Rupert Murdoch is facing a revolt at News Corporation’s annual meeting over its handling of the phone hacking scandal. Follow developments live 2.06pm ET / 7.06pm BST: I’m listening in to the annual meeting on an audio stream, and Murdoch’s demeanour is fascinating. At times he is combative, brusque, putting down his veteran adversaries such as Stephen Mayne with waspish comments. At other times he stumbles and seems unsure of himself. It’s gripping. 1.55pm ET / 6.55pm BST: Stephen Mayne is back up at the mic now, complaining that Murdoch is attempting to close the debate down in an “anti-democratic and embarassing” manner. “I think we can stand our embarrassment,” Murdoch replies, pointing out that Tom Watson had been on Fox News this morning. “That’s fair and balanced,” Murdoch says, in a wry reference to the channel’s much-derided slogan. 1.53pm ET / 6.53pm BST: Tom Watson has the floor for a second time, and attempts to press Murdoch once again on allegations of computer hacking – attempting to widen the debate from phone hacking. He names Alex Marunchak, a former News of the World senior journalist linked to private investigator Jonathan Rees. Viet Dinh replies, says News Corporation is fully co-operating with the police, but that it wonn’t comment in individuals. He says police have asked the company to withhold comment to “ensure the proper administration of justice”. Dinh says there are “number of allegations, assertions, rumours and reports” which the company takes very seriously and investigates. Murdoch adds: “We will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this and put it right.” 1.45pm ET / 6.45pm BST: Viet Dinh is speaking now, and says he has engaged directly on the issue of corporate governance with all those who have spoken today. 1.42pm ET / 6.42pm BST Murdoch is is having something of a ding-dong with Mayne. The Australian shareholders association director is trying to prolong the debate, but Murdoch wants to move to a vote. Mayne says he has not decided how to vote. “I’m not calling you a liar, but I know exactly how you’re going to vote,” Murdoch says, to laughter. 1.41pm: A representative of the pension fund Calpers tells Murdoch they and Hermes, the BT pension fund, want him to step down as chairman. 1.34pm ET / 6.34pm BST: Edward Mason of the Church of England is now speaking in support of the motion that would oust Rupert Murdoch as chairman. Murdoch interrupts Mason almost immediately, saying “your investments haven’t been that great”. 1.33pm ET / 6.33pm ET: Murdoch says the allegations by Watson are “recent rumours”. He says 90% of what the police knows comes from News Corporation, he says. “We will put this right,” he affirms, banging the desk. 1.30pm ET / 6.30pm ET: Tom Watson is now speaking. He’s listing how the scandal has spread in Britain. He’s saying that police are investigating three more private detectives, involving invasions of privacy via computer hacking. “If I know about this, with all the resources you are putting into clearing up this scandal, you must know this too.” 1.29pm ET / 6.29pm BST Stephen Mayne , director of the Australian Shareholder Association is now speaking. He’s not mincing his words, talking about “gross underperformance” of the company, a “gerrymandered” two-tier share structure. Director Viet Dinh is godfather to Lachlan Murdoch’s child, he says. “You’ve treated us like mushrooms for a long time. It’s time to get with the programme.” 1.24pm ET / 6.24pm BST: Julie Tanner, assistant director of socially responsible investing at shareholder Christian Brothers Investment Services, is putting forward the proposal now. She says it has strong support in the light of the phone hacking scandal. “This pervasive and value destroying scandal requires stronger independent leadership on the board,” she says. 1.23pm ET / 6.23pm BST: The meeting is now discussing the first proposal – that Rupert Murdoch should be ousted as chairman. 1.21pm ET / 6.21pm BST: As the meeting gets under way inside the theater, there are more than 200 protesters with the lobbying organization Common Cause outside, according to Dominic Rushe. 1.17pm ET / 6.17pm BST: He says that News Corp’s cable channels, including Fox News and the Fox broadcasting network in the US now account for more than half of the company’s adjusted income. Fox is “leaving the competition far behind”, he says. In the UK, he says BSkyB now has more than 10m subscribers. He does not mention the tangle over News Corporation’s attempt to buy 100% of BSkyB, which was scuppered by the phone hacking scandal. He says the company “will not rest on our laurels”. It says it is in “great shape to prosper”. And that’s the end of the opening statement. 1.14pm ET / 6.14pm BST: Murdoch has now moved onto listing the achievements of News Corporation elsewhere. He references his beloved new educational ventures before talking about the media divisions. The first newspaper he mentions is the Wall Street Journal, on which he lavishes praise. He mentions the iPad-only Daily. He says advertising is “surprisingly strong” in the UK. 1.10pm ET / 6.10pm BST: Murdoch is showing some contrition for the phone hacking scandal. He says: “We must admit to and confront our mistakes.” He says he is “personally determined” to right the wrongs that have been committed and that it does not happen again “anywhere in our company”. He adds the company has been under “understandable scrutiny and unfair attack”. He says that he want to put the phone hacking scandal “in context”, and that the story of News Corp “is the stuff of legend”. “We could not be taking this more seriously,” he says, referencing the closure of the News fo the World and saying the company was co-operating closely with the Metropolitan Police in London. 1.07pm ET: The meeting has begun and Rupert Murdoch is now speaking, making an opening statement. 