Obama confident his proposed bank fee will become law

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- President Barack Obama said Saturday that he's determined his proposal to require banks repay taxpayers for financial-crisis aid through a special 10-year fee will become law.




"We're not going to let Wall Street take the money and run. We're going to pass this fee into law. And I'm going to continue to work with Congress on common-sense financial reforms to protect people and the economy from the kind of costly and painful crisis we've just been through," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.



The "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" proposed by Obama Thursday would total at least $90 billion over 10 years. The fee would be charged to financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. The assessment would remain in place for at least 10 years, or until all losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP were repaid. Ten firms will pay 60% of the tax. Read more about the proposed fee.



"Those who oppose this fee say the banks can't afford to pay back the American people without passing on the costs to their shareholders and customers. But that's hard to believe when there are reports that Wall Street is going to hand out more money in bonuses and compensation just this year than the cost of this fee over the next ten years," Obama said.



"If the big financial firms can afford massive bonuses, they can afford to pay back the American people," he said. "After a very tough two years, after a crisis that has caused so much havoc, if there is one lesson that we can learn, it's this: we cannot return to business as usual."

Source:marketwatch.com/

Kelly McParland: Barak Obama's 'Don't mess with the President' fee

Have you seen this picture of the wacko sculpture in Vancouver, the giant head of Lenin with a teenie-weenie naked Mao on its hairless dome, teetering along like a tightrope-walker? For some reason it made me think of Jim Flaherty.




I know, that's weird, but what can you do? The reason they call it the subconscious is because it's beavering away down there where you can't see it, and then things like this pop up.



Maybe it's because, like the teenie-weenie Mao figure, the Finance Minister doesn't seem to be completely in control of things at the moment, especially when it comes to bank taxes and the aftermath of the recession (assuming this is indeed the aftermath, and no just some cunning cul-de-sac along the way.)



I was thinking about bank taxes because introducing them is what President Obama has been up to. He doesn't call them taxes, mind, but a "financial crisis responsibility fee." I love that term. Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee. It's like, whenever they brought a U.S. body home from Iraq, they could have called it a "Wrong Call on the War Oopsie". Just to take the edge off.



The FCRF is President Obama showing New York's banking barons he can play silly games just as well as they can. Those smart-asses on Wall Street want to take his trillions, shore up their bottom line, then turn around and award themselves mega-bonuses in reward for their financial genius, making Obama look stupid in the process? They want to skip out when he invites them to a meeting in Washington, claiming there's a bit of the fog at the airport? Fine -- if he can't tax away their bonuses, he'll tax the whole damn bank. And then he'll call it the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, just to make the point -- even if not entirely accurate -- that the fat cats with the bonuses are the ones who caused it all. Let's see them explain that to their boards: "But guys, I needed the money -- my crystal office toilet has a flaw in it."



Obama was just following up on a precedent set by the British government, which concluded that the way to haul its own economy out of the dumpster was to return to the taxation protocols on the 1960s, when the governbment took 95% or so from anyone stupid enough to actually go to work and generate some income. Remember the lyrics from the Beatles song?:



Should five per cent appear too small,

Be thankful I don't take it all.

'Cause I'm the taxman,

Yeah, I'm the taxman.



(if you drive a car, car;) - I'll tax the street;

(if you try to sit, sit;) - I'll tax your seat;

(if you get too cold, cold;) - I'll tax the heat;

(if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.



What it got Britain last time around was a collapsed economy and, ultimately, Margaret Thatcher. Apparently Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government has no institutional memory: It announced an immediate 50-percent tax on bonuses of more than 25,000 pounds (about $42,000), on top of regular income taxes.



It's supposed to be a one-time tax, but so was income tax when it was introduced 90 years ago. According to the New York Times, the tax (Brown didn't have the wit to call it a financial crisis responsibility fee) "represents the most direct attack on bank bonuses anywhere in the world. All banks in Britain - including the London-based subsidiaries of foreign banks - will be affected, whether they took government bailout funds or not."



