On Monday, I linked to this op-ed from Tom Esvlin, Vermont's "stimulus czar," lamenting the way the money got spent. "Although I'd like to think Vermont did better than many states, much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future," he wrote. That same day, Brookings' Gary Burtless e-mailed in a rebuttal that's worth quoting at length, as it's a very clear description of where the stimulus funds actually went, and why such a small percentage was directly devoted to building things. So here it is, with some edits for space:
The main problem with that silly op-ed is that it refers to only a small slice of the actual federal spending on stimulus authorized by the Feb. 2009 legislation. So far, the overwhelming share of that stimulus has been devoted to three items: Tax cuts for households; direct benefits to people adversely affected by the severe recession, mostly the unemployed or poor; and fiscal relief to state and local governments. Vermont did not need any "Czar" to receive or administer funds under these programs. The money for them quickly left the U.S. Treasury without any effort on the part of the Czar who penned this highly misleading op-ed piece. People in Vermont *directly* received benefits from the stimulus as: (1) lower federal tax withholding from their paychecks; (2) extended unemployment benefits; (3) premium subsidies so they could maintain their health insurance after they were laid off from a job in which they received health protection; (4) miscellaneous benefits (e.g., for college costs) under one provision or another; and (5) aid from the Treasury that permitted Vermont and its localities to finance their Medicaid and K-12 education programs without hiking taxes or lowering other public spending. The kinds of infrastructure spending for which the WSJ's "Czar" had some responsibility constituted a small percentage of the stimulus the Congress authorized for 2009 and 2010.
In FY 2009 and 2010, the EXPECTED spending on infrastructure and other items for which the Vermont “Czar” may have had partial responsibility accounted for just 11% of anticipated spending under the stimulus legislation. The other 89% had nothing to do with the programs criticized by Vermont’s supposed Czar. Thus, all of his complaints – even if justified – are essentially irrelevant to the programs mainly supported by the stimulus law … at least so far. Obviously, in the years 2011-2019, that kind of stimulus spending would have accounted for a vastly larger share of outlays. But (and perhaps Vermont’s Czar has not kept up with this because he does not read a daily paper) the Congress just passed and the President just signed ANOTHER stimulus program consisting of more than 90% personal and business tax cuts and less than 10% extensions in unemployment benefits. So far as I know, very little additional spending has been authorized for those hated infrastructure / technology investment projects. Below is the CBO’s year-by-year analysis of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus law:
My own private view is that the country would probably have been better off if *MORE* of the original stimulus had been devoted to infrastructure / technology investment (more of it would have been spent on goods and services produced in the U.S. rather than China, East Asia, and Europe). Setting aside that consideration for a minute, what infuriates me about the piece cited in your blog is that it reinforces the very widespread but totally erroneous impression that Congress and the Administration were unaware of the administrative hurdles to fast spending that the “Czar” points out in his op-ed. Those hurdles were understood from the very beginning, which is precisely the reason that infrastructure/technology investment projects constituted such a small percentage of the total package. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the pace of spending on these projects, but it is utterly deranged to think that the slow rate of spending on the projects constitutes a serious indictment of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus program. Very little of the expected spending under the stimulus program (at least so far) was supposed to be devoted to those projects.
Yes, joking.
Greedsters and fraudsters, SEC, government....how to tell them apart?! http://seekingalpha.com/article/214999-goldman-settlement-the-sec-s-real-failure"Goldman Settlement: The SEC's Real Failure (by Sam E. Antar)July 18, 2010
The Securities and Exchange Commission's settlement of a lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) over a certain subprime mortgage product sold to investors misses a key issue. That is, concerning the company's duty to provide timely and transparent disclosures to its own shareholders about government subpoenas, investigations, and pending enforcement actions against the firm. In this particular case, Goldman did not make timely disclosures about the regulator's investigation and pending lawsuit against the firm, right under the SEC investigator's noses.
Goldman Sachs chooses to keep shareholders in the dark about SEC investigation and pending enforcement action
During the summer of 2008, the SEC started investigating Goldman's marketing of a certain subprime mortgage product, known as ABACUS CDO, to investors who lost over $1 billion from that transaction.
