Internet News Items

No Criminal Charges

Barry Wood (bdubois@talktalk.net) sent Joseph Kishore’s “Too Big To Jail.” In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made an extraordinary admission. Responding to questioning from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who noted that there had been no major prosecutions of financial institutions or executives by the Obama administration, Holder said: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them, when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute...it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy….”

This exchange occurred during a discussion of the Justice Department’s settlement in February with British-based HSBC, the world’s third largest bank. HSBC had been charged with laundering billions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. In exchange for avoiding the charges, HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion, or roughly two months’ profits.

HSBC is only the latest bank to have received a free pass. Earlier this year, ten financial firms agreed to pay $3.3 billion in cash to settle charges of mortgage fraud. Amid the housing market collapse, they had employees fraudulently sign off on thousands of mortgage foreclosures a month.

In 2010, the Obama administration reached a settlement with Wachovia Bank on similar charges as those brought against HSBC: laundering billions of dollars of drug money, in this case, for the Sinaloa Cartel. The fine was $160 million, less than 2 percent of the previous year’s profits.

In its dealings with these institutions, however, the government acts as a direct representative of the financial aristocracy. A stench of corruption hangs over the whole process. There is hardly a single Obama administration official in a position important to the banks that does not have previous ties to Wall Street.

Holder made his statements on the banks at the same hearing in which he laid out the Obama administration’s position that it has the authority to assassinate citizens within the United States without judicial review.

The coming together of these two statements is not simply coincidental. There is a class logic at work. With the active assistance of the state, the financial aristocracy is engaged in a looting operation and criminality has become an integral part of wealth accumulation.

For the full article, go to bdubois@talktalk.net

Sequestering

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flower sent “Sequester Facts You Need To Know.” Right now, the American people are like frogs in warm sequester water. For some, inundated with all the corporate media talk about out-of-control spending, the cuts to the deficit feel good right now. But as the sequester takes hold and federal spending is pulled from the economy, those views are likely to change.

U.S. elected officials seem to be focused primarily on making sure the other party is to blame, when, in fact, both are to blame.  

The sequester will cut $85 billion in government spending from March 1 to September 30. It is a 5 percent cut for most federal spending, but because the fiscal year began on October 1, 2012, five months have already passed and thus the one year cut is jammed into seven months. Some agencies, like those providing unemployment benefits, have been unable to prepare so there are likely to be 10 percent or so cuts in checks to the unemployed. Other agencies have been able to prepare somewhat by not filling vacancies and taking other budgetary actions since last October. And others, which give out grants for research, will be giving out fewer funds in grants. How the sequester will impact agencies will vary from program to program.

It will also vary from state to state. States like Virginia, New Mexico, Alabama, and South Carolina, with high federal spending, will face more severe cutbacks, while states like New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Oregon, with less federal spending, will face less. But there will be budgetary pain all across the nation in healthcare, housing, education, security, and immigration— among others.

The sequester does not seem to bother Wall Street, as the stock market approaches record highs, but then Wall Street has always desired cuts rather than the kinds of job program spending that the economy needs. In fact, probably the best comment on the sequester came from Chris Hayes who pointed out that if the White House and Congress really want to scare themselves, the next threat should be a trillion dollar spending program—half to create government jobs and half to pay-off peoples’ debts.

There is more than the sequester happening in the U.S. economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans saw their biggest drop in monthly income in 20 years with personal income decreasing 3.6 percent and income after taxes decreasing 4 percent. Delinquency on student loans is increasing rapidly, now greater than credit card debt.

To no one’s surprise the heart of the U.S. economy is now big finance. Their political power resulted in both parties taking a pass on challenging Wall Streeter Jack Lew from taking over the Treasury Department. He is needed to protect Wall Street considering that a federal judge may have handed the big banks a loss in a ruling that could cost them $250 billion for mortgage security fraud. This is part of pervasive fraud that seems to exist on Wall Street. With the biggest fraud in history, the LIBOR scandal, waiting in the wings, their problems may not be over.

But, the big banks should also be aware, people are moving their money to the credit unions. Credit unions have almost as much in assets as the biggest banks. Credit unions are a form of co-operative, and co-ops across the country are taking root.

Recent research shows that worldwide, subsidies for oil and gas far outstrip clean energy sources with $620 billion in subsidies going to fossil fuels. And the Obama administration seems to be doubling down on its “all of the above” energy strategy that will push us over the tipping point of climate change.

Finally, Obama bragged in the State of the Union that health care spending was down and took credit for it. But what is becoming clear is that spending is down at the cost of Americans health. And, despite the fact that improved Medicare for all is the solution to the health crisis, the Progressive Caucus will not sign a letter protecting Medicare, Medi- caid, and Social Security.

For the full article go to ItsOurEconomy.us.

Overturning

ZNet sent “Supreme Court Overturns Basic Democratic Rights” by Barry Sheppard who writes that in a five-to-four split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, in effect, no citizen may challenge the constitutionality of any of the executive orders, or laws passed by Congress, that violate democratic rights under the pretext of the “war on terrorism.” The decision was in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges, and several defense attorneys.

Their suit challenged a 2008 law that gave the National Security Agency (NSA) unchecked power to monitor all international telephone calls, emails, or any other electronic communications of all U.S. citizens with no warrants or stated reasons for surveillance needed. The plaintiffs charged that these sweeping powers violated their First Amendment rights of free speech and association, and their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

In a ruling worthy of a Kafka novel, the majority of the court said the plaintiffs could not challenge the constitutionality of the law because they could not prove that they had been the targets of surveillance under the law. Of course, they couldn’t because NSA keeps secret which citizens it is spying on. Therefore, the court “reasoned” that the plaintiffs had no “standing” to even bring the matter up. Thus, the constitutionality of the law and similar laws will never be ruled on by the Supreme Court or any other court.

After the Supreme Court decision closed the door to any legal challenge, Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs, wrote that the decision is “one that has become routine in a court system that writes lengthy opinions about why the courts cannot defend the rule of law.”

I would add, no matter what the courts rule, if the powers-that-be have the capability to spy on everyone, they will do so, whether allowed by law or not.

For the full article, go to zcommunications.org