CFPB into a bipartisan, five-member commission which is subject to Congressional oversight and appropriations, just like other independent Washington agencies. This is the only way to ensure that Washington will actually do its job instead of acting in its own self-interest.

This ruling that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional is a win for transparency, and for the checks and balances that protect American families from abuses by overzealous government bureaucrats. While stories like this don’t always make front page news, I feel it’s my responsibility to pass along information about my work and my priorities in Congress to the people of New Jersey’s Fifth District.”

http://theridgewoodblog.net/rep-scott-garrett-the-cfpb-has-oversized-influence-on-the-u-s-economy-because-it-alone-decides-which-financial-products-you-are-allowed-to-buy/

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Federal court rules the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional


“All government bureaucracies should be accountable to hardworking taxpayers”

October 11,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) released the following statement on today’s federal court ruling that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional:

“This is a good day for democracy, economic freedom, due process and the Constitution. The second highest court in the land has vindicated what House Republicans have said all along, that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional.

“By design the CFPB is arguably the most powerful and least accountable Washington bureaucracy in American history, and it shows. The Bureau has infringed on the economic freedoms of consumers, limited their financial choices, increased their costs, and failed to hold managers accountable for widespread discrimination and abuse of its own employees. This must change. The CFPB has an important mission. Properly designed and led, it is capable of great good. But the Bureau’s bizarre and defective structure allows it to evade the time-tested checks and balances that are necessary to hold it or any other government bureaucracy accountable. Our Constitution requires these checks and balances to protect our God-given liberties from government abuse. It is astonishing that the Democrats who voted for the Dodd-Frank Act so casually disregarded their constitutional obligations to the American people. It’s also astonishing that President Obama illegally bypassed the Senate by appointing Richard Cordray to serve as the Bureau’s Director. It is time to restore the rule of law and Constitutional governance to this nation. While I welcome today’s decision, it’s absurd that a judicial opinion was necessary.

“The Financial CHOICE Act, approved by our committee last month, solves the constitutional defect identified by the court today. The Financial CHOICE Act replaces the current unaccountable single director with a bipartisan, five-member commission – which is how virtually every independent regulatory agency, including those responsible for consumer and investor protection, currently operates.

“Republican efforts in the Financial CHOICE Act to reform the Bureau are and have always been grounded in the fundamental belief that all government bureaucracies should be accountable to hardworking taxpayers, especially those bureaucracies like the CFPB that can spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year with no oversight or control from Congress or the executive branch; employ an army federal employees; and have a direct impact on the personal finances of virtually every American citizen.”

http://theridgewoodblog.net/federal-court-rules-the-structure-of-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-cfpb-is-unconstitutional/

Monday, October 10, 2016

Wikileaks Releases Email Transcripts from Hillary Clinton, Goldman Sachs Speeches

October 09,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, this week Wikileaks began released more Clinton emails most of which from transcripts of Hillary Clinton Speeches at various Wall Street Firms including Goldman Sachs .

Here are a few notable quotes : *CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH*

*Hillary Clinton: “I’m Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I’ve Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.”*

“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn’t believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

*Clinton: “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS*

*Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.”*

“That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ‘09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn’t that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*Clinton: “Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.” *

“Now, it’s important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market’s transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there’s wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

*CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET*

*Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” *

“Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that’s increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

*Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.”*

“I mean, it’s still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there’s so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it’s in everybody’s interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING*

*Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. *

“Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it’s also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.”*

“So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you’re out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it’s something — I would like — you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it’s very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it’s so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that’s basically what we’re in for. So we’re kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it’s even harder now.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

*CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR*

*Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole.*

In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in ‘06, ‘07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn’t get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]

*Clinton On Wall Street: “I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People Who Do It.”

*“Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do — I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ‘08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE*

*Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.*

“SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small —

MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

*CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE*

*Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be “Moderate.” *

“URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, long, definitely.

URSULA BURNS: Republicans?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the time, short.

URSULA BURNS: Okay. We’ll go back to questions.

SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties.

URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14]

*Clinton: “Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth. It’s A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If You Don’t Believe That You’re Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side.”*

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we’re acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don’t believe that you’re going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you’ve got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that’s the sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what’s happened. We are slowly returning to growth. It’s not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we’re certainly better off than our European friends, and we’re beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the ‘08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

*Clinton: “The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have Growth.”*

CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

*CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES*

*Clinton: “At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across The U.S. Government.”*

CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they’re trying to find out not just about what we do in our government. They’re trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So it’s not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin’s authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean, really, I don’t know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14]

*Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most — Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry.” *

“I mean, let’s face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most — or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn’t have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

*Hillary Clinton: “We Couldn’t Take Our Computers, We Couldn’t Take Our Personal Devices” Off The Plane In China And Russia. *

“I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we’re the only people in the world trying to figure out what’s going on. I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn’t take our computers, we couldn’t take our personal devices, we couldn’t take anything off the plane because they’re so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we’d leave them on the plane.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

*Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices.”*

“You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn’t even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you’re thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can’t expect people to change if I don’t try to model it and lead it.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

*Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can’t Bring Your Phone And Computer When Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A Special Box. *

“And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can’t bring your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes. Now, we didn’t do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It’s what’s the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it. We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

*Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In Technology, Saying “People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of Security Issues.” *

“Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about the credit market, our personnel policies haven’t kept up with the changes necessary in government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting—when I got to the State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20th Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and ‘10.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

*CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE*

*Clinton: “So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…” *

“So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that’s what I would like to see us do.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

*Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade.

*“Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it’s not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]

*CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER*

*Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times.” *

“If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don’t have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]

*Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.*

“You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we’ve been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn’t touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn’t go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband’s administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama’s legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we’ve done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don’t provide it, or don’t provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We’ve made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn’t have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we’re going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we’re really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn’t, I don’t think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we’re in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I’m hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you’re going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what’s succeeding, fix what isn’t, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]

Sunday, October 02, 2016

lots to talk about , is Deutsche Bank another Lehman , bailouts and bail-ins


Is Hillary Clinton Hinting at Riding to the Rescue of Angela Merkel With a US Sponsored Tax payer Bailout?


October 2,2016 the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, just days after Hillary Clinton trolled two White House opponents with a single response, according to the main stream media ,”dinging Gary Johnson and Donald Trump by naming Angela Merkel as her favorite world leader.”

The Ridgewood blog found it more interesting the 30 years in politics and this is who Hillary Clinton singled voluntarily out without being asked .

Angela Merkel could use some friends about now , like Clinton’s immigration proposal Merkel has continued to defend her decision to admit more than a million migrants to Germany last year has left her increasingly isolated from other leaders coping with anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment in their electorates, especially after terrorist attacks.

Worse yet ,Merkel also currently finds her self in “deep do do” as fears of a Deutsche Bank collapse have rattled financial markets across the globe. Under capitalized Deutsche Bank shares were hit first by a demand for up to $14 billion from the U.S. Department of Justice for mis-selling mortgage-backed securities, then a reported Berlin lead rescue plan seemed tenuous at best.

In Italy six current and former managers of Deutsche Bank, including Michele Faissola, Michele Foresti and Ivor Dunbar, were charged in Milan for colluding to falsify the accounts of Italy’s third-biggest bank, Monte Paschi (which itself is so insolvent it is currently scrambling to finalize a private sector bailout) and manipulate the market. Two former executives at Nomura Holdings Inc. and five at Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena were also charged.

On September 24th Chancellor Angela Merkel ruled out any state assistance for Deutsche Bank AG in the year heading into the national election in September 2017, a magazine called Focus magazine reported.

So does this imply that Deutsche Bank’s likely recapitalization effort while asking German Tax Payer Bailout or German Bank Depositor Bail-in? Let face it ,Deutsche Bank is going to need some money ASAP. Remember in a concerted effort to reduce or potentially eliminate the risk of taxpayer-funded bail-outs of European banks, the EU implemented a new “bail-in” regime beginning on January 1, 2016.

Or perhaps her new friend Hillary Clinton will come to the rescue with some kind of a US sponsored US taxpayer subsidized bailout?