12.53pm ET / 5.53pm BST: Tom Watson has tweeted a picture of himself on the News Corporation bus, taking him to the annual meeting venue at Fox. He seems quite pleased with his “stockholder” badge. Meanwhile the activist group Avaaz has been urging its supporters to call News Corp shareholders. It is printing telephone numbers on its website and asking people to call them up and “politely” ask them to vote down the Murdochs. Avaaz says more than 1,000 calls have already been made. It’s largely a symbolic protest: many of the institutional shareholders will not be present at the meeting and have already voted. 12.40pm ET / 5.40pm BST: Here’s more from Dominic in Los Angeles: The day started in a nondescript parking lot in Century City. Shareholders and press were ushered by uniformed guards into a screening room and ID and bags were checked (presumably to make sure there are no cream pies). We were then bussed to the Fox Studios lot and had to pass another metal detector test and bag check. I got here early and now there are a few dozen people waiting for the main event which will take place in an hour in the Zanuck Theatre. We are in a tent outside the theatre – it has fake grass on the floor and moody pink lighting. It reminds me of some outdoor weddings I’ve been to. The Murdochs face three potentially embarrassing votes. First the re-election of directors. Major shareholders have said they will vote against the re-election of most of the board, including Rupert and his two sons. Second, shareholders are preparing to vote against the company’s pay scheme. Murdoch was paid $33.3m in the last financial year including a $12.5m cash bonus, in the previous year he was paid $22.7m. Third, shareholders in the room will vote on a proposal to force Murdoch to stand down and appoint an independent chairman. The family has enough votes to win any ballot. But if giant US pension funds like Calpers keep up the pressure it will be hard for them to ignore. Tom Watson MP is hoping to be here. He’s bought shares and is aiming to ask a few questions. I’m sure Rupert’s looking forward to that! 12.11pm ET / 5.11pm BST: Dominic Rushe writes from Los Angeles: Edward Mason, secretary of the the ethical investment advisory group of the Church of England i s here. They own about $6m worth of News Corp shares. This is the first time they have attended a US annual general meeting. “We have had difficulty getting the company to listen to us,” he says. “There needs to be decisive action in terms of holding people to account. Responsibility needs to be taken at a senior level.” He said the resignations of Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton were accepted “with great reluctance” he says. “There needs to be a fresh start.” 11.56am ET / 4.56pm BST: The annual meeting is taking place in the Daryl F Zanuck Theater at the Fox studio complex near Beverly Hills, California. Dominic Rushe , who is tweeting throughout the meeting , says he has passed security. “Have passed security check. No cream pies in my bag. Now on coach heading to NewsCorp agm” 11.38am ET / 4.38pm BST: My colleague Dominic Rushe , who is in Los Angeles for the meeting, caught up with the campaigning MP Tom Watson, who has acquired nonvoting proxy stockholder status in order to be present at the meeting today. I caught up with Tom Watson last night at the hotel. He told me that so far shareholders believe this is a scandal centered around one rogue private investigator but there are three other private investigators being looked at by the Metropolitan Police and much more to come. “I don’t think shareholders know what they are exposing themselves to,” he said. That’s what he intends to say at the meeting given the chance. He also alleges there is good evidence that Murdoch knew that the issue was wider than one rogue reporter at the time of the last annual meeting in October 2010, and is intending to bring that up. He’s been speaking to shareholders. “When I talk to people they are genuinely shocked. When you look at the scale of wrongdoing, it’s obvious it is systemic,” he said. With that, he was off to dinner in his rather natty suit and Prada glasses. 11.31am ET / 4.31pm BST: Here’s the Guardian’s story on the confirmation today that News Corporation has agreed a settlement totalling £3m with the family of Milly Dowler, the murdered British schoolgirl whose phone was hacked by the News of the World. The settlement includes a personal £1m donation from Rupert Murdoch to charities selected by the Dowler family. Our story says: The Dowlers have decided to donate Murdoch’s £1m to six charities representing causes close to Milly and those that support victims of crime. They are Shooting Star Chase, Child Victims of Crime, Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Hampton Pool Trust, Braintumouruk.org and Cancer Research. “Nothing that has been agreed will ever bring back Milly or undo the traumas of her disappearance and the horrendous murder trial earlier this year,” the Dowler family said. 11.25am ET / 4.25pm BST: Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian’s head of media and technology, is predicting a rebellion of around 20%. He writes: The key moment will be the votes for the re-election of Rupert Murdoch, and particularly for James and for his eldest son Lachlan. The Murdoch family’s 40% bloc of voting shares means that there is no doubt about who will win the vote. But the key point is the size of the rebellion – and in particular with a majority of non-Murdoch investors vote against the family members as they seek to be reappointed to the company’s board. News Corp insiders talk about a revolt of in excess of 20% of independent investors, which sets a minimum level. But it is expected that Prince Alwaleed, the Saudi billionaire, will lend the support of his 7% bloc to the ruling family, leaving the opposition to come from US, UK and Australian investors. Chief amongst the critics will be the influential Calpers, which manages pension funds on behalf of California’s public employees, an activist body that has long believed the Murdochs exercise too much control. Such is the structure of News Corp’s share capital that two-thirds of the shares carry no voting rights. The result is that the Murdochs may have 40% of the voting shares, but their true economic interest is about 12% in the vast company