Sunday, December 12, 2010

Making $ off TARP

Gov't: Taxpayers Make $12B on Citigroup Bailout

Government unwinds its stake in Citigroup posting a $12 billion profit on $45 billion bailout

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON December 7, 2010 (AP)


After all is said and done, taxpayers will make a $12 billion profit on the government's $45 billion bailout of Citigroup.

The Treasury Department said late Monday that it had struck a deal to sell its remaining holdings in Citigroup common stock, about 2.4 billion shares. With the proceeds of the sale, priced at $4.35 a share, the government will have realized $57 billion on its bailout package for the big bank.

"By selling all the remaining Citigroup shares today, we had an opportunity to lock in substantial profits for the taxpayer and avoid future risk," said Tim Massad, the Treasury official who heads up the bailout program.

Citigroup received $45 billion in taxpayer support late in 2008 in one of the largest bailouts undertaken by the government as it struggled to contain the worst financial crisis to hit the country since the 1930s.

The bailout of Citigroup and other large banks was begun under the Republican administration of George W. Bush but turned into a major political liability for President Barack Obama in last month's congressional elections.

Republicans took control of the House and gained six seats in the Senate by capitalizing on voter anger over the bailouts and soaring federal budget deficits.

The administration has insisted that the bailouts were needed to prevent an even deeper recession. They said the cost of the bailouts has been falling as Citigroup and other rescued institutions pay back their government loans.

The latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office in late November was that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would end up costing the government $25 billion, down from an August CBO estimate of $66 billion.

Of the $45 billion provided to Citigroup, $25 billion was converted to a government ownership stake that the Treasury has been selling off since last spring. The bank repaid the other $20 billion in December 2009.

Treasury said that with the pricing of the last 2.4 billion shares of common stock on Monday, it would receive $31.8 billion from the sale of common stock plus another $2.9 billion in interest and dividends.

The $57 billion total also includes $20 billion from Citigroup's December 2009 repayment of TARP money and another $2.2 billion from the sale of trust preferred securities held by the government.

The actual earnings are expected to climb with the sale of an additional $800 million in trust preferred securities held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the sale of warrants Treasury holds. The warrants give the holder the right to buy Citigroup common stock at a specified price.

Treasury had disposed of about 5.3 billion shares at an average price of $4.05 before Monday's pricing of the remaining shares. With the pricing of $4.35 for the shares offered on Monday, Treasury's average price for its entire 7.7 billion shares of common stock will turn out to be $4.14.

Citigroup common stock closed at $4.45 in trading Monday and has ranged from a low of $3.11 to a high of $5.07 over the past 52 weeks.

Monday's deal, for which Morgan Stanley acted as bookrunning manager, is expected to close on Friday, Treasury said. Citigroup is paying the underwriting fees.

"Selling off the remaining stake ensures that taxpayers will book a healthy profit on the Citigroup investment," said Linus Wilson, a professor of finance at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

———

AP Business Writer Pallavi Gogoi in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Trickle Down Doesn't Work

Will ending Bush tax cuts hurt small business?
By Rhonda Abrams, USA TODAY
12/3/2010

Listen to politicians talk about taxes, and sooner or later, they're going to tell you the real victim or beneficiary is "small business." Never is this more true than in the current debate over the extension of what are commonly-referred to as theBush era tax cuts. Politicians are grandstanding that failure to extend these tax cuts are going to cripple small businesses — lead to an end of all small business hiring — virtually be the end of small companies as we know it.

Before you close your doors in despair, what's actually the truth? How will the proposals to extend or end these tax cuts truly affect your own small business?

First, a bit of background: Under President Bush, temporary tax cuts were enacted in 2001, when — believe it or not — the federal budget had a surplus! As the economy slowed, additional tax cuts were enacted in 2003. These tax cuts had a built-in expiration date: December 31, 2010.

There are two main sets of cuts at the heart of the discussion now:

• "Middle class" tax reductions — applying to all Americans with taxable incomes of $250,000 for couples, or singles with taxable incomes of $200,000, or less.

• Tax cuts applying also to those with taxable incomes of more than $250,000/ $200,000.

The Obama administration has proposed that the middle class tax cuts should be extended. Republicanswant the tax cuts for those in the top brackets also extended. Some Democrats propose a compromise — extending tax cuts only to those making less than a million dollars.

So what does all this mean for your small business?