It is not so far fetched with the Obama Administration setting the precedent with the Iranian payoff earlier this year.

http://theridgewoodblog.net/is-hillary-clinton-hinting-at-riding-to-the-rescue-of-angela-merkel-with-a-us-sponsored-tax-payer-bailout/

Saturday, October 01, 2016

Garrett Hammers Fed Chairwoman on Political Conflicts of Interest


September 30,2016 the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, During a congressional hearing on Wednesday Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) questioned Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen about alleged conflicts of interest on the board. The congressman asked specifically about Fed governor Lael Brainard and her donations and connections to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s defense of the central bank as non-partisan came under attack on Wednesday, as a Republican congressman cornered her on whether a key policy maker would have a conflict of interest in discussing a post in the next U.S. president’s administration.


Fed Governor Lael Brainard has donated to Clinton’s campaign and is widely viewed as a potential Clinton pick for Treasury secretary. Yellen hesitated and then demurred when Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey asked whether Brainard would have a conflict of interest if she were indeed in talks with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign about a position

Friday, September 23, 2016

Garrett Blasts Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Over the Different set of rules for Government Officials for lavish Wall Street Pay Packages


September 23,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Rep. Scott Garrett, (NJ-05) Chairman of the subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises,  delivered the following opening remarks at Financial Services Committee hearing entitled, “The Annual Report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council” featuring Treasury Secretary Jack Lew:

Congressman Scott Garrett’s opening remarks as prepared for delivery:

Mr. Secretary, it’s great to see you again.  I understand you were a tough man to nail down to testify today – I guess I would be too if my job was defending FSOC

So we’re starting to get to that point in this Administration’s tenure where people inevitably start to talk about the “legacy” it will leave behind

Unfortunately, when it comes to FSOC, the Obama Administration’s legacy will be remembered as one of secrecy, obfuscation, and a continued refusal to answer questions or provide transparency to either Congress or the American public

Thankfully, it’s not just us in the legislative branch that have taken notice

The recent court decision invalidating the designation of MetLife is a reminder to all of us we live in a system governed by the rule of law and not the rule of bureaucrats. 

I hope the Treasury Secretary understands this as well, and I look forward to his answers before our Committee today.


Rep. Scott Garrett had a lively interaction with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew at yesterday's Financial Services Committee oversight hearing. Garrett addressed Lew's scandal ridden record at Citibank directly causing the layoff of over 50,000 employees requiring a taxpayer bailout.

When the dust settled, we learned that as usual there are a different set of rules and standards for high-ranking government officials--like Secretary Lew--when it comes to lavish Wall Street pay packages.

http://theridgewoodblog.net/garrett-blasts-treasury-secretary-jack-lew-over-the-different-set-of-rules-for-government-officials-for-lavish-wall-street-pay-packages/

Wednesday, September 21, 2016



"the CHOICE Act offers us a way out by pointing us towards a system that will allow the market to determine the risk of a financial institution, and make it unlikely that taxpayers will ever be called on again to bail out Wall Street and the bad decisions of regulators who oversee it" Rep. Scott Garrett CD5

Norbert Michel / @norbertjmichel / September 20, 2016

On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the House Financial Services Committee passed the Financial CHOICE Act. Among other needed financial reforms, the bill would make taxpayer-funded bailouts of big banks less likely and ease regulations that hurt community banks.

It’s hardly a surprise that the vote (30–26) was largely along party lines, but some of the anti-CHOICE Act rhetoric was disturbing. Just as with the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, it appears that fear-mongering and special interest lobbying will prevent real financial reforms from even being debated.

Only one of the bill’s 11 sections deals with reform of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but opponents are doing their best to tie this entire debate to the CFPB and Wells Fargo. In the process, they’re presenting Americans with a false choice: leave the CFPB alone and remain safe, or reform the CFPB and drown in fraud.

Ranking member Maxine Waters, D-Calif., proclaimed:

We need to look no further than just last week to see why we need a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which used its authorities under Dodd-Frank to uncover a massive scheme under which millions of consumer accounts at Wells Fargo were fraudulently opened, with the bulk of this fraud perpetrated in my hometown of Los Angeles.

One serious problem with this logic is that the fraud occurred just prior to 2014, almost two years after the CFPB was up and running. And the CFPB didn’t uncover it.

If the CFPB is so vital for fraud protection, what happened?

But what good is logic when the objective is to scare everyone into believing Dodd-Frank and the CFPB make us safer? Fear-mongering is a tried and true Washington tactic, especially when it comes to financial markets.

And it’s not just politicians who use fear-mongering. Special interest groups use the same ploy, and the retail trade associations’ opposition to the CHOICE Act’s repealing of the so-called Durbin Amendment is the perfect example.