whose interest spans from the Fox film studio, television network and news channel, to the Australian and other newspapers in that country, through to Sky Italia and the Sun and the Times newspapers in the UK. Expect also plenty of theatre along the way. Shareholders and press are being bussed into the Fox studio lot where the meeting is taking place. Tom Watson, the Labour MP, has flown over from the UK to try and challenge the Murdochs at the meeting with the help of proxy vote on behalf of the American labour union, the AFL-CIO. There will be questions from the floor from investors, as well as Watson if he gets his way. Rupert Murdoch will make his feelings known. The talk from the company is that there will be less contrition, more defiance. He will emphasise the company’s healthy financial performance, and note that for all the problems caused by the News of the World, none of this should derail the business financially. Operating profits of $4.9bn after all dwarf the £3m paid out to the Dowler family today, or the £20m settlement fund proposed. It will be enough to get him through the day, but the question is what damage will be done to him and the prospects for James by the response of the independent shareholders, who are also part owners in the family business. 11.21am ET / 4.21pm BST: Here’s a brief reading list while we wait for the meeting to get under way. • Here’s the New York Times preview of today’s event. It says News Corp executives will attempt to placate shareholders by highlighting the company’s strong share performance and its share buyback scheme. • This Guardian piece by Dominic Rushe highlights the concerns of some shareholders. “The scandal shows that there is something deeply wrong with this company,” says Julie Tanner, assistant director of socially responsible investing at shareholder Christian Brothers Investment Services, who will propose a vote to remove Rupert Murdoch as chairman. “The board is failing in its leadership operation. • The Los Angeles Times speculates that News Corp president Chase Carey, who is well regarded by shareholders, may be elevated to CEO. Rupert Murdoch would be left with a diminished role. • The Financial Times quotes Tom Watson as saying Rupert Murdoch is approaching his “Rosebud moment” – “in reference to the last word uttered by the title character in Citizen Kane, the Orson Welles film about a press tycoon”. 11.08am ET / 4.08pm BST: Today’s event is likely to be something of a spectacle, particularly with the presence of Watson. Shareholders will have the opportunity to question Rupert Murdoch from the floor, and there could be some lively scenes. But the reality is that the Murdoch family control 39% of the voting shares, even though they only 12% of the company, because of the two-tier share structure at News Corp. They also have the backing of Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who controls another 7% of voting shares. So while the meeting will be bumpy, they are likely to survive the key votes. The question is how much damage a large revolt will cause. 11am ET / 4pm BST: News Corporation is holding its annual shareholder meeting in Los Angeles today. The company is facing a potential revolt from a group of shareholders over its handling of the phone-hacking scandal. Our correspondent Dominic Rushe is there and we will be covering the event live, backed up with our unrivalled team of experts. Here is a summary of events so far today. Rupert Murdoch will face angry shareholders at News Corp’s annual general meeting in Los Angeles. Close to a quarter News Corp shareholders – including some of the world’s biggest pension funds – have pledged to vote for the removal of Murdoch, his sons James and Lachlan, and other directors, whom the shareholders blame for the phone-hacking scandal that has rocked the media empire and led to the closure of the News of the World in the UK. The British Labour MP Tom Watson, who has led the parliamentary charge on phone hacking, is in Los Angeles for the meeting. He has pledged to make further revelations about practices at News Corportation, saying many shareholders are not aware of the full extent of how far the scandal extends. Murdoch has today announced that he will make a personal donation of £1m (about $1.6m) to charities chosen by the family of the murdered British schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose phone was hacked by the News of the World. News Corporation will pay a further £2m will paid to the Dowler family in compensation. News Corporation News International News of the World Phone hacking Rupert Murdoch James Murdoch Tom Watson United States Matt Wells guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters asked to leave by cathedral officials
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Anti-global finance camp under pressure to disband or move as decision taken to close St Paul’s on safety grounds The anti-global finance protest camp set up next to St Paul’s cathedral a week ago has been asked to leave by cathedral officials who said they were being forced to shut the building for safety reasons. In a statement , the dean of St Paul’s, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said the decision to close the cathedral – one of London’s most celebrated tourist attractions – was “unprecedented in modern times”, but added that there was no choice. Knowles said he had written an open letter to the Occupy the London Stock Exchange protesters requesting that they “recognise the huge issues facing us at this time and asking them to leave the vicinity of the building so that the cathedral can reopen as soon as possible”. The protest – modelled on earlier such events in Spain and, more famously, New York – descended on London’s financial district last Saturday with the intention of setting up a permanent camp in Paternoster Square, the private commercial and retail plaza housing the Stock Exchange headquarters. However, the square’s owners won a court order preventing this, and police blocked access. Several thousand activists, who eventually coalesced into an encampment