Which brings us, in a roundabout fashion, back to Mr. Flaherty. Britain is introducing new taxes to deal with its deficit. The U.S. is introducing new taxes to deal with its deficit. Mr. Flaherty -- the little Mao on the tightrope -- says there's no way he's introducing new taxes to deal with the deficit. Nope, not a chance. Ain't gonna do it. Can't make me. Nya-nya-nya-nya -- see, I have my fingers in my ears.



Well, maybe. But no one except Mr. Flaherty and his boss Stephen Harper seem to believe the economy can just magically grow it's way back to good health. As Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, pointed out this week, Canada's population is aging and the boomers are going to be sucking more money out of the economy than they're pumping in. How are they supposed to generate all that extra economic activity, by invest their pension cheques in R&D? Can't see that myself.



The soundings from Ottawa suggest Mr. Harper plans to squeeze spending til it squeals for mercy, before he allows any wild talk about tax hikes. But the squealing starts early in this burg. Every think tank, every women's action group, every subsidized Toronto street performer thinks that curtailing their funds is another indication the barbarians have breached Canada's defences and seized control of the capital. And they make a lot of noise about it.



So Mr. Flaherty may think he can tip-toe along the tightrope forever, saving himself from joining Mr. Obama and Mr. Brown in taxland, but it's a perilous trick, and most of the crowd are betting he can't pull it off.



National Post

Source:network.nationalpost.com/







Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/17/the-daring-young-finance-minister-on-the-flying-trapese.aspx#ixzz0d6bDqGn4

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Obama under pressure to sack intelligence chiefs

Pressure was growing on President Barack Obama to shake up the US intelligence community with dismissals in the wake of not one but two humiliating and highly damaging debacles – the thwarted Christmas Day bombing and the slaughter in Afghanistan of seven CIA officers by an informant who was in fact a double agent.


Mr Obama's statement on Tuesday expressing his anger at the failure of the intelligence community to "connect the dots" to disrupt the Christmas airliner incident has yet to quell criticism of how it was mishandled. So far he has not sought any resignations, but some in Washington are casting their eyes toward the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, who claimed immediately afterwards that security arrangements had "worked".

The damage caused by the suicide bombing at the CIA base in Afghanistan a week ago was still being assessed with reports emerging that the perpetrator, a Jordanian doctor, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, had been seen by his US handlers as offering them the best chance they had had in years to properly infiltrate the top command in al-Qa'ida. His self-detonation showed how wrong they were.

The widow of al-Balawi was yesterday quoted in the Turkish media saying that her dead husband considered the US his adversary but that she was shocked when she heard he had blown himself up on 30 December. Speaking to CNN-Turk television, Defne Bayrak expressed doubt that he had worked for the CIA or the Jordanian intelligence service, which took the lead in allegedly "turning" him to work against the US.

The suicide attack highlighted how thin the straws appear to be for the CIA as it grasps for anything that may lead to the al-Qa'ida leadership. "This was one of the agency's most promising efforts", a senior intelligence officer told The New York Times in reference to the al-Balawi operation. "He had provided information that checked out, about people in al-Qa'ida."

The White House has promised to publish reviews of security procedures to protect air travellers before the end of this week. But some analysts believe that Mr Obama will have to set heads rolling. Representative Peter King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, charged in a television interview: "There's a disconnect between intensity of [Obama's] rhetoric and what he proposes... If the situation is as bad as the President says it was... someone will have to go."

"The agencies that have failed security big-time are the Secret Service and TSA [Transport Security Agency]," Ed Rollins, the veteran Republican consultant, wrote yesterday. "The person in charge of both is Janet Napolitano. Fire her and convince us standing in long lines at airports is worth the price."

She received unexpected support last night from Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security chief for George Bush. "The problem doesn't lie with her... it lies with the intelligence fusion process and the people responsible for seizing on the threat information and making sure it was followed through."

Source:independent.co.uk/

Obama's A Wimp, Even to a Yellow Dog Dem Like Me

I am a 76-year-old yellow dog Democrat, with a picture of Franklin Delano Roosevelt still prominently displayed in my bedroom. And yes, I would likely vote for a yellow dog if the dog were running on the Democratic ticket against any of today's Republicans. To me, the current crop of Republicans represent, not simply the party of no, but the party of death, as shown in their unanimous opposition to health care reform.