First — you personally are almost certainly not going to see a change in your tax rates. Not if you're one of the 98% of all small business owners who have less than $250,000 a year in adjusted gross income — $200,000 if you're single. Most Democrats and Republicans support the extension of these middle class tax cuts. The only way you'll see your taxes go up is if these cuts are held hostage to cuts for wealthier Americans.

Now, if you're one of the 2% of small companies that make more than a quarter of a million dollars after all expenses — first of all, good for you!

But should we increase taxes on those businesses now — in the midst of high unemployment? By increasing their taxes, won't we have a negative impact on hiring?

Nope.

First, you need to know it's likely that most of those "small businesses" reporting high income are neither small nor, possibly, businesses. For government tax purposes, the term "small business" can be misleading. What is included generally are all who report "business income" on a pass-through basis. These can be very wealthy individuals who have set up investments as partnerships or S corporations to reduce their taxes, including many hedge funds.

According to a 2008 study by the Joint Committee on Taxation — a nonprofit arm of Congress — 61% of all net income from partnerships and S corporations are earned by those with gross receipts of more than $10 million, and almost half — 43% — have receipts exceeding $50 million! Hardly small — and often not a business that hires anyone. So a huge bulk of the tax benefits would go to those who have no impact on job creation.

Will a tax cut for the wealthy have a trickle down benefit for small business? Nope.

According to the independent, highly-regarded Congressional Budget Office, the Bush era tax cuts have the lowest stimulative effect of 11 stimulus policies examined. For every $1 in tax cuts, only 10 cents to 40 cents are returned to the economy.

Compare that with something every small business employer can relate to — reducing employer's share of the payroll tax. According to the CBO, that would result in 40 cents to $1.20 back in the economy for every dollar spent. That would reduce the cost of having employees and make it easier to hire. A better, more targeted, small business tax cut.

Let's face it — you know and I know that what helps your small business the most is a healthy economy. We hire because there's demand for our products and services, because consumers and businesses are buying. Let's spend our money on tax cuts that truly help small companies.

Rhonda Abrams is president of The Planning Shop, publisher of books for entrepreneurs. Her newest book isHire Your First Employee: the entrepreneur's guide to finding, choosing, and leading great people. Register for Rhonda's free business tips at www.PlanningShop.com. For an index of her columns, go tosmallbiz.usatoday.com. Twitter: twitter.com/RhondaAbrams. Copyright Rhonda Abrams 2010.

Beck Spreads More Anti-Islam Lies

Glenn Beck: Ten Percent Of Muslims Are Terrorists (AUDIO)

The Huffington Post

Jack Mirkinson

First Posted: 12- 6-10 03:35 PM

Updated: 12- 6-10 04:56 PM


Glenn Beck said he thinks ten percent of all Muslims are terrorists.

As ThinkProgress pointed out, Beck's estimate would mean that roughly 157 million Muslims in the world are terrorists.

Speaking on his radio show Monday, Beck decried the relative lack of coverage that the news media is giving to the figures he discusses day after day on his radio and television shows.

"We have revolutionaries here in America speaking about an open violent revolution and no one will cover it!" Beck said. "Would they cover it if you had tape of Al Qaeda saying they're going to get out in the streets, they want violence? Of course you would!"

Beck surmised that the media don't think that the threats he describes are sufficient enough to cover seriously. However, he said, they should look at the havoc a relatively small number of "Islamic terrorists" had caused:

"What is the number of Islamic terrorists? 1 percent? I think it's closer to ten percent but the rest of the PC world will tell you, 'oh no, it's miniscule.' Well, OK, let's take you at your one percent. Look at the havoc one percent of Muslims causing in the rest of the world. You don't think one percent, half a percent of people here in the United States of radicals, of people who want to violently overthrow the government of the United States, is a problem?"

UPDATE:
As the Huffington Post's Sebastian Howard pointed out on Twitter, Beck's figure of ten percent is hardly new. In fact, Beck used the same statistic in his 2003 book, "The Real America." In it, Beck says that he has concluded, after "reading and prayer," that, while ninety percent of Islam is peaceful, "ten percent wants to see us dead." The remaining ten percent, he writes, is "composed of extreme radicals who have taken Islam through a time tunnel and twisted it into something ugly and barbaric."

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

HCR Favored by Public

Poll: Voters like health reform

by Steven Thomma - Nov. 23, 2010
McClatchy Newspapers

A majority of Americans want Congress to keep the new health-care law or actually expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it, according to a new McClatchy Newspapers-Marist poll.

The post-election survey indicated that 51 percent of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44 percent want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.

Driving support for the law: Voters by ratios of 2-1 or greater want to keep some of its best-known benefits, such as barring insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. One thing they don't like: the mandate that everyone must buy insurance.

On the side favoring the health-care law, 16 percent of registered voters want to let it stand as is.

Thirty-five percent want to change it to do more. Among groups with pluralities who want to expand it: women, minorities, people younger than 45, Democrats, liberals, Northeasterners and those making less than $50,000 a year.

Lining up against the law, 11 percent want to amend it to rein it in.

Thirty-three percent want to repeal it.

Among groups with pluralities favoring repeal: men, Whites, those 45 and older, those making more than $50,000 annually, conservatives, Republicans and "tea party" supporters.

Independents, who helped swing to the Republicans in the Nov. 2 elections, are evenly divided on how to handle the health-care law, with 36 percent for repealing it and 12 percent for restraining it (a total of 48 percent negative) while 34 percent want to expand it and 14 percent want to leave it as is (also totaling 48 percent).

Fifty-nine percent of registered voters vs. 36 percent want to keep the requirement that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The section of the law requiring insurance companies to allow young adults to remain on their parents' policies until age 26 also is popular. Sixty-eight percent vs. 29 percent polled said keep it.

The survey of 1,020 adults was conducted Nov. 15-18. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

As stimulus funds near end, new pain will begin
by Ronald J. Hansen
Nov. 21, 2010
The Arizona Republic LINK

If people didn't like the federal stimulus, they may hate when it's gone.

As the year winds down, the $862 billion plan to rescue the economy from the depths of the recession enters a new phase in which tax cuts and credits expire and countless hard-to-replace construction projects will end. Thousands of workers in some states could lose their jobs.

The political power shift brought about by the midterm elections has likely settled any lingering doubts that the stimulus will largely run out, as scheduled, in the coming months. A smaller package of federal aid that passed in August, primarily for teachers, also will rapidly disappear. With the new Republican majority in the House next year, there will be little support for similar additional measures.

Worries about the national debt and a negative view of the stimulus augur a new period when more businesses must survive on their own and governments must tighten their belts. The austerity will be widely felt.

Nearly every worker in the nation will see slightly slimmer paychecks as $400 individual tax cuts are slated to end this year.

Tax credits, such as those offering incentives for energy-efficiency improvements for homeowners, also are set to lapse at year's end. The earned-income tax credit, which rewards the working poor, will no longer include funding for those with a third child.

In Arizona, lawmakers face at least an $800 million "funding cliff" as stimulus aid for Medicaid begins declining in January and ends by July. The extra aid expires as states operate under new federal health-care mandates that block coverage cuts in Arizona. The combination effectively exacerbates the already-bleak budget outlook, said John Arnold, state budget director for Gov. Jan Brewer.

Arnold would not speculate on what the budget crunch means for state employees, but he left no doubt additional cuts are unavoidable.

"Will state expenditures decline? I think that's highly likely," he said. "Where that will be targeted - we'll get back to you in January."

Education, especially for universities and community colleges, may face deeper budget cuts than in recent years because provisions of receiving some stimulus aid that required states to maintain 2006 spending levels are expiring.

Mixed impressions

When President Barack Obama signed it into law in February 2009, supporters hoped the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would serve almost as a second New Deal to pull the economy away from the abyss.

The stimulus did pump life into the economy.

The White House estimates that by the end of the year the stimulus will have saved or created 3.5 million jobs.

Social Security recipients got one-time $250 payments.

And workers got those $400 tax breaks, what Princeton University economist Alan Blinder called "possibly the worst advertised program in the history of the republic." He predicted that workers who didn't notice they were getting them will notice when they're not.

Arizona benefited in various ways. More than 90 percent of the $76 million in stimulus funding for Arizona wastewater and drinking-water system projects has been received. Thirteen of the 46 projects are completed. The projects have directly funded more than 800 jobs around the state, and because the projects got under way, hundreds more jobs are funded using the state and local dollars that also help pay for the work.

But the stimulus hasn't brought a windfall of jobs. And as goes the stimulus, so too will many of the jobs that came with it.

Mike Markham, chief operating officer for Markham Contracting in Phoenix, said his company has won a half-dozen stimulus contracts worth $35 million, some of which is shared with subcontractors. Even so, since 2008 his family-owned company has cut two-thirds of its workers, about 200 layoffs.

"Seventy percent of our work has been stimulus work this year," he said. "We would have had to reduce our company even more without the stimulus."

Markham's last stimulus project, widening Grand Avenue, currently funds 18 of his workers and about the same number of subcontractors, too. It is expected to end in March.

Earlier this month, a South Carolina company that manages a former nuclear-weapons complex told its workers that 1,400 of them will soon lose their jobs. Of those, 800 were funded by the stimulus.

One stimulus program divided $1 billion among the states to partner with the private sector to provide jobs to welfare recipients who wanted to work. The program helped create about 250,000 subsidized jobs nationwide, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based think tank that advocates for the poor and middle class. Funding for the program expired in October.

Since its inception, Obama's critics cast the stimulus as a colossal waste. That view now predominates in public-opinion polls.

In early October, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 68 percent of people surveyed viewed the stimulus as a waste compared with 29 percent who see it as money wisely spent.

One reason for that perception may be a belief that government spending was growing even more rapidly than it did.

Between January 2009 and July, federal government spending increased about 10 percent, according to data tracked by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. But cutbacks by state and local governments in the same period meant that overall federal, state and local spending climbed just 3 percent.

That's largely because, unlike Congress, state and local governments generally have to balance their budgets. As tax revenue plummeted, so did governments' ability to maintain services and employee levels.

Also undermining the popularity of the stimulus were delays in some programs, which dampened the intended economic jolt.

The $5 billion home-weatherization program, for example, stalled for months while state and local officials around the country waited for a ruling from Washington on fair wages for the projects.

Now, the projects are midway to a use-it-or-lose-it deadline, and states are working urgently to keep the funding. As of early November, more than $3 billion, or 64 percent, of all the money remained unspent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. In Arizona, 68 percent of the $61 million awarded for weatherization remained unspent.

Obama himself has offered a measured defense of the legislation.

In October, he called the stimulus "the most serious investment in our infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system in the 1950s." A day later, the New York Times published an interview in which he said "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects," a concession that the pace of the stimulus hasn't matched need.

Up to private sector

Going forward, the onus will be on the private sector to revive the economy.

The private sector has added jobs 10 straight months, a welcome change after seeing losses in 23 of the 24 preceding months.

Real gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic output, has grown five straight quarters. Before that, it had declined four straight quarters.

Even so, economists say the growth is tepid and far too modest to bring down the unemployment rate, which has remained stuck between 9.5 percent and 10 percent nationally for the past 15 months.

Blinder, the Princeton economist, predicts the likely loss of stimulus measures, along with other social-safety-net items like extended unemployment insurance, will hurt the economy noticeably. The outcome will be far worse if the Bush-era tax cuts also expire at year's end, he said.

"If everything runs out and the stimulus expires, this is a potentially catastrophic outcome for the U.S.," said Blinder, who has served as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve System's board of governors.

In Arizona, the job numbers have improved in recent months, but there are still 50,000 fewer people working now than when the stimulus began.

That helps explain why the state's budget remains a problem.

The trouble only worsened after voters rejected referendums that would have allowed lawmakers to tap funds from the early-education program First Things First and from a land-conservation fund.

Without those dollars, the state is left with about $500 million less than what lawmakers had hoped by now.

And sales-tax revenue, the state's primary source of cash, is $74 million below forecasts.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/21/20101121stimulus-funds-near-end.html#ixzz15wnd5XTZ

Estimated cost of the stimulus

The stimulus provided a burst of spending and tax breaks, but the impact will wane over the years.

Fiscal yearAmount (in billions)
2009$184.9
2010$399.4
2011$134.4
2012$36.1
2013$27.6
2014$22.4
2015$4.7
2016-$7.3
2017-$7.5
2018-$6.1
2019-$1.4
Total$787.2*

*Based on 2009 estimate. Latest estimate is $862 billion.

Source: Congressional Budget Office

GDP during the recession

National economic output improved as the stimulus rolled out, but economists worry the pace of growth is stalling.

Period% change from preceding quarter
2007 Q42.9
2008 Q1-0.7
2008 Q20.6
2008 Q3-4.0
2008 Q4-6.8
2009 Q1*-4.9
2009 Q2-0.7
2009 Q31.6
2009 Q45.0
2010 Q13.7
2010 Q21.7
2010 Q32.0

*Stimulus passed into law.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/21/20101121stimulus-funds-near-end.html#ixzz15wobO7MU