of around 200 tents, instead based themselves on the western edge of St Paul’s. There, they set up an increasingly entrenched camp , featuring a food marquee, a media tent and a “university”. Relations with the church began well, especially when its canon chancellor, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, delighted protesters on Saturday by saying he supported the right of the “good-natured” crowd to remain. Since then, however, cathedral officials have repeatedly raised concerns about the size and scope of the camp, warning that it was impeding access for both worshippers and tourists, especially ahead of next week’s busy half term. This is a particular issue for a cathedral that relies heavily on entrance fees for its income. Knowles’s statement, read to the media, stressed that he and other officials had formed good relations with the protesters, and talked at length about possible problems. He said: “We are delighted that the London protests have been peaceful, and indeed there has been a good atmosphere generally between cathedral staff and those dwelling in the tents around St Paul’s. “There is something profound about protest being made and heard in front of this most holy place – a gathering together of those concerned about poverty and inequality facing the great dome of this cathedral church.” However, he said, it was “obvious to anyone approaching the cathedral” that the size of the camp had “increasingly put us in a difficult position”. Knowles said he had met members of the chapter that governs St Paul’s on Thursday evening. “As a result of that meeting, and reports received today from our independent health, safety and fire officers, I have written an open letter to the protestors this afternoon advising them that we have no lawful alternative but to close St Paul’s cathedral until further notice,” he said. “The health, safety and fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard. “Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself. The dangers relate not just to cathedral staff and visitors but are a potential hazard to those encamped themselves.” Therefore, he said, the cathedral would stay closed “until such a time that we can open safely”. He added: “We have done this with a very heavy heart, but it is simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances.” One protester, Marcus Wright, said he would resist any attempt to remove him from the area. The 22-year-old, wearing a Batman hoodie and a Guy Fawkes mask, has been at St Paul’s since Monday. “It will be non-violent, but I will still be protesting as they drag me away,” he said. “The only way we’ll move is by force. We won’t be violent. It is our right to protest.” With him was 32-year-old Chrissy Bethke, who has been at the cathedral since Saturday. She was sceptical about the reasons given by the cathedral dean, saying: “It doesn’t feel honest. We’ve made space for fire engines. It just feels like they want us to leave.” The cathedral officials’ decision puts the activists in an extremely difficult position given that they have been at pains to stay on good terms with the cathedral and not jeopardise the general goodwill with which the protest has been received so far. Staying put, meaning the cathedral remains closed over half term, would almost certainly end this. All decisions at the camp are made democratically by mass meeting. “It’s too early to say what we might do – we need to talk about this,” a member of the camp delegated to speak to the press said. Protesters are understood to be planning to hold a vote on what to do next at 4pm on Friday. Earlier this week, an OccupyLSX working group proposed expanding the camp to two or three other sites in London while still maintaining the St Paul’s site at the current tent level. The suggested alternatives included Hyde Park, Hoxton, Trafalgar Square, Imperial War Museum, Victoria Park and the eastern side of St Pauls, but the proposals were not voted on. Occupy London Occupy movement Protest Religion Peter Walker Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters asked to leave by cathedral officials
October 21, 2011 No CommentAnti-global finance camp under pressure to disband or move as decision taken to close St Paul’s on safety grounds The anti-global finance protest camp set up next to St Paul’s cathedral a week ago has been asked to leave by cathedral officials who said they were being forced to shut the building for safety reasons. In a statement , the dean of St Paul’s, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said the decision to close the cathedral – one of London’s most celebrated tourist attractions – was “unprecedented in modern times”, but added that there was no choice. Knowles said he had written an open letter to the Occupy the London Stock Exchange protesters requesting that they “recognise the huge issues facing us at this time and asking them to leave the vicinity of the building so that the cathedral can reopen as soon as possible”. The protest – modelled on earlier such events in Spain and, more famously, New York – descended on London’s financial district last Saturday with the intention of setting up a permanent camp in Paternoster Square, the private commercial and retail plaza housing the Stock Exchange headquarters. However, the square’s owners won a court order preventing this, and police blocked access. Several thousand activists, who eventually coalesced into an encampment of around 200 tents, instead based themselves on the western edge of St Paul’s. There, they set up an increasingly entrenched camp , featuring a food marquee, a media tent and a “university”. Relations with the church began well, especially when its canon chancellor, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, delighted protesters on Saturday by saying he supported the right of the “good-natured” crowd to remain. Since then, however, cathedral officials have repeatedly raised concerns about the size and scope of the camp, warning that it was impeding access for both worshippers and tourists, especially ahead of next week’s busy half term. This