The Durbin Amendment, named after Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, imposed a price cap on the debit card interchange (“swipe”) fees that banks charge for using their cards. Supposedly, retailers everywhere were going to pass these savings on to their consumers.

As was easily predicted, consumers haven’t saved at all. Even Barney Frank admits that consumers didn’t see any benefit from the price cap.

Instead, retailers have benefited from the lower fees without lowering their customers’ prices. Worse, consumers have lost out on low-cost banking services because banks raised other fees to compensate for their lost revenue.

Need more evidence?

It’s not the consumers clamoring for the House to leave price controls in place. It is business and retail trade associations, such as the National Grocers Association, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, and the National Restaurant Association.

There’s no doubt that these groups’ members have a difficult time running a profitable business, but so does everyone. Instead of pushing back on the CHOICE Act over one tiny section—one that would benefit millions of consumers—these groups should push for large-scale relief of the regulations that make it so difficult for their members to earn money.

Supporting the types of reforms in the CHOICE Act would be a great place to start.

http://theridgewoodblog.net/opponents-of-choice-act-arent-interested-in-protecting-consumers/

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

House Committee Approves Garrett Promoted Financial CHOICE Act to end Corporate Bailouts



September 14,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood bog

Washington DC, Legislation to end bailouts for big banks, toughen penalties for wrongdoing on Wall Street, promote economic growth, and provide desperately needed regulatory relief for small community banks and credit unions passed the House Financial Services Committee 30-26 today.

The legislation – the Financial CHOICE Act – ends the Dodd-Frank Act’s taxpayer-funded bailouts of large financial institutions; relieves banks that elect to be strongly capitalized from growth-strangling regulation that slows the economy and harms consumers; imposes tougher penalties on those who commit financial fraud; and demands greater accountability from Washington regulators.

“Democrats just voted against a bill that increases penalties against those who commit financial fraud. They just voted against a bill that ends taxpayer-funded bailouts, and they just voted against legislation that provides relief from Washington’s crushing regulatory burden for small banks, credit unions and consumers,” said Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the sponsor of the bill.

“The bill holds Wall Street accountable with the toughest, strongest, strictest penalties ever – far greater than those in Dodd-Frank. And as recent headlines attest, obviously stronger penalties are needed. It requires banks to be well capitalized to prevent another financial crisis and puts in place the toughest penalties in history to protect consumers from fraud and deception.

“The Financial CHOICE Act will help grow the economy for all Americans, not just those at the top. It promotes strong and transparent markets to revitalize job creation in our poorest communities and ensures every American has the opportunity to achieve financial independence, no matter where they start out in life.”

The Financial CHOICE Act, which stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs, received strong support from community banks and credit unions, small business groups and conservative organizations. Large financial institutions did not offer their support for the bill.

Democrats on the Committee – despite having spent months criticizing the Financial CHOICE Act – refused to offer a single amendment to the bill.

For more information on the Financial CHOICE Act, visit www.financialservices.house.gov/choice/.

Organizations offering praise for the Financial CHOICE Act include the following:

“The [Financial CHOICE Act] would provide meaningful regulatory relief to help community banks foster economic and job growth in their local communities.” — Independent Community Bankers of America

“This bill provides significant regulatory relief essential to restoring economic growth. Republican members of Congress have repeatedly promised to get rid of Dodd-Frank and stop taxpayer funded bailouts. Now they have the opportunity to fulfill that promise by bringing the Financial Choice Act to a vote in the House and Senate, and sending the bill to the President’s desk.” — Heritage Action

“Chairman Hensarling’s CHOICE Act would be a win for Main Street consumers, workers and small businesses. Since Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, access to free-checking has decreased while lobbyists’ importance has increased. The CHOICE Act helps reverse this trend.” — Main Street Growth Project

“Americans for Prosperity applauds your leadership in reining in the overbearing financial regulations that threaten growth and threaten consumer financial stability. Repealing and replacing the failed policies established in the Dodd-Frank Act will mean that Americans will have greater access to capital, which will lead to greater job growth, personal wealth, and overall economic prosperity. We are proud to support the CHOICE Act, and we urge your colleagues to support it.” — Americans for Prosperity

