From our friends at Reason.tv : Question: Are lawmakers in Sacramento really putting the interests of the big labor ahead of children’s health?
Original post:
Union Jobs vs. Children’s Lives: Which Side Are You On?
From our friends at Reason.tv : Question: Are lawmakers in Sacramento really putting the interests of the big labor ahead of children’s health?
Original post:
Union Jobs vs. Children’s Lives: Which Side Are You On?
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged friends, gayle mcclean, interests, libertarians, our-friends, politics, putting-the-interests, really-putting, reason-tv, regulation, sacramento, stars, the-big
Surprise – the Federal Reserve announced it will keep the Fed funds rate between zero and 0.25 percent. OK – it’s not really much of a surprise. However, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has responded to the slowing economic recovery with restraint, not tinkering with interest rates and showing a continued willingness to buy mortgage-backed securities and long-term Treasury bonds. And that was roundly applauded by the markets, and CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. “Here’s what you need to know about the Fed,” Cramer said. “They’re not in the way. I’m a Fed-is-friend, Fed-is-foe guy.” On CNBC’s Aug. 10 “Street Signs,” during his “Stop Trading” segment, Cramer explained that the Fed is acting appropriately and noted it wasn’t the Bernanke that was holding the economy back. Who is to blame? It’s Congress, according to Cramer, with its complicated health care bill and even more indecipherable financial regulation bill. “I’ve never over-intellectualized anything,” Cramer said. “Fed said good things, buy. He didn’t say anything. Also, Bernanke … I heard someone say he was good in 2008. What – did he like get bad? What, is he like Tiger Woods? Bernanke is delivering. He’s not the problem. It’s a Congress that wants to make it so you don’t know how much it cost to hire a person because of health care. It’s a Fin-Reg bill that no one can figure out. I got guys calling me at major banks saying, ‘Jim, can you help me with the Fin-Reg?’ I don’t know the Fin-Reg. The Fin-Reg is impossible to understand. All I know is that it cuts profitability. Bernanke is not cutting profitability. He’s on the side of the good guys.” So what will people buy? As long as there is a perpetual fear in the economy, people will continue to put their money into treasury bonds, according to the “Mad Money” host. “Bonds never quit because a lot of people feel like we’re – look there’s enough guys that think this is 1934 – they will keep buying bonds,” he continued. “There’s this 1934 group of people, OK? And then there’s this group of people I would describe as being 2003 coming out of dot-bomb period.” And for now, Cramer said the Federal Reserve under Bernanke’s leadership was doing everything it could to aid the economy, despite Congress’ actions. “And what I would emphasize is that Bernanke – we can sit there and look at that statement and talk about whether it’s Treasuries versus mortgage-backed. What he’s saying is, ‘Listen, I know there’s no business being done in this country, and I’m going to do my best. This is a giving-her-all-she’s-got, Captain.'”
See original here:
Cramer: Democrats Not Fed Policy to Blame for Economic Malaise
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged ben bernanke, bennyhollywood, bernanke, chairman, cnbc, country, mad money, markets, medical insurance, much-it-cost, News, politics, regulation, stars, TMZ
On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Erica Hill cheered the passage of financial reform legislation as “another huge milestone for President Obama.” Hill went on to explain: “The first was when he signed the historic health care bill back in March. Today he is set to sign a bill aimed at completely overhauling Wall Street.” White House correspondent Chip Reid began a report on the new bill by proclaiming: “It’s being hailed as the biggest shakeup of Wall Street since the Great Depression.” Reid enthusiastically touted provisions in the legislation: “The bill’s centerpiece is the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection….charged with regulating financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, and student loans. The legislation also gives broad new powers to the federal government, allowing it to take control of and shut down large financial institutions…” Reid pointed out criticism of the legislation: “But critics say the bill fails to reform mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, does not create a fund to help shut down big banks when they fail, and gives too much power to federal regulators to create reams of new rules.” After noting GOP concern that bill “will curb growth and kill jobs,” Reid turned to an analyst from the left-leaning Brookings Institution for reassurance: “Still, former investment banker Douglas Elliott believes the bill is better than doing nothing.” Elliott argued: “The bill addresses most of the problems and makes a good start. It’s not perfection, but in the real world, we don’t get perfection.” Reid concluded his report by declaring: “And adding to his accomplishments, later this week the President is expected to sign a bill extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans.” During a report on the July 15 Evening News , Reid celebrated the financial reform bill as a “big win” for Obama and that “he’ll add it to a long list, headlined by health care reform and the stimulus.” On Tuesday’s Early Show , Reid described the extension of unemployment benefits in similar terms: “Democrats appear to have won a major battle in the long fight to extend unemployment benefits.” Here is a full transcript of the July 21 Early Show segment: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Financial reform. President Obama set to sign a bill that will radically alter the way Wall Street does business. But does it go far enough? 