is a particular issue for a cathedral that relies heavily on entrance fees for its income. Knowles’s statement, read to the media, stressed that he and other officials had formed good relations with the protesters, and talked at length about possible problems. He said: “We are delighted that the London protests have been peaceful, and indeed there has been a good atmosphere generally between cathedral staff and those dwelling in the tents around St Paul’s. “There is something profound about protest being made and heard in front of this most holy place – a gathering together of those concerned about poverty and inequality facing the great dome of this cathedral church.” However, he said, it was “obvious to anyone approaching the cathedral” that the size of the camp had “increasingly put us in a difficult position”. Knowles said he had met members of the chapter that governs St Paul’s on Thursday evening. “As a result of that meeting, and reports received today from our independent health, safety and fire officers, I have written an open letter to the protestors this afternoon advising them that we have no lawful alternative but to close St Paul’s cathedral until further notice,” he said. “The health, safety and fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard. “Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself. The dangers relate not just to cathedral staff and visitors but are a potential hazard to those encamped themselves.” Therefore, he said, the cathedral would stay closed “until such a time that we can open safely”. He added: “We have done this with a very heavy heart, but it is simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances.” One protester, Marcus Wright, said he would resist any attempt to remove him from the area. The 22-year-old, wearing a Batman hoodie and a Guy Fawkes mask, has been at St Paul’s since Monday. “It will be non-violent, but I will still be protesting as they drag me away,” he said. “The only way we’ll move is by force. We won’t be violent. It is our right to protest.” With him was 32-year-old Chrissy Bethke, who has been at the cathedral since Saturday. She was sceptical about the reasons given by the cathedral dean, saying: “It doesn’t feel honest. We’ve made space for fire engines. It just feels like they want us to leave.” The cathedral officials’ decision puts the activists in an extremely difficult position given that they have been at pains to stay on good terms with the cathedral and not jeopardise the general goodwill with which the protest has been received so far. Staying put, meaning the cathedral remains closed over half term, would almost certainly end this. All decisions at the camp are made democratically by mass meeting. “It’s too early to say what we might do – we need to talk about this,” a member of the camp delegated to speak to the press said. Protesters are understood to be planning to hold a vote on what to do next at 4pm on Friday. Earlier this week, an OccupyLSX working group proposed expanding the camp to two or three other sites in London while still maintaining the St Paul’s site at the current tent level. The suggested alternatives included Hyde Park, Hoxton, Trafalgar Square, Imperial War Museum, Victoria Park and the eastern side of St Pauls, but the proposals were not voted on. Occupy London Occupy movement Protest Religion Peter Walker Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …This is Your Brain After Too Much Fox News and Listening to Erick Erickson
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media On Tuesday’s morning call-in show on C-SPAN, Washington Journal , a caller from Texas demonstrates what happens to your brain after watching too much Fox News and paying attention to Red State’s Erick Erickson and his ridiculous “We are the 53%” campaign he launched in response to the Occupy Wall Street protests. SAMUAL FROM TEXAS: I think a lot of people are getting onto the whole 9-9-9 plan because it’s something easy to remember and you know, we’re just overburdened with the tax system we have. People lately are really talking the ninety nine percent verses the one percent. I think something more here is another number – it’s forty six, fifty four. I may be a little off there but I believe those are the numbers. Forty six percent of Americans or right around there pay no personal income tax. And the other fifty four percent pay all of it and I think that’s the real number and you know, we’re basically having to carry the rest of the country on our back. And I’m not saying, you know, all these ninety nine percenters out there are poor people or anything. I think a lot of them are just people who’ve been handed everything in their life. But I like the ninety nine plan. If nothing else, everybody starts to pay their fair share, instead of one part of the country carrying the rest who’s not doing anything. Listen to the caller try to respond after host Greta Brawner points out that under Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, billionaire investor Warren Buffett would likely pay no income tax at all as the Huffington Post reported here — Warren Buffett Would Most Likely Pay No Income Tax Under Herman Cain’s ’999′ Tax Plan: Analysis . You can almost smell the hairs burning off their head through the television screen. Sadly, Brawner did not point out the the caller that even though many do not pay any federal income taxes, they pay plenty of other taxes and many of them are also Social Security recipients. Solidarity Pizza Fund:
Continue reading …Republicans Block Second Attempt at Jobs Bill With Help from Nelson, Pryor and Lieberman