They also represent the party of economic depression, as they did in the 1930s, as evidenced today by their opposition to the original economic stimulus, and additional, much-needed economic pump priming. Furthermore, their opposition to virtually anything President Obama proposes shows that they have put their selfish political fortunes way ahead of the good of the country. It is entirely accurate to say that Republicans hate America. And for this they should be severely punished.

Given my feelings, you may wonder why I am not more enthusiastic about the president one year into his term. After all, isn't he on the brink of a historic health reform? One that will bring necessary care to millions more people, that will end insurance companies' refusal to insure people with pre-existing conditions and halt caps on coverage?

Yes, if health reform becomes law I will applaud. But, frankly, most of my enthusiasm has long since fizzled out. I feel like I'm holding a balloon that has burst. Maybe it's because the president made devil's bargains with big pharma and other major "stakeholders," (not, of course, including the public). Pharma's deal is representative. The drug companies promised Obama $80 billion in lower drug costs over 10 years. Since they earn $300 billion in profits EVERY year, that wasn't much of a bargain. Then, to add insult to injury, they raised prices 10 per cent. And stopped reimportation of drugs from Canada. Other "stakeholders" made similar good deals for themselves. The insurance companies, not satisfied with the prospect of millions of new customers, many subsidized by taxpayers, managed to retain their anti-trust exemption, among other advantages. As for other major "stakeholders," I find doctors and hospitals less venal and more deserving.

I have been on Medicare for more than 10 years, a wonderful system. Ideally, health insurance reform would have meant Medicare for everybody. That would have been great, but I recognize that it never was feasible, given the ownership of our government by big business.

Until Obama talked it up, I'd never heard of the public option. He managed to convince me of its importance, assuring me as late as last July 18 that since there is little competition in the health insurance business, a public option was necessary to provide more "to keep the insurance companies honest." He said he wouldn't sign any bill that didn't include it. But hardly had Obama pledged himself to the public option than he began backing away from it, so we're not going to have one. Nor a buy-in to Medicare for people 55 and over, as was briefly proposed as a substitute.

On another crucial matter, a big new program to provide jobs and bring down our 10 per cent unemployment, Obama has been lackadaisical. Health reform has put job creation in the background. After health care reform is passed, if it is, Obama will finally turn his attention to this matter, which never should have been delayed. Nor should a related economic matter, the reregulation of Wall Street. One of my favorite bloggers, Kevin Drum, has an article in Mother Jones that says, in effect, that the chances for serious, necessary reregulation are already nil, because the presidency and both parties in Congress are owned lock and stock by Wall Street, which far outdoes every other industry in financing elections, and has little trouble getting what it pays for. So we can look forward to more bubbles and more Bush-like Depressions. Only Obama may be responsible for the next one. As for other matters, I still don't see an end to our two endless wars, or to Guantanamo, rendition or warrantless wiretapping.

As you can tell, after a year of Obama, I'm for him, but not with any real enthusiasm. Nice fella. Good talker. But I'm afraid he's deserving of a descriptive word once applied to the first George Bush. Obama is a wimp. I was always concerned about his lack of experience, and the fact that he was almost entirely untested. I'd have preferred Hillary. She may not have won the Nobel Prize, but she knew from bitter experience who the political enemy was and how to fight them.

I recognize that election of a Republican Congress and/or president would be a total disaster for this country. I will certainly continue to vote for Obama and other Democrats, but I doubt I'll contribute to or work for any. I hope Obama will get through as much of his program as possible this year. Because next year I doubt he'll have the sixty votes in the Senate necessary even to have a chance of legislative success. Mr. President, Good Night and Good Luck.


Source:huffingtonpost.com/

Nancy Pelosi takes swipe at President Obama's campaign promises

Nancy Pelosi has represented California's Eighth District in the House of Representatives since 1987. The Eighth District includes most of the City of San Francisco including Golden Gate Park, Fisherman's Wharf and Chinatown. In 2002, Namcy Pelosi was elected Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives. She was the first woman in American history to lead a major political party in the US. On January 4, 2007, Pelosi was elected Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
Source: forbestadvice.com







House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, piqued with White House pressure to accept the Senate health reform bill, threw a rare rhetorical elbow at President Barack Obama Tuesday, questioning his commitment to his 2008 campaign promises.