7:04AM SEGMENT HILL: It is another huge milestone for President Obama. The first was when he signed the historic health care bill back in March. Today he is set to sign a bill aimed at completely overhauling Wall Street. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid joins us this morning with more. Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Erica. It’s being hailed as the biggest shakeup of Wall Street since the Great Depression. And while this bill does have teeth, some critics say it doesn’t have a big enough bite. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform Bill Becomes Law; Obama to Sign Sweeping Legislation Today] The bill’s centerpiece is the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that will be housed within the Federal Reserve. It’s charged with regulating financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, and student loans. The legislation also gives broad new powers to the federal government, allowing it to take control of and shut down large financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, which went bankrupt in 2008. President Obama hailed its passage. BARACK OBAMA: Because of this reform, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts, period. REID: But critics say the bill fails to reform mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, does not create a fund to help shut down big banks when they fail, and gives too much power to federal regulators to create reams of new rules. Republicans, who almost universally opposed this legislation, argue it will curb growth and kill jobs at a time when the nation can least afford it. JOHN BOEHNER: I think it ought to be repealed. REID: Still, former investment banker Douglas Elliott believes the bill is better than doing nothing. DOUGLAS ELLIOT [FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: The bill addresses most of the problems and makes a good start. It’s not perfection, but in the real world, we don’t get perfection. REID: And adding to his accomplishments, later this week the President is expected to sign a bill extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans. Erica. HILL: Chip Reid this morning. Chip, thanks. REID: Joining us now CBS News business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis with a closer look at how these changes could affect you and me, the average consumer, everybody at home. So first up, we know this law is establishing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, that’s going to regulate mortgages, credit cards, student loans. What does it really mean? REBECCA JARVIS: All the things, Erica, that we deal with on a daily basis as consumers are now going to fall under the jurisdiction of this consumer protection bureau. And there are a lot of things that we’ll see as changes in our lives as a result. For example, mortgages, clearly a big problem with the crisis that we faced have been housing prices as well as mortgage crises. And we will see, as consumers, big relief for mortgages. So for example, if you got an adjustable rate mortgage, it used to be that you couldn’t pay it back without paying a big penalty – pay it back early – without paying a big penalty. Now, you will see the relief in that you can save those thousands of dollars in penalties because you can pay it back without – early – without paying the penalty on top of that. Banks now, they are forbidden from giving out bonuses for particular types of mortgages. So, in some cases, back in the crisis, they would give out a mortgage that was bad for us but good for them. They can’t do that anymore. HILL: Because they would make a little extra money off of it. I know credit scores are also going to be effected here. Talk to me about how, because that’s always so confusing. JARVIS: Well, of course, our credit score is the thing that gives us every opportunity in the financial world. The way credit scores will be impacted is that we will be able to learn our credit score. If you go out and apply for a loan, you apply for a credit card, you apply for an apartment, and you get turned down for that, you have every right to ask for a free credit score and to understand the reason that the vendor turned you down. HILL: What a novel concept. You get access to your own information. I love that. There’s also a change about how you pay for things at the register. JARVIS: Yes, there will be some big changes at the register. First of all, you probably are going to have to carry a little more cash on hand if you want to go out and get a cup of java, for example, because merchants, under new regulations, are allowed to set limits on the amount that you can spend with a credit card. So for example, you walk up to the register, they say, no purchases with a credit card under $10, they’re allowed to do that. HILL: Which you actually see a lot of now, or they ask you not to. JARVIS: You do and now it’s legal. HILL: And they also, in some – I’ve noticed in some stores – some stores charge you less, or a gas station, if you pay with cash or a debit card, as opposed to a credit card. That’s going to be more permissible as well. JARVIS: That’s permissible. What is not permissible, Erica, is if they try and say you get a deal for using one credit card over another. You can’t have one credit card be – for example, Amex a better deal than Visa. HILL: Got you. Rebecca, good to have you here, as always. JARVIS: Thanks, Erica. HILL: Thanks for breaking it down.

