Author: Ken Coman
•6:52 PM
I saw this on the cover the Wall Street Journal last week and had to share it. I think it does a good job of showing how far beyond reasonable government we have gone and are going to. I had no idea that banks were forced to take the loans from the government - both stable and unstable banks were forced to take them. I also think it intresting how the banks were forced to receive the money and therefore they were forced to accept the strings attached as well - such as regulations on executive compensation.

I can understand the need to save the financial system and support certain efforts to do so. However, I can't understand how the Government has the right or the ability to compel institutions and people to receive money and the regulations along with it. This is the equivalent of marketplace emminent domain - a place where they have no emminent domain capabilities. What happened to Freedom? What happened to choice and accountability? Goldman doesn't even have to ask for help now - the government will step right in before they need it. At any rate, I thought it was worth sharing.

By SUSANNE CRAIG, KATE KELLY and DEBORAH SOLOMON

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., frustrated at federally mandated pay caps, has been plotting for months to get out from under the government's thumb.

On Monday, Goldman took fresh steps to break free: It announced, as expected, that it plans to raise $5 billion by selling new common shares to investors, and that it would like to use the money to repay government bailout money received last year. The firm also reported stronger-than-expected first-quarter earnings of $1.81 billion.

Goldman managers have a big incentive to escape the state's clutches. Last year, 953 Goldman employees -- nearly one in 30 -- were paid in excess of $1 million apiece, according to people familiar with the matter. But tight federal restrictions connected to the financial-sector bailout have severely crimped the Wall Street firm's ability to offer such lavish pay this year.

At a meeting President Barack Obama hosted with bank executives at the White House in late March, Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's chief executive, argued that banks needed freedom to repay the loans the U.S. forced them to accept in October. Eight large institutions received a total of $165 billion in capital, including $10 billion for Goldman. The pay restrictions were tied to those loans. The banks were told then that everyone had to accept the money so it wouldn't be obvious who needed it most.

"Those who could pay it back have an obligation to do so," Mr. Blankfein urged the president, according to attendees. Mr. Blankfein, who was paid $68.5 million in 2007, added that the pay caps and other factors are "going to limit our ability to compete, both here and abroad."

The federal government's management of the financial crisis is entering a new phase. The trillions of dollars Washington has committed to help stabilize companies and thaw frozen credit markets have enmeshed the government deep in the affairs of investment banks, insurers and auto companies. Now that stock and bond markets have rebounded a bit, and pressure is easing for some financial firms, the government has to begin deciding how tight a grip to maintain on some companies, and for how long.

If Goldman is permitted to repay its loan, it would be the first big bank to do so. That would set the stage for the firm to once again pay its executives, traders and bankers -- long among Wall Street's highest paid -- as it sees fit.

But an early repayment could pose a risk to other banks that received government money, by rekindling investor concerns about their health. Morgan Stanley, for example, which is expected to report a first-quarter loss, isn't likely to quickly repay the U.S., according to banking executives and government officials. Will other profitable banks rush to repay, deepening the divide between the haves and the have-nots? And what would happen if there's another financial shock and banks are forced to ask for more U.S. funds?

A handful of smaller banks already have taken steps to repay the government. The U.S. has indicated it won't allow any major banks to do so before the government considers the results of financial "stress tests," which are expected by April 30. The tests measure banks' ability to continue lending through a severe and prolonged economic downturn. Because of the technicalities of the loans, it could take months before Goldman or any other big bank that repays will escape the government's clutches.

The 140-year-old firm long has boasted a culture of lucrative compensation. Although overall Goldman pay fell last year, the firm, which has about 30,000 employees, paid 953 people more than $1 million in salary and bonus, according to people familiar with the matter. No one got more than $1 million in cash; much of the pay was through stock grants that vest in the future, these people say. (At Merrill Lynch & Co., which had roughly twice as many employees, 696 executives were paid more than $1 million last year, according to data released by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.) In 2008, the pay of Mr. Blankfein and three top Goldman lieutenants fell 97%, to a total of $9.3 million.

Firms are chafing under new legislative rules dictating that bonuses can account for no more than one-third of the total annual pay to top earners at companies receiving government money. The Obama administration also has endorsed capping salaries at $500,000 at some firms receiving significant U.S. aid. The government also restricts companies accepting U.S. funds from increasing dividends and from buying back their own stock, among other things.

Mr. Blankfein now uses Amtrak's Acela Express train to shuttle between New York and Washington to make his case with government officials. That's a far cry from the private plane Goldman executives have used in the past. Some Goldman partners, careful not to appear to be spending taxpayer money, now use their personal credit cards when paying for client entertaining. Employees visiting New York now stay at an Embassy Suites hotel rather than the tony Ritz-Carlton where they used to bed down.