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media So much for caring more about keeping teachers, firefighters and police officers working. The Republicans in the Senate with some help from the usual suspects when it comes to blocking anything that might help everyday Americans — Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.) — blocked the passage of a portion of President Obama’s jobs bill this Thursday night. Lawrence O’Donnell showed us some of Vice President Joe Biden’s speech from the day before, urging members of the Senate to support the bill — Supporting middleclass over millionaires : Vice President Joe Biden eloquently offers Republicans a simple choice: support your local sheriffs or support your local millionaires. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains in the Rewrite. Here’s more from The Hill on the vote — Senate deals second defeat to Obama’s ‘jobs’ plan : For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in a unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda. The measure, a piece of President Obama’s larger jobs package, failed by a tally of 50 to 50 after several Democrats joined with Republicans to the Senate from moving to the measure. Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.), who voted last week to block Obama’s full jobs measure, again sided with Republicans. Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also said no, citing concerns about the legislation’s cost effectiveness. As with last week’s vote, Democrats failed to woo a single Republican vote. The staunchly unified GOP opposition calls into question whether the Democratic strategy has been able to exert the intended pressure on centrist Republicans. The $35 billion Democratic measure was designed to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters in cash-strapped states. Most of the funding, $30 billion, would have gone to saving teaching jobs and the rest to first responders. The most controversial element of the bill was a plan to pay for it by raising taxes on income over $1 million by 0.5 percent. Republicans argued that it would put more pressure on small businesses that are already having difficulty maintaining cash flow because of the tight credit market. Republicans said the latest Democratic jobs measure is a replay of the $787 billion stimulus Congress passed at the beginning of 2009, which they argue had little impact.Senate Democrats say they will bring additional pieces of the president’s jobs bill to the floor. One measure will likely include infrastructure spending; another would extend the payroll tax holiday and extend it to employers; a third would extend unemployment insurance. Democrats expect to propose the same pay-for — raising taxes on income over $1 million — for each. And here’s more from Greg Sargent on what the blocking of this bill means for the people that these Senators are supposed to be representing, the topic of which, sadly, we now have the answer to — Will Senators do the right thing on jobs, or will they shaft thousands of their own constituents? : Let’s be as clear as possible: Any Democratic or Republican senators who vote this week against the $35 billion package of aid to the states are putting the very narrow interests of an infinitessimal few over the interests of many thousands of their own constituents. This can be documented with actual numbers, as you will see below. The Senate vote is on whether to send billions to the states to avert teacher layoffs and to facilitate the hiring of more teachers and first resonders — a key provision of Obama’s jobs plan. This would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on millionaires. As of now, it’s unclear how a handful of moderate Senators in both parties will vote, because they have “stimulus spending” and they oppose hiking taxes on the rich. So here’s a way look at this: How many people would be impacted by this proposal in each state represented by each on-the-fence senator? And how does that compare to the number of constituents in each of those states who would pay that 0.5 percent surtax? And keep in mind, the impact of one teaching job is far vaster and affects far more people than the impact of the surtax on one constituent, which is only paid on income over one million dollars. As it turns out, in each of those states, the proposal would provide enough funds to create or save thousands of jobs — which would impact the lives of many more thousands of each state’s residents and lift the broader economy. Meanwhile, in most cases the surtax funding it would be paid by one tenth of a percent of each state’s residents. Here’s a breakdown of a few key states: Read on…
Continue reading …
I have a secret hope. I hope that on Paul Ryan’s Judgment Day, I get to watch from a teeny crack in the door while stifling squeals of glee at his fate. This is a man who loves that authoritarian “We Can’t Afford It” line while sucking up everything he can from the public coffers. Don’t forget, Paul Ryan is the guy who saved his survivor’s Social Security benefits to go to college . Ah, but what’s good for the goose isn’t so great for the gander, it seems. Think Progress has the transcript : LOWE: I come from a very middle-class family and under President Obama, I get $5,500 per year to pay for school, which doesn’t come close to covering all of the funding, but it helps ease the burden. Under your plan, you cut it by 15 percent. I was just curious why you would cut a grant that goes directly to the middle- and lower-class people that need it the most. RYAN: ‘Cause Pell Grants have become unsustainable. It’s all borrowed money…Look, I worked three jobs to pay off my student loans after college. I didn’t get grants, I got loans, and we need to have a system of viable student loans to be able to do this. The second concern I have is, in the health care bill — people don’t know this — for budgetary gimmickry reasons, the administration and Congress at the time, took over the student loan industry. So they had the federal government, the Department of Education, basically confiscate the private student loan industry. Paul Ryan loves student loans. Loves. Via TNR : Ryan is a fervent ally of the college lending industry. In 2007, he was one of only 71 Republicans to vote against the College Student Relief Act , which would have cut the interest rate on many student loans, including the FFEL program, in half. Inside Higher Ed noted that the bill would cut “deeply and directly into lenders’ profits.” The bill passed the House 356-71, but stalled in the Senate. And of course, the