Read more from the original source:
CBS: Financial Reform ‘Another Huge Milestone For President Obama’
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged accomplishments, banking/finance, bennyhollywood, celeb news, crisis, erica-hill, federal, Matt Lauer, naacp, regulation, stars, Street, white
The financial regulations package recently passed by the House of Representatives would create a new diversity overseer at each of the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including the new ones created by the legislation itself. This new office, called the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, would take over from any existing diversity or civil rights office already working at the agencies in question. It would also be responsible for making sure that each of the major federal financial regulators is hiring enough minorities and women, and contracting with enough minority-owned and women-owned businesses. However, each individual diversity czar is responsible for defining exactly how many minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses are satisfactory. “[E]ach agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities,” the legislation says. (The bill passed in the House on June 30; a Senate vote could occur as early as next week.) In fact, each new diversity chief will be responsible for developing quota-like guidelines proscribing the ethnic and gender makeup of each regulator’s workforce, including upper management. “Each Director shall develop standards for- (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the work-force and senior management of the agency,” it states. These diversity offices will also be responsible for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.” This means that in addition to monitoring every bank in the country, checking every financial institution in America to make sure they are not doing anything systemically risky, and trying to prevent another financial collapse, every federal financial regulator will also be counting the number of minority and female employees at banks and investment firms, big and small. The proposed law would also mandate that federal financial regulators hire from certain types of minority- or women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, and partner with inner-city schools and other minority-focused organizations to hire or mentor more minorities and women. The diversity offices will also be charged with enforcing the newly written diversity guidelines for each private sector company the regulator contracts with, meaning that they will be checking to ensure that each of the agency’s private contractors is following the agency’s diversity guidelines. “The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts,” the bill states. This provision is significant because some of the same federal regulators who must establish these diversity offices – Treasury and Federal Reserve – make heavy use of the private sector on a regular basis. They have also relied heavily on the private financial sector in their responses to the financial crisis. For example, the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility (TALF) program, which backstopped the securitization market during the height of the financial crisis, was actually run with the help of Bank of New York Mellon, an institution regulated by the New York Fed. The TALF program, along with other Fed lending programs, had to maintain a strict level of secrecy to protect the banks using the program from irrational runs on their businesses. Because the securitization market had essentially collapsed, TALF’s customers had to remain anonymous if the government was to avoid setting an arbitrary – rather than market – price for securitized debt. Had the markets learned which financial institutions were using Fed lending programs like TALF, they would have known which securities the Fed was taking as collateral for a particular loan amount. With such information in the public domain, the government would have essentially been fixing the price of asset-backed securities, rather than letting supply and demand set the price in the normal way. The new diversity office at the Fed – and other financial regulators – apparently would be empowered to dig into such sensitive relationships under the guise of diversity enforcement, possibly endangering the programs and hamstringing their effectiveness. If one of the new diversity czars thinks a financial firm is not being diverse enough, he potentially could recommend that the regulator terminate the contract(s) the regulator has with that firm. Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News

Go here to read the rest:
New Financial Regulations Create Diversity Czars for All Federal Financial Regulators
So you want to crawl under a high-powered lamp and bake your skin so that it has a brownish-orangish glow to it, even though there are potential health consequences. Well, the federal government is here to save you and, according to “CBS Evening News,” that’s not a bad thing. The new federal 10 percent tax on indoor tanning has provoked odd alliances – such as when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told “Snooki” from MTV’s “Jersey Shore” through Twitter he would “never tax your tanning bed.” But on the June 30 broadcast of “Evening News,” CBS correspondent Michelle Miller made the case why the government should. “Gisselle Colon wanted to be bronze and beautiful. She sunbathed and bought a membership to a tanning salon several years ago. Last month, things turned ugly,” Miller said. “This is her scar. In May, Gisselle was diagnosed with melanoma, one of the deadliest and most preventable forms of cancer.” (h/t @KenShepherd ) And according to Miller, guess what – exposure to large doses of UVA radiation increases the likelihood you’ll wind up with skin problems. “An estimated 30 million Americans use tanning beds every year – 2.3 million are teenagers. It costs about $17 a visit. A 10 percent tax will raise that price by $1.70,” Miller continued. “It’s unclear whether that will be enough to discourage indoor tanners. What is clear, new research finds indoor tanning before the age of 35 increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. Why? Tanning booths emit those UVA and UVB radiation. UVA causes the burns, UVB the tan. Booths emit mostly UVA, but it can be at doses 12 times stronger than the sun.” This tax will hurt small business owners, according to the National Federation of Independent Business . The NFIB says approximately 19,000 “mom and pop” small businesses could be affected by this tax and those businesses will likely spend an average of more than $74 an hour to comply with federal tax paperwork burdens. “The first present we get under this new health care law takes effect this week – and that is the tanning tax,” Karen Harned of the NFIB said at The Heritage Foundation’s Bloggers Briefing on June 30. But this didn’t stop Miller from making the obligatory case for the tanning salon regulation, or even a ban. “New public service announcements take aim at teen tanning,” she said. “So too, are lawmakers. Thirty-two states now restrict it, for example, by requiring parental permission in person. And New York State is considering banning indoor tanning outright for anyone under 18.”