A leadership aide said it was no accident.


Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised.


A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.


“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.


People familiar with Pelosi's thinking wasted little time in explaining precisely what she meant by a “number of things” – saying it reflected weeks of simmering tension on health care between two Democratic power players who have functioned largely in lock-step during Obama’s first year in office.


Senior House Democratic leadership aides say Pelosi was pointedly referring to Obama’s ’08 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, which she interprets to include a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that offer lavish benefit packages to many union members.


The House aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Pelosi has been miffed with Obama’s tilt toward the Senate plan and his expectation the House will simply go along with the Senate bill out of political necessity.


“She’s setting up for the conference,” said a leadership staffer. “It’s strategic. She’s staking out her territory.”


It wasn't the first time she's done so.


Pelosi has repeatedly expressed her frustrations about the inclusion of the Cadillac tax in the Senate bill and has sparred with Obama about the issue during face-to-face meetings. Her hope now, House aides say, is to get the administration to accept a tax that starts on family plans worth $28,000 — $7,000 more than threshold favored by Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).


The White House has shown a clear preference for the Senate product in the months-long, bifurcated health care debate. And Reid holds the two best trump cards in the form of Sens. Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, two wavering moderates who have already threatened to vote against a final compromise if it deviates significantly from legislation the Senate passed late last year.


That means the speaker needs to play her cards wisely – even if it means directing some well-timed fire at the president.

All year, liberal Democrats have been clamoring for Obama to get more involved in the health care negotiations, hoping he would weigh in to push their top priority - the public option. The president is now promising to take a much more active role in these final negotiations - his staff will convene a meeting with House and Senate aides as early as Wednesday to start laying the groundwork for the talks. But that might not be a good thing for the speaker or her liberal colleagues because of the White House preference for the Senate bill.


During a White House meeting Tuesday, Obama told the speaker and other congressional leaders that he would like to see them approve a final bill by his State of the Union address, set for late January or early February. Earlier in the day, House Democrats weren't convinced they could meet that deadline - and seemed ambivalent about whether they even wanted to try.

Source:politico.com/

A year in, Obama is being forced to face the threat of terrorism, and the results aren't too pretty

Most of us knew this point would come. We knew that eventually, President Obama and his administration would come face-to-face with something that candidates often need not acknowledge, but something that Presidents dare not ignore: reality.

For almost two years, then-candidate Barack Obama crisscrossed the nation spreading his message of "hope" and "change." It got him elected President.

As he and his administration approach their one-year mark, they are finding that campaign rhetoric differs greatly from today's reality.

For example, take the administration's mind-set and commitment in dealing with the threats posed to our homeland by the Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists who attacked us in 2001 and who have claimed responsibility for the unsuccessful attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

Immediately following the Flight 253 incident, which could have killed hundreds, the President did not address the American people. Vice President Biden did not. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not. No one did. It was not until two days later that the first administration official — Napolitano — spoke publicly about this near-Christmas Day massacre.

Within the past week, I believe that Obama has recognized the reality that the American people want leadership — and need reassurance — during times like this. They need to know that their government is vigilant in fulfilling its most important mission, which is protecting the lives of Americans.

Last week, after I alerted the President of this reality, some Democrats actually criticized me for not being critical of President W. Bush after the December 2001 terror attempt by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid.

The criticism is totally unwarranted because Bush and his administration needed no such reality check. The horrific attacks of 9/11 were still fresh in the minds of all Americans. Human remains were still being recovered from Ground Zero. Virtually every time Bush spoke, he reminded us of the ongoing terror threat and war on terror. Agree with him or not, no one had any doubt where Bush stood. In today's instance, eight years removed from 9/11, the American people wanted and needed to hear from their new commander in chief or a senior administration official.

And to be honest, we have not heard Obama or his administration discuss the still-ongoing terror threat as often as I believe is necessary.

As a case in point, believe it or not, last February when Napolitano appeared before the House Homeland Security Committee for the very first time, her testimony did not even include the word "terror." Not even once.

Source:nydailynews.com/