Affordable Care Act ended the profiteering by our favorite bankaneers by taking them out as middleman, so they’re a little bit flushed over that and looking for their favorite stooge to punish students, it seems. On a personal level, the one goal we’ve had is for our kids to get a degree without being in debt. We’re one semester away from the first graduation. The next is heading to college next year with what I hope is a good enough academic record to qualify for some scholarships. The eldest paid for college by enlisting. This is all wonderful, but they’re facing the same problems as everyone else: no jobs. Paul Ryan’s cynical, nasty retort to this student is emblematic of what the Republican Party has become. I can’t wait for him to get what he’s dished out to everyone else. In the meantime, here are some visual reminders of what people who went into debt to go to school are living in today’s world: enlarge and this: enlarge Source: Wearethe99percent Tumblr here and here
Continue reading …The Greedhead Mentality Will Keep Occupy Wall Street Relevant For a Long Time
October 21, 2011 No Comment
enlarge If I had to sum up the general theme of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it would go something like this: “We have to stop pretending that it’s okay to screw people over in the name of making money.” Now before some people start jumping up and down and yelling, “Straw man, straw man! Nobody believes it’s okay to do that,” let me present you with this delightful post written by ex-Goldman employee Matt Levine. Here is the actual title of the piece: So Maybe Citi Created A Mortgage-Backed Security Filled With Loans They Knew Were Going To Fail So That They Could Sell It To A Client Who Wasn’t Aware That They Sabotaged It By Intentionally Picking The Misleadingly Rated Loans Most Likely To Be Defaulted Upon, So What? Yeah, so what? It was just fraud! What kind of loser is opposed to fraud? Levine’s post is largely an attempt to counter arguments that it’s wrong to screw people over in the name of making money. Most of his points rely on the tried and true “sophisticated investor” defense, which is basically akin to that scene in “Animal House” where the guys from Delta House have just destroyed Flounder’s car and Otter tries to console him by saying, “Hey, you f***ed up! You trusted us!” In other words, it’s your fault that you got the shaft since you should have known we were going to shaft you. Take a look: There are five points to which your free-floating rage could maybe attach: 1. You were shorting a thing that you were selling to your customers! This is what drove Congress bonkers. But that’s what selling is. If you have 20 apples and sell me 15, you now have fewer apples, and I have more. If apple prices decline, I am worse off, and you are relatively protected. Banks, which are always long some risks and short some others, don’t see zero as a particularly interesting point on this continuum – if you have 20 apples and sell me 30, and apple prices decline, you make money, but that’s different only in degree, not in kind, from selling me 15 and reducing your risk to 5. The apple analogy is sorta funky since most normal human beings buy apples to, uh, eat them instead of using them as long-term investment strategies. But let’s roll with it! Let’s say Matt sells me a crate of apples that he thinks is overvalued and that I think I can sell at a profit. I understand that there are certain risks in such transactions: The apples might have worms in them. There might be a surplus crop of apples that will diminish my selling power. Or people might just decide apples suck and not want to buy them. These are all risks I’m willing to assume when I buy apples from Matt. But what I’m not willing to assume when I buy apples from Matt is that he might have personally embedded hand grenades in 80% of them that will blow up my truck when I try to drive them off the lot. Because that’s pretty much what Citi’s bad apples did to the people on the other side of the trade: After the deal closed on Feb. 28, 2007, more than 80 percent of the portfolio was downgraded by credit ratings agencies in less than nine months. The security declared “an event of default” on Nov. 19, 2007, and investors soon lost hundreds of millions of dollars, the S.E.C. said, while Citigroup gained. Among the losers was Ambac of New York, which insured financial instruments and was the largest investor in the deal, according to the S.E.C. Ambac’s role in the transaction was to assume the credit risk associated with a $500 million portion of the portfolio. When the value of the portfolio fell, Ambac had to make payments to those who had bet against the bonds, as Citigroup had. In part because of losses tied to the financial crisis, Ambac filed for bankruptcy last year. Neener, neener, neener, Ambac! How do you like them $500 million apples, losers? OK, let’s get back to Levine here: 2. You didn’t tell buyers you were short. Well, see above – someone had to be short, that’s what a synthetic CDO is. So buyers knew. But also, you did. In other words, the SEC has a sad because Citi didn’t specifically tell clients that the other side of the market was Citi prop, rather than customer facilitation, although it did say “it might be.” Fortunately, that will no longer be a problem. Similarly (oppositely?), with Abacus the SEC was pissed that Goldman didn’t tell clients that the other side of the market was John Paulson, who had a stellar reputation for market clairvoyance for about 45 minutes (though those 45 minutes, to be fair, occurred after Abacus was already dead). But of course you’re not supposed to tell people who the other side of the market is. Banks have rules against telling buyers who the sellers were, and vice versa. That’s why you trade through a market maker: to preserve anonymity and avoid being front-run by competitors. Citi disclosed that it might have a conflict by being short; it just didn’t want to give away its whole book by explaining exactly how short it was and whether the risk was laid off elsewhere. What makes this whole passage so spectacularly