Read more here:
Saving Us from Ourselves: ‘Evening News’ Justifies Federal Tanning Tax
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged cbs evening news, evening-news, karen-harned, likelihood, miller, obligatory, regulation, stars, taxes, unclear-whether
Name-calling isn’t just for 6-year-olds anymore. Keith Olbermann proved once again that Sarah Palin is the media’s favorite conservative to hate, mock and condemn when he called Palin an “idiot” who endorses “stupidity instead of intelligence.” Olbermann named “Sister Sarah” his “Worst Person in the World” on “Countdown” June 28 after Palin mistakenly said Ronald Reagan’s alma mater was “California’s Eureka College” during a speech at Cal State Stanislaus. Reagan attended Eureka College in his hometown of Eureka, Ill. In addition to labeling her speech a “gaffe fest,” Olbermann called her mistake “symbolic of her imbecility, her corner-cutting,” saying it was one of “perhaps, 100 things that brand her as a phony.” One wonders where Olbermann’s outrages was when then-candidate Obama mistakenly said in June 2008 that he’d been to 57 states. This isn’t the first time Olbermann has unleashed on a conservative woman. Olbermann gave Palin the moniker “Worst Person in the World” last May after Palin refused to appear on his show. Olbermann also called her “idiot-woman” once and “idiot” twice after Palin nixed a “Countdown” appearance. Olbermann has also ridiculed Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the past by comparing her son’s participation in Teach for America to a Star Wars-like crossing over to “the dark side.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, Olbermann also called Palin “sick” and an “out of control liar” for “cutting” her state’s special-needs program. The accusation was misleading-Palin had really increased the program’s funding by 10 percent.
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged Breaking News, economy, imbecility, keith-olbermann, media bias debate, News, Obama, politics, regulation, speech, stars
On CNBC’s June 29 broadcast “Power Lunch,” Rep. Paul Kajorski, D-Pa. made a pretty prediction about the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) should Congress be unable to pass financial regulation legislation. [Video Available Here ] “You know, I wish every one of them would ask the question and also the industry and media, what happens in this country if this bill fails?” Kanjorski said. “Do you think 236 points down on the Dow is surprising? Check 1,000 or 2,000 points if we fail to change the ways that caused this problem.” That caught the attention of CNBC’s Erin Burnett, who played the clip for “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. Cramer blasted Kanjorski and the entire institution of the federal government for being a drag on the markets for a myriad of reasons on his June 29 “Stop Trading” segment of CNBC’s “Street Signs.” “You know, they are the problem,” Cramer said. “And we all know it, right? It’s like let’s not even outthink it. I love our bureaucrat congressmen in Washington, but they’re the problem. And I don’t want to be just Mr. Rick Santelli here, but give me a break.” Cramer noted the timing – on the eve of a financial regulation bill vote and asked why he was waiting until now to tell us. “I mean, really – so he’s telling us about the 2,000 points? Now he’s telling us?” Cramer continued. “I mean, like other than a couple of congressmen and senators.” But according to Cramer, things are much more dire than the Washington, D.C. political playbook. He explained there was a real problem with the mentality in the federal government – to demonize profits. “What is the 10-year telling us?” Cramer continued. “We’re done. It’s 1934. I’ve been saying over and over on the show – the market’s overvalued, the market’s overvalued. Just try to buy a yield. It’s because, you know – we’ve had it. Washington has decided to eviscerate profits. No one wants to say this because what happens when you say it, is you got a bullseye on your back and I don’t even feel like saying it because I already have a ton of them. But you know it really is – I mean to like listen to Congress tell us about what causes a 2,000-point decline and then just accept it and say, ‘Yeah, that’s interesting.’ I’m not playing that game. I’m too old.” Cramer said the problem was very complicated with what he said was a deflationary phenomenon. He explained there were very few positives with the S&P 500 index to point at what he deemed “gloom-busters.” “We have radical deflation in this country,” Cramer said. “I mean, that’s what it is. People are maybe working, earning money off the books. I’m doing a series on the show. I’m trying to find companies that are gloom-busters. I gave combed most of the S&P 500, some of the S&P 600, you know the next level. I’ve got about four or five companies that say things are good. I mean, this is a remarkable time in the American economy. This market deserves to go down. Now I know a lot of people will say, ‘Wait a second, it just rallied from 270.’ We’ve all played that game. We know what happens – the ultra-funds come in in the last half hour, they rebalance – you go down 500 in the last minute. Maybe it’s our fault. It’s our fault because of TARP or … whatever.”