Goldman has fared better than most rivals during the crisis, but was hammered nonetheless after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection in September. Goldman's stock sank to $108 on Sept. 18, less than half its high of more than $247 a share in October 2007.

Even then, Goldman executives didn't believe the firm needed U.S. money. On Sept. 23, as the financial crisis intensified, Goldman raised $5 billion from Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Goldman hoped the investment -- preferred stock with a steep 10% annual return -- would reassure investors. Goldman raised another $5.75 billion in a common-stock offering.

Mr. Blankfein spoke up when nine big banks were called to the emergency meeting in October where the Treasury Department unveiled its plan.

"This is pretty vague," Mr. Blankfein told then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, attendees say. "What are the terms?"

The U.S. did more than give the banks money. In exchange for the capital, it also received warrants, a security that gives the holder the right to buy common stock at a certain price. Paying back the money doesn't end the government's ability to exercise those warrants and own common stock in the banks. To formally end the government's involvement, the Treasury must sell the warrants back to the bank or to private investors.

It didn't take long for Goldman investors to raise concerns about Washington's grip. At a Nov. 11 conference at New York's Grand Hyatt hotel, an audience member grilled Mr. Blankfein.
"Some of the politicians are questioning companies who have accepted...money as to whether they should be paying bonuses this year," the attendee said. "And I'm wondering...how you're thinking about your ability to continue to compensate your staff the way you have in the past?"
Mr. Blankfein replied: "We hear those voices and we take it into account."

Six days later, Goldman said its board decided that senior executives would take no bonuses. The numbers were released in mid-December. Money set aside for pay and benefits fell 46% to $10.93 billion. Most partners, the firm's elite, saw bonuses fall by about 70%, according to people familiar with the matter.

All costs were being scrutinized by then, due to heightened public scrutiny and declining profits. Goldman employees working late now are entitled to only $20 in reimbursement for dinner, a 20% reduction. Car-service rides home aren't free until 10 p.m., an hour later than before.
At a Goldman partners meeting in early January, Mr. Blankfein said repaying the federal money was a priority.

The firm took the message public at an investor conference on Feb. 4. "Operating our business without the government capital would be an easier thing to do," said David Viniar, Goldman's chief financial officer. "We'd be under less scrutiny and under less pressure." Goldman's shares rose 6.2% that day, to $87.97.

Goldman aimed to spin the message more broadly at a congressional hearing on Feb. 11. It was Mr. Blankfein's first-ever congressional appearance, and he spent hours preparing.

Mr. Blankfein played diplomat. "When conditions allow, and with the support of our regulators and the Treasury, we look forward to paying back the government's investment so that money can be used elsewhere to support our economy," he testified.

On Feb. 26, the Treasury sent an email to Goldman's finance department containing the financial stress test. Mr. Viniar, Goldman's CFO, ordered his staff to work around-the-clock so Goldman could return the questionnaire by Monday, four days later.

But the Treasury told the firm it had to wait until its review was concluded later this month before the U.S. would entertain a repayment of the money, according to people familiar with the matter.

A public uproar last month over bonuses paid to American International Group Inc. employees only heightened Goldman's urgency. The AIG bonuses prompted a House bill to slap a 90% tax on bonuses for those receiving pay of $250,000 or more at firms that received more than $5 billion in government funds.

Some Goldman executives privately discussed repaying $5 billion -- half its government loan -- or more, say people familiar with the matter. That would have exempted Goldman from the bill taxing bonuses.

The bonus-taxing measure fizzled after President Obama expressed reservations.

Soon, a prominent government official indirectly suggested a course of action that might pave the way for a payback. On March 15, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a "60 Minutes" television interview that the day a bank could raise private capital would be an important milestone. "Right now, all the private money is sitting on the sidelines saying: 'We don't know what these banks are worth. We don't know that they're stable,'" Mr. Bernanke said.

Two days later, at a monthly meeting of Goldman's nearly 400 partners, Mr. Blankfein said it may be "prudent" for Goldman to raise capital, say attendees.

He has sought political backing. Mr. Blankfein has met twice with Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Messrs. Blankfein and Frank discussed repaying government funds, among other things, says Mr. Frank.

"I think it's a sign of strength" for Goldman to seek to repay U.S. money, Mr. Frank said in a recent interview.

Some Goldman rivals are less likely to repay their loans right away. At the March 27 White House meeting with President Obama, Morgan Stanley's Chief Executive John Mack struck a different tone. Analysts estimate that his firm faces a first-quarter loss of approximately $100 million. A quick payback of U.S funds would "undercut the purpose" of the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, for large banks, Mr. Mack told President Obama, attendees say.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner indicated recently that healthy banks will be able to repay bailout money, and that the Treasury was considering those repayments in its calculations about how much TARP money remains. The Bush administration had said that even healthy banks had to keep the money until the crisis passed.

A provision in the recently passed stimulus bill mandates that TARP recipients be allowed to repay the funds, as long as their primary regulator approves the move.

At least one Goldman shareholder has benefited with the government in the picture. The 10% annual payout Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway receives on its $5 billion investment earns it more than $1.3 million each day.

As long as Goldman holds the government's money, it can't pay off Mr. Buffett without U.S. approval.—Damian Paletta, Susan Pulliam, Jon Hilsenrath and Aaron Lucchetti contributed to this article.

Found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123966372945715013.html on April 20th, 2009.
Author: Ken Coman
•9:09 PM
Governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man. Their proper role is to ensure the safety and domestic tranquility of its citizens, support interstate commerce, and support the general welfare of the People.

Do you believe that?

The goverment has the powers to enact laws that are necessary and proper to ensure that it can fulfill the responsibilities and powers delegated to it (Article 1 of the US Constitution).

Do you believe that?

The survival of the Government at the local, state and Federal levels is tied to the survival of the financial system. Without a functioning financial system public credit would be gone, the money system destroyed and the whole system of our country would be gone thus leaving our country open to foreign invasions, turmoil from within and a cessation of all public and therefore private services.

Do you agree with that?

If you believe these things then you should, in some way, support government intervention in the free market when it's lack of involvement would mean the destruction of the system that supports our government and therefore it would destroy our government as well.

If you believe that, then you must ask yourself, "What level of intervention then is necessary and proper?" Was and is the financial system at that level of risk where it required and requires the government's involvement to keep it from falling apart? Also, at what point does Government involvement increase the likelihood of its destruction?

We must do our research and answer that question for ourselves.
Author: Ken Coman
•8:47 PM
One additional area I would focus on if I were the leader of this Nation at this important time would be a return to the virtues of Freedom and Accountability. Across this Globe the word "America" is synonyms with "Freedom." America is, or should be, Freedom. I would remind the citizens of our great land that America was founded by men and women who craved for personal responsibility. They craved the opportunity to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors because they had been deprived of them by a Colonial Empire. They craved the opportunity to succeed - even if in the attempt they would fail. I would remind our people that this country was founded to reduce government - not to embolden it. I would tell the leaders of business and industry that the very bedrock of America is not the government but the Freedom the government is to sustain and that Freedom cannot exist without Accountability. They are two sides of the same coin. Once cannot exist without the other.

Corporations are not people and, they have no right and no place, especially not multi-billion dollar businesses, to ask the Government of a Free people to lift their responsibility and to take away their Accountability for their Freedom and choices and to place that burden on those who had nothing to do with their poor decisions.

It is absolutely un-American to support and sustain the endless bailout of corporations at the expense of every man, woman and child for generations to come. Let us get out of this mess. Let us not protract their painful death but let us be true to Principle - true to our Fathers and true to America - that Freedom which we once fought for and held so dear. The Constitution begins, "We the People... " It does not begin, "We Citi Group...", "We Bank of America..." "We General Motors..." "We Chrysler..." "We the Corporation of the State of California..." It starts off, "We the People of the United States of America!"

I would tell our people, "Let Freedom Ring from sea to shining sea! Let the people of this land know that they will not be burdened with the poor choices of others any more than the natural consequences of such. Let the people know that they have the power in their hands to make their destiny and that they will be supported by a government that will protect those freedoms with Liberty and Justice for all."
Author: Ken Coman
•7:04 PM
I watched an interview with Ron Paul today and he mentioned how there were only five copies of the final bill circulated among the house and the senate on the day the bill was voted on. Unbelievable.

If you want to be one of the lucky few to actually see what is in the bill for yourself (instead of reading the cliff notes version), click here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/h1/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf

As you look through you will be amazed.

Do we need more domestic attention? We do - absolutely. However, you can't cut taxes and increase spending. You can't cut taxes and wage two wars. We can't cut taxes and continue planning yet another $100 billion bailout bill. We can't have it all - we need to sacrifice for our country. We all need to pull together as individual Americans and sacrifice. Some might say that this bill is that sacrifice. However, this bill doesn't require any sacrifice of us - at least not for quite some time. It requires a sacrifice of our children and our unborn and their unborn. This bill also doesn't do anything for them. It arguably won't make things better for them as it doesn't change the fundamentals of what has and is going wrong in America. Taxing the future for the status quo is reckless, dangerous and irresponsible. What is the sacrifice we must make? No one has asked us for one.
Author: Ken Coman
•8:23 PM
Last night I posted what I would do if I were expected to do something. Two of the points I said that would need our attention would be fiscal policy and inflation. Both are obviously related but in the short term, we can make immediate changes to reduce the coming hyperinflation. The current bailout bill is the wrong direction for the short and long term.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdVP_sgCETo

To watch a short presentation on the point I made regarding the money supply increasing by 24% annually, you will need to watch this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDEe0Ai6lTM

Not that Glenn Beck is a good source of backup, but the data from the Federal Reserve is.

Finally, AEI has a great article called "The Second Coming of Keynes." I recommend it to you. If you look at the proposed bailout relative to anything that has ever been undertaken by the government in our history, you will see how crazy this plan is.

The author closes: "The truth is that there is very little empirical support for policies such as these. They will likely provide a small boost, at an enormous cost. When the boost is gone, the cost will remain.

For those economists who are more skeptical of the theories of John Maynard Keynes, there is but one consolation: An experiment this large will provide ample opportunity for study. "

Indeed it will and we have good reason to suspect the outcome won't be pretty. Amending the Federal Reserve Act to allow money to be printed only at the rate of productivity would be the best and most sound fiscal policy for our country - gold should not be our standard nor should the great experimental ideas of the Fed bankers. Gold and the Fed are not the wealth of the nation. Smith was right - it is labor.

There are two enemies to our future - Government spending and the Federal Reserve system of unbridled freedom to set America's monetary policy. Both must be reigned in.
Author: Ken Coman
•2:48 PM
I wanted to post the letter I received from Senator Lieberman on the newest economic recovery bill being debated in Congress. My letter to the Senator was urging him to not vote for any bill that increased government spending without having an already present way of paying for the new spending. I cannot see how the mismanagement of our own financial resources at the Federal level will be a tool to creating a sound financial environment for the private sector. I fear that these short sighted measures will cause longer term hardships or disasters. I see the need for help. However, "Disasters" are always causes for (and sometimes caused by) politicians to increase spending, win votes, and cause people to lose their liberties in the name of averting some greater disaster - one that they foresee but that never comes.

Anyways, clearly the Senator never read my letter and he only has one response for every letter and every view on this subject: I agree with you and that is why I am voting for it.


December 22, 2008

Dear Mr. Coman:

Thank you for contacting me in support of a second economic recovery package - one that would go further to assist financially hard-pressed families, preserve crucial public services, and boost our nation's economy.

I share your concerns, and I strongly support passage of a comprehensive federal economic stimulus package to help jumpstart our economy. Unemployment in Connecticut is on the rise and prices for food, energy, child care, and other basic necessities are squeezing already tight family budgets. As you mentioned, many states are already facing serious budget shortfalls that have forced them to cut back on vital services, such as health care, education, child care, and assistance programs for elderly and disabled Americans, among others. The effects of the current credit and liquidity crisis in the financial sector are spilling over to Connecticut and affecting the ability of our businesses to finance their operations and meet their payroll.

Most recently, in November 2008, Congress, with my support, approved the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act (P.L. 110-449), which was signed into law by the President. This statute will provide seven additional weeks of unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. This measure will also provide 13 more weeks of unemployment benefits for workers in states - like Connecticut - with high unemployment, defined as a three month average of six percent or higher.

We must do more. We need a stimulus package that includes spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects, rebate checks for lower and middle income households, aid to state and local governments, and assistance for people with their health care and energy costs. The stimulus will need to be a large sum of money, because, in a $14 trillion dollar economy, it will take a big push to help turn the ship around.

First, we must immediately put people to work refurbishing our roads, highways and bridges. For too long, we have postponed spending on this crucial priority. In addition to refurbishing our 20th century infrastructure, we must also fund the innovative, 21st century public transportation projects that can start to take more cars off the road, ease congestion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, in order to provide relief to struggling, working families and stimulate badly needed consumer spending, we should provide taxpayers with an immediate, refundable tax rebate check. The rebate checks should be targeted at lower and middle income households, which are more likely to spend the income. They should be larger for families with children, and they should also go to retirees and disabled veterans that would otherwise not receive a rebate check because they do not earn a paycheck. Third, we should temporarily increase the percentage of federal Medicaid matching funds to the states, which could help significantly to plug the state budget shortfalls and ensure that our most needy patients continue to receive the same high quality of care.

It is important to understand that the government alone does not have the ability to "fix" the economy. It is the determination, the creativity, and the genius of the American people that has always been the reason for our country's remarkable successes. These are the factors that will ultimately restore our economic prosperity, but at the same time the government can give the American people and businesses a helping hand, including by helping to create the right environment and incentives for the technologies and the industries of tomorrow to flourish.

In periods of previous economic difficulty, members of both parties have worked together to help facilitate a strong economy and a balanced budget. President-elect Obama has expressed a strong willingness to work in a similar bipartisan manner. With this spirit of bipartisanship members of both sides of the political aisle can come together and work for the American people to restore our prosperity. With sound leadership and firm resolve, there is no challenge the American people cannot overcome.

Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my website at http://lieberman.senate.gov/ for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR

JIL:kht