“….[the Financial CHOICE Act] is precisely the right combination to get the American economy moving again. The CHOICE Act offers sensible regulatory relief for qualifying institutions, protects the American taxpayer and consumer from another Wall Street meltdown, and holds federal financial regulatory agencies accountable.” — Independent Bankers Association of Texas

“….several components of this legislation target reforms specifically to facilitate investment in small business. The inclusion of these provisions and others will provide regulatory relief and modernization that will allow the private sector to fuel economic growth in our 21st century economy.” — Small Business Investor Alliance

“This is an important bill that will truly reform rules governing the financial system, encourage innovation across the system, vastly improve access to capital for entrepreneurs and small businesses, and transform a regulatory structure that lacks accountability, is too secretive, and ignores its responsibilities concerning small businesses.” — Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

“We greatly appreciate the Chairman’s efforts in Title III of the bill to reform the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). This title will help to ensure the Bureau serves as a non-partisan regulator that operates within the framework of the law by giving Congress more oversight authority, taking into account the opinions of all stakeholders, and properly weighing the impact its regulations have on the availability of credit.” — Consumer Bankers Association

“NAR is pleased that the FCA [Financial CHOICE Act] includes provisions that will enhance transparency, accountability and fairness in our financial system. As a result, the FCA will help expand financial product choice and promote economic opportunity. These provisions are an important step towards making property ownership a reality for hardworking Americans and U.S. businesses.” – National Association of Realtors

“If we want the economy to improve — if we want to give all Americans the chance to prosper again — we need to put an end to Washington’s destructive regulatory agenda once and for all. Thankfully, an increasing number of elected officials in Washington are fighting against the harmful effects and unintended consequences of these onerous regulations. Leading the fight in Congress has been House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who recently outlined a comprehensive plan to turbocharge the American economy. His new legislation, The Financial CHOICE Act, aims to curb regulations to create opportunity and choice for investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs nationwide.” — Conservative Coalition Letter of Support

“If signed into law, the bill would end the era of too big to fail, and would move banking and financial decisions away from Beltway and back to Main Street. This bill is balanced, meets key conservative criteria, and should continue to move through the House to final passage.” — FreedomWorks

“….[the Financial CHOICE Act] would begin the process of implementing sensible, necessary reforms to the U.S. financial system. That system has been saddled with an ineffective regulatory structure and an array of conflicting legislative and regulatory requirements that, individually or collectively, constrain growth. The Chamber believes the Financial Choice Act is a positive first step for unlocking the capital markets to better facilitate the financing of America’s economic growth and job creation.” — U.S. Chamber of Commerce

“….the CHOICE Act offers a strong alternative to Dodd-Frank and the regulatory morass it created. Rather than creating a flurry of complex rules in response to the financial crisis, Congress should have mandated higher capital requirements for financial institutions. That is why NTU is enthusiastic about the CHOICE Act’s “off ramp” from the bulk of the current Dodd Frank regulatory regime.” — National Taxpayers Union

“….the CHOICE Act and the substantial regulatory relief it provides…will generate meaningful economic and job growth in our communities.” — Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America

“….[the Financial CHOICE Act] address[es] the challenging credit conditions that home builders and home buyers continue to experience as a result of an overly zealous regulatory response to the financial crisis. NAHB appreciates your efforts to initiate regulatory reform to support a more robust recovery.” — National Association of Home Builders

“….it is vital that we take heed of any policy that claims to “fix” the voluntary actions of consumers. Price controls go against everything we stand for as a country and do nothing but redistribute wealth, damaging the lives of hardworking Americans. The first step forward is reform. The Financial CHOICE Act is that first step.” — Red State

“….the Financial Choice Act if passed will restore competition in the marketplace by removing arbitrary government price caps. Additionally, it will allow banks the ability to recoup the money they spend on fraud protection from the retailers that reap the benefit of the use of debit cards. Consumers will once again have affordable access to basic banking services, and small businesses will have the freedom to negotiate processing fees that make sense based on the type of goods they sell. In short, all true conservatives in Congress should rally behind Neugebauer and Hensarling’s bill, because it will cut back on big government red tape and allow the free market to thrive again.” — Liberty Unyielding

http://theridgewoodblog.net/house-committee-approves-garrett-promoted-financial-choice-act-to-end-corporate-bailouts/