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged attention, cases-the-local, cnbc, economy, fault, market, media bias debate, Money, party, paul kanjorski, played-the-clip, regulation
With the federal government – both on Capitol Hill and in the White House – beginning to take investigative and punitive action against BP (NYSE: BP ), the future of the company, at least in the United States, is in peril. On CNBC’s June 14 “The Kudlow Report,” John Kilduff, a CNBC contributor and the vice president of MF Global was asked by host Larry Kudlow about a potential debarment from eligibility to be awarded government contracts, which have been very lucrative for the embattled oil giant. “John, this would effectively be debarment,” Kudlow said. “This is something we talked about a week ago, and the prevailing attitude was there would not be debarment because that hardly ever happens in American commercial history. Is President Obama having this as a Sword of Damocles over BP?” And Kilduff explained that this debarment wasn’t necessarily as difficult procedurally to do as some might have thought, which according to him was warranted. “No question about it,” Kilduff replied. “And, you know, we were led to believe that … it was a very sort of torturous procedural issue. Clearly it’s not, and clearly BP’s track record supports amply a debarment action here.” According to Kilduff, debarment from federal contracts would mean the loss of a $2.1-billion annual Pentagon contract. But he also said this potential government action would force the British petroleum giant to divest itself of its American assets at below-fire sale prices. “It’s not just that,” Kilduff said. “Of course it would be very damaging, and plus all the other asset sales, they would have to divest themselves of their Gulf of Mexico assets, their Prudhoe Bay asset, and keep this in mind, this would be more than a fire sale, Larry, because the whole game as changed. As being the lead driller, we’re seeing the extent of the liabilities that the lead driller has. Who’s going to want to step up now and take over a BP-run operation? You don’t know what kind of rat’s nest you’re getting into.” Reports have surfaced that BP has sought the services of Wall Street banking firms to procure a potential takeover defense. According to MarketWatch , ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM ), Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A ) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX ) are all named as potential buyers. Kudlow asked if these government actions were a foreshadowing of what was to come. “These government punishments and sanctions, and it’s coming from President Obama, it’s coming from Sen. Harry Reid, who’s pushing for this $20 billion escrow fund, now, is this why we are hearing rumors that BP has actually hired Wall Street banking firms for some kind of takeover defense? Is that – can I connect those dots?” Kilduff’s response was that indeed these actions by BP were no more than efforts to “cut corners,” which after facing attacks on all these fronts and having its bottom line battered, makes it vulnerable to such a takeover attempt. “Oh, absolutely, Larry,” Kilduff replied. “And look, what we’re seeing from Congressman Waxman’s hearings tomorrow, the fingerprints are there. What we talked about for all 56 days I feel like on your program, it is a situation of corners cut to save a little bit of money that got us into this mess. They’re caught dead to rights on this. That’s what you’re going to see tomorrow. That’s what’s been released this afternoon. And it’s clear they’re going to be under severe attack from all kinds of quarters – shareholder lawsuits, the federal government, civil, criminal liabilities. All of it.”
Read this article:
CNBC Analyst: BP to Lose Offshore Leases, Faces Bar from Government Contracts
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged both-on-capitol, british, business coverage, game-as-changed, john kilduff, larry kudlow, politics, president, prudhoe, regulation, stars