At that time, Goldman Sachs knew that the SEC was investigating its failure to disclose material information to investors in violation of SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with that transaction. However, Goldman Sachs did not disclose the SEC's investigation in its financial reports.
In July 2009, the SEC sent Goldman Sachs a Wells notice informing Goldman of its intention to file a lawsuit against the company. Still, Goldman Sachs chose not to disclose the SEC's pending enforcement action in its financial reports.
On Friday, April 16, 2010, the SEC filed a surprise lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and Executive Director Fabrice Tourre alleging securities fraud in connected with the company's marketing of the ABACUS CDO to investors. That day, Goldman Sachs shares plummeted from $183.31 per share to $160.30 per share or about 13%, wiping out about $12 billion of shareholder wealth.
Clearly, investors deemed the surprise news of the SEC complaint against the company as material information, unlike the management team running Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs settles SEC charges
Yesterday, Goldman Sachs settled SEC charges against the firm. According to the SEC's press release:
...Goldman, Sachs & Co. will pay $550 million and reform its business practices to settle SEC charges that Goldman misled investors in a subprime mortgage product just as the U.S. housing market was starting to collapse.
Robert Khuzami
In agreeing to the SEC's largest-ever penalty paid by a Wall Street firm, Goldman also acknowledged that its marketing materials for the subprime product contained incomplete information.
In a news conference, Director of SEC Enforcement Robert Khuzami spoke about Goldman's duty to provide full and transparent disclosure to its customers but ignored the company's duty to likewise provide such disclosures to its own shareholders:
They acknowledge that their marketing materials for the ABACUS CDO contained incomplete information, and that they failed to disclose both Paulson & Company's role in the portfolio selection process, and that Paulson's economic interests were adverse to CDO investors.
The settlement also contains forward-looking reforms. Goldman has agreed to tighten internal controls and assess the roles and responsibilities of Goldman personnel and others to insure that disclosures in future offerings of mortgage and CDO products are full and accurate.
In agreeing to the settlement, we also took into account that Goldman is engaging in a broad-based self-assessment of their overall business practices that will increase transparency, evaluate and remediate conflicts, and take other steps that collectively will reduce the chances that investors in the future will be misled.
This resolution achieves the goals of accountability, punishment for past misconduct and prospective reforms that are the hallmark of a successful outcome.
Today's settlement is a stark reminder that there will be a heavy price to be paid if firms violate the principles fundamental to our securities laws - full disclosure, honest treatment and fair dealing - and those principles do not change, even if the product is complex or the investor sophisticated.
By ignoring Goldman's failure to inform shareholders in a timely manner about the SEC's investigation of the company and then pending enforcement action, the SEC is sending a message that surprising investors about investigations and enforcement actions is fair game. Moreover, a resolution requiring self-assessment is meaningless, as anyone not sleeping soundly through the last decade should know.
Friday, news of the settlement sent Goldman shares 4.43% higher to close at $145.22 per share, still far lower than its $181.31 price per share the day before the SEC filed its complaint against the company.
Disclaimer: I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could.
If it weren't for the efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.
There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals.
I do not seek or want forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. I plan on frying in hell with other white-collar criminals for a very long time.
Recently, I exposed financial reporting violations by Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) as an independent whistleblower. The Securities and Exchange Commission is now investigating Overstock.com and its CEO Patrick Byrne for securities law violations (Details here, here, and here).
In addition, the SEC is now investigating possible GAAP violations by Bidz.com (NASDAQ: BIDZ) after I alerted them about the company's inventory accounting practices."
free rental agreement forms
GREAT <b>NEWS</b>: Banks Cooking Up New Ways To Screw You
Internet Surpasses Television as Main News Source for Young Adults 29; Amazon's Disruptive Android App Store Now Open To Developers — Full Details 25; YouTube - Homeless man w/golden radio voice in Columbus, OH 18 ...
Green Giant Planned for Portland « Liveshots
Portland, Oregon prides itself on being an eco-friendly city claiming to have the second most green.
Teenage Cheerleader Disappears in Small Texas Town - AOL <b>News</b>
Police in a small town in Texas are looking for a 13-year-old cheerleader missing for more than a week, but state officials say the case doesn't meet the criteria for an Amber Alert.
No comments:
Post a Comment