wrong is that Levine seems to view all of these transactions as mere bets between two well-coiffed gentlemen of superior stock. “Cheerio, old bean, I say! Shall we place our wagers on some synthetic CDOs to-day? I’ll bet twenty pounds that the commoners default on their mortgages and you can bet twenty pounds that they’ll pay them off!” But the problem is that these cute little bets on the housing market had consequences far more dire than some rich a**wipe losing his money. See, Goldman’s credit default swap deals with AIG were the main factor that sent the firm hurtling toward insolvency. You may remember what happened to them — they got bailed out by we taxpayers to the tune of $85 billion . What’s more, instruments such as synthetic CDOs are designed to let investors take out insurance on assets that they don’t even own, which means they can theoretically add limitless leverage to the financial system so long as there are suckers sophisticated investors willing to take on the risks. Now while said suckers sophisticated investors may indeed deserve to lose their shirts, it also kinda sucks for us if those same suckers sophisticated investors are the same douches that, say, insure peoples’ cars. If I get into a car accident and some a**bag greedhead investment bank has bankrupted the insurer of the car that hit me, I’m totally screwed, along with anyone else who needs AIG to pay out claims that are legitimate parts of the real economy and not part of the Grand Derivatives Casino. And that’s the thing that drives me nuts about the greedhead mentality: The denial that their actions could have a widespread negative impact on other peoples’ lives. If Occupy Wall Street does just one thing, it should be to shame this sort of thinking out of existence.
Continue reading …Jon Stewart on GOP reaction to Gaddafi’s Death: ‘What the f*ck is wrong with you people?’
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After some obnoxious partisan clips from Fox News of early reaction to the capture and subsequent death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Jon Stewart asked “Is there no Republican that can be gracious and statesmen-like in this situation?” He then played clips of Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, and John McCain praising the French and the Brits. Stewart’s reaction was to throw his hands up in the air in utter disgust. The segment ended with the kids on Fox & Friends lamenting the successful removal of a tyrant, capturing the absurdity quite nicely.
Continue reading …
Dennis Kozlowski – serving up to 25 years for grand larceny, conspiracy and securities fraud – says he ‘understands the frustration’ felt by Occupy Wall Street protesters A rare treat for fans of the wisdom of Dennis Kozlowski, the former Tyco chief currently serving up to 25 years for grand larceny, conspiracy and securities fraud stemming from his heroic devotion to corporate excess. Prisoner 05A4820 has given an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he admits that he might have got a little “piggy” when trousering those giant bonuses at the manufacturing group. Speaking in a visitors’ room at the Mid-State Correctional Facility in New York State, he demonstrated a previously disguised penchant for irony by siding with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, saying: I understand their frustration. Kozlowski – who pulled in a pay package worth more than $105m in 2000 and famously got Tyco to fork out for his New York apartment, which included a $6,000 shower curtain and a $15,000 “dog umbrella stand” – says he is now attempting to take a work-release job (although New York State is blocking him) and that he reckons he has been harshly treated. He moans: My sentence is the same as people who brought down Enron and WorldCom He also criticises ailing financial firms for paying out massive bonuses after they were bailed out by the taxpayer, musing: That’s indefensible. Quite. United States US economy Occupy Wall Street Occupy movement Simon Goodley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Defence secretary says he is absolutely committed to programme amid fears he wanted a rethink The new defence secretary, Philip Hammond, has insisted that he supports plans for the renewal of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent. Within days of his appointment to the role following the resignation of Liam Fox last Friday, industry experts raised fears that Hammond would rethink the programme because he had failed to back it in parliament. The new generation of missile-carrying submarines is expected to cost up to £25bn in cash terms, and the first of the four replacement submarines is planned to enter service in 2028. Asked whether he wanted Trident to be renewed, Hammond told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme : “Yes, that is clear. I am absolutely committed to the Trident programme and always have been. “I heard this story earlier in the week, and I think the issue was that I was actually out on a visit on the route of the high-speed railway proposal when the vote was taken in parliament. Had I been there, I would have voted in favour.” Fox had indicated that he would resign if Trident was ditched, as the Liberal Democrats wanted, while he was still in the post, but the “main gate” decision was pushed back to 2016. Hammond also said defence cuts would not prevent Britain having viable armed forces. He said: “We have had to make some serious budget cuts. My predecessor has successfully negotiated with the Treasury a settlement that will allow the UK to continue to project force abroad, to continue to have viable and sustainable armed forces in the future. “Over the next 10 years, we will be spending £165bn on military equipment and equipment support and this is a major investment. “We have demonstrated during the course of the Libya campaign our ability to mount a significant operation while simultaneously fighting a major engagement in Afghanistan.” Trident Military Defence policy Nuclear weapons Philip Hammond guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …