Bad news for President Obama in a new Quinnipiac poll out this morning. Not only does his presidency get its lowest numbers in the poll to date, but as we approach the midterm elections, it seems that Obama's endorsement would taint his fellow Democrats running for office more than help them. Only 12 percent of voters say that Obama campaigning for a candidate makes them more likely to vote for that candidate — that includes only 28 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of Independents — while 30 percent of all voters, and Independents specifically, say it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate. In other words, some Democrats may want Obama to stay away this campaign season in the same way Republicans used to avoid President Bush near the end of his presidency. Even Sarah Palin, whose favorability is far below Obama's, nevertheless wields more influence: 16 percent of voters, including 15 percent of Independents, say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for whom Palin campaigns.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
New York Magazine: Polling Shows Palin Endorsement More Valuable Than Obama's
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Obama, Infanticide Supporter
Blunt Anti-Carnahan Ad: "I'll Work for Missouri - Not Barack Obama"
Monday, July 19, 2010
Obama's Phony Connecticut SS#: Gibbs Refuses to Answer
Friday, July 16, 2010
"'Bout Ready to Upchuck from a Smorgasbord of Corruption"
Quite frankly, we need more plain-spoken real Americans like this looking out for our interests in DC, and fewer of the effete elitists that are currently so busy destroying our nation. Not only would I vote for her - I'd volunteer to campaign for her.
Join: Email Updates
Obama Admin Gives Goldman Sachs an (almost) Free Pass
Goldman Sachs agrees to settle SEC fraud case for $550 million
The settlement in the highest profile fraud case stemming from the financial crisis gives both the investment bank and federal regulators a measure of what they need.
Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington — The $550-million deal between Goldman Sachs Group and federal regulators to settle the highest profile fraud case stemming from the financial crisis gave each side a measure of what it desperately needed.
The government finally had an answer for critics who say Washington has been too soft on Wall Street. And Goldman Sachs could get on with making money, paying a fine that it can easily afford.
- The Brown Bailout...Why Is Congress Playing Favorites? And How Does This Impact You?BrownBailout.com
Thursday's settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission came as Congress passed the most significant financial reform in decades — legislation designed to prevent the type of abuses Goldman was accused of. With the law, President Obama declared a new era of oversight for the financial industry.
Goldman agreed to pay $550 million to resolve allegations that the company misled investors who bought subprime mortgage-related securities created by Goldman. Although Goldman neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, it made a rare concession that its marketing materials for the securities had been "incomplete," which it acknowledged was a "mistake."
"It is a major victory for the SEC because you don't find other settlements in which the defendant admits it made materially misleading disclosure," said John Coffee, a Columbia University securities-law professor. "This is one where they really bet the farm on this case by taking on the most esteemed firm on Wall Street, and they obtained a concession by Goldman that they misled their clients."
Still, the penalty equals 4% of Goldman's $13.4-billion profit last year. Moreover, investors concluded the settlement was worth much more to Goldman than it would pay.
The deal sent the investment bank's stock price up nearly 10% in a surge that began on rumors late in Wall Street's regular trading session Thursday and continued in the after-hours market after the settlement was announced. The combined increase added more than $6 billion to the firm's total stock market value.
In a statement, Goldman called the settlement "the right outcome for our firm, our shareholders and our clients."
The company also sought to assure investors that it wasn't facing a cascade of SEC cases related to other mortgage-securities deals the bank sold during the heyday of the housing boom.
Canada Judge: Suspended Sentence for Muslim Mother Who Strangled Daughter
CALGARY — A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.
A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.
“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation.
“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. The issue is human life. Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.”
In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management.
The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of justice.
“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio.
“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.”
Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.
The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.
A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it.
LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.
Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives.
“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.”
Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court.
“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.”
Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.”
Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence.
“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?”
LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.
He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off.
“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning.
“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.”
The Crown appealed the conviction long ago and is almost certain to take the sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but Vomberg said he could not comment about such a possible situation at this time.
Both sides are allowed under law to have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
Federal Reserve Big Winner in Financial Reform
After fending off most challenges to its independence and winning new powers to oversee big financial firms, the Federal Reserve has emerged from a bruising debate on the overhaul of U.S. financial rules as perhaps the pre-eminent regulator in the sector. But that could only bring it added blame if things go wrong again.
With financial reform clearing Congress, the Fed has emerged as perhaps the pre-eminent financial regulator, but that could only bring it added blame if things go wrong again. Jon Hilsenrath, Evan Newmark and Kelly Evans discuss. Also, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries discusses Apple's options ahead of its anticipated press conference on the troubled iPhone-4.
Just a few months ago, amid populist anger at the Fed for failing to prevent the financial crisis of 2008 and bailing out Wall Street, Congress was talking of stripping the central bank of its supervisory oversight of banks or forcing it to submit to congressional audit of its interest-rate decisions.
Instead, the new law gives the Fed more power and a better tool box to help prevent financial crises. It will become the primary regulator for large, complex financial firms of all kinds, such as American International Group, the insurer which built a massive derivatives portfolio that regulators didn't see until it was too late.
More
- Congress Remakes Financial Landscape
- Developments: Changes to the Mortgage Market
- Rollout: Timeline for Implementing the Bill
- Economists Split Over Financial Overhaul
- Financial Overhaul Hits Farmers
- Details: What's in the Bill
- Vote: Should the bill pass?
- Deal Journal: J.P. Morgan Dodges Derivative Bullet
- Sortable Table: Details of the vote, from Akaka to Wyden
Opinion
This isn't the first time Congress has expanded the Fed's role. After the Great Depression, it passed the Employment Act in 1946, charging the Fed with averting the huge unemployment seen in the 1930s. After the double-digit inflation of the 1970s, the Fed was formally given a dual mandate of promoting both price stability and maximum sustainable employment. In the wake of the latest financial crisis, the Fed is effectively being told to add the maintenance of financial stability to its responsibilities.
The risks, however, are that the Fed still won't be able to prevent another crisis, and that it will be an even clearer target for blame if that occurs. "The bill has good intentions, but I'm worried about its implementation. If I were the Fed, I'd be seriously worried about being left holding the bag," said Anil Kashyap, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business.
The Fed, of course, still shares responsibility for overseeing the financial system with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies with which it sits on the new Financial Stability Council. And in a change, the new law requires the Fed to get the Treasury's go-ahead before using its extraordinary authority to lend to almost anyone, and limits loans to sectors of the economy rather than individual firms, such as Bear Stearns or AIG.
But the Fed's role is in most respects expanded by the legislation. The central bank will decide whether the council should vote on breaking up big companies if they threaten the stability of the entire financial system. It also will be able to force big financial companies—not just firms legally organized as banks—to boost their capital and liquidity. It will have the power to scrutinize the largest hedge funds.
All this could suck the Fed into political controversies. A decision to break up a big bank because of its size likely would subject the Fed to conflicting pressures from lobbyists and politicians. "It could give a lot of people reason to interfere," says Thomas Cooley, professor at the New York University Stern School of Business.
The Fed's role in the rescue of AIG and Bear Stearns, and its acquiescence in letting Lehman Brothers fail, led the public to question the Fed's powers and prompted Congress to consider curtailing its powers. One threat came from legislation sponsored by long-time Fed critic Ron Paul (R., Texas), author of the best-selling book "End the Fed," who sought to expand the authority of the congressional Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed. The new law expands the GAO's auditing authority but avoids nearly all provisions that alarmed the Fed.
How the Bill Tackles Problems
From the Fed to hedge funds and more
What's Made It Into the Bill?
For consumers, for investors, for banks and for the government.
Overhaul Timeline
See a timeline of the legislation's progress.
In the end, the Fed's emergency lending during the 2008 crisis will face a one-time audit to be published by Dec. 2010 and it will be required—with a two-year lag—to reveal which banks borrow from its discount window. With lobbying from several presidents of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, the Fed also fought off proposals to remove it from supervision of the large number of smaller banks.
"Basically, they ended up winning almost on everything that counts," says Laurence Meyer, a former Fed board governor now with economic consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers LLC.
The Fed will surrender its responsibilities for consumer-finance regulation —never central to its mission or to its chairmen—which will be shifted to a new independent agency. It will be housed and financed by the Fed, but the central bank won't have any authority over it.
Editors' Deep Dive: Warren's Push for Consumer Agency
THE BOSTON GLOBE
Consumer Agency Has Teeth
AMERICAN PROSPECT
Opinion by Warren: Consumer Protection as Systemic Safety
USA TODAY
On a Campaign to Protect Hardworking Families
In a sign of the greater importance assigned to financial stability, the Federal Reserve Board will get a second vice chair position, this one responsible for supervision, to be chosen by the White House. One likely contender is Daniel K. Tarullo, a Georgetown University law professor who was President Barack Obama's first appointee to the Fed board and is the point person on bank regulation. He already has been pulling control of bank supervision to Washington from the New York and other regional Fed banks, which oversees the big Wall Street firms.
Congress also gave the Fed responsibility for setting the fees merchants must pay banks when customers use their debit cards, another political hot potato. The Fed will have nine months to collect data and decide on a ceiling for such fees that must be "reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing those transactions." During this time, there's certain to be a lobbying war pitting retailers and banks. The Fed faces criticism from consumer groups if it sets the fee threshold too high or anger from banks if the level is set too.