BofA to Roll in Debit-Card Dough

Poor Bank of America. Profits are down this year. Only $2 billion the first quarter of this year compared to $3.7 billion for the same period last year. That's $2 billion in three months. Thus, only $8 billion this year unless corporate heads find a way to make more.

A major reason for that nose dive is Countrywide Financial. BofA bought that corrupt mortgage lending millstone in 2008, no doubt hoping to use it as a cash cow, since Countrywide was financing some 20% of all mortages in the U.S. News that BofA was buying Countrywide sent eyebrows across the country into the stratosphere, given that the mortgage behemoth was already facing a legion of legal questions, was already shedding employees and flailing around for other ways to keep its head above water.

Instead of raking in dough, though, BofA watched Countrywide hemorrhage assets thanks to mushrooming legal woes, such as a parade of lawsuits charging deceptive lending practices, false advertising and unfair business shenanigans. One settlement with several states' attorneys general involved modifying  troubled 'predatory loans' of up to $8.4 billion dollars.

BofA has been on my radar as a money-grubber to avoid ever since its financial woes--primarily resulting from bad loans--in the late 1980s  (do the names Sam Armacost and Tom Clausen ring a bell?) when it was a San Francisco-based company, and again in 1997 ($1.4 billion to a hedge fund that went south). That resulted in the real BofA being bought like a shark swallowing a fish by NationsBank in Charlotte NC, which apparently thought the name, Bank of America, had more cachet, as that became the absorbing NationsBank's new handle.

One thing that didn't change with that acquision was bad financial decision-making. For some reason in the emerging corporate-dominant age, it wasn't enough to just be a good bank, providing good banking services to its customers. It had to keep gorging itself and bloating itself with ever-higher profits.

So how to recoup the losses from its bone-headed Countrywide and other bad decisions? The only way capitalism, American-style, knows. Find new ways to soak its customers. In the banking world, that way is to come up with even more fees it can charge its customers to use their own money. This time it's in the form of a debit-card fee.

(Don't expect any help from Congress, BTW, despite the deeply flawed 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In addition to making highly valued and effective campaign contributions, BofA plies most-favored, most likely to be swayed lawmakers with mortgage financing at noncompetitive rates, i.e. lower rates than regular customers could possibly hope to get, of which Sen. Chris Dodd was a major recipient.

I've long been way too conservative to do business with the liberally bad-deal maker BofA, which is now giving me yet another reason to keep its money-grubbing hands off my money.

Despite its history or bad-decisions, though, BofA remains a leader in the banking world and news today indicates that other banks will be following the BofA's debit-card-fee charge, and that this is just the beginning of a new round of the high cost to Americans for "banking privileges."

My understanding is that this charge is going to be an automatic monthly $5 fee (for starters, no doube), not a per-use fee like an ATM fee.

All of this is making my mattress -- and the Occupy Wall Street movement -- look more and more attractive.

GOP's Protected "Untouchables" Class

President Obama's opponents are trying to shoot down his debt-reduction plan, which includes fair treatment of rich people and for-profit corporations (=>), by charging him with waging class warfare.

Plus, they say, equalizing the tax structure to bring rates for the rich up as high as the rate middle Americans pay would reduce the debt by only 10 percent.

Ten percent? In my truly conservative opinion, I'd say that's quite a dent.

Or as my husband said, "That's a good start."

He then came up with what I think would make a great debt-reduction mantra:

"Start with fair,
Work from there."

As for declaring class warfare, that's exactly what Republican have done, proving once again that going on the offensive by accusing their enemies (yes, they do indeed consider Obama the enemy and, as they have repeatedly said that limiting him to one term is their number one priority. Not reducting the unemployment rate. Not getting Americans back to work. Not returning the middle class, which has been shipped overseas, back to the U.S. Not ending wars this country is waging in other countries. But vanquishing Obama.), of doing what they are, in fact, doing themselves.

Republicans are the ones who declared class warfare. They did that by turning millionares into a special class. By making them a class of 'untouchables'.  By putting them off limits in the "shared sacrifice" that other Americans are being told they must participate in.

BTW, notice how those who oppose leveling the rate-rate paying field are rich?

Poor Louisana GOP Rep. John Fleming is crying crocodile tears because Obama's proposal might take a bite out of the $200,000 he spends, according to his math, on feeding his family.

Fox darling Bill O'Reilly says being subjected to the same tax rate as middle Americans, which is what Obama is proposing, will prompt him to quit his $10 million-a-year TV-talk job.

Sob stories abound. 

Perry's Ponzi Scheme

So, U.S. president wanna-be Rick Perry has come out with guns a'blazing at Social Security. It's a "Ponzi scheme," he claims. It won't be there for young people when they need it. It's even unconsititutional!

First, don't you think that all of the rabid Social Security critics and fascists--particularly those with legal training--who have tried to dismantle the program in the seven decades since FDR signed it into law would have mounted legal battles and, if it really were unconstitutional, would have been able to get it struck down as such?

Second, who does Perry think he's fooling by saying Social Security won't be around for Americans who haven't yet reached 65? Even if nothing's done to change anything, it will be fully funded for the next 25 years. And by making one simple change--raising the $106,000 cap on which income is subject to Social Security tax, or better yet removing the cap altogether--it can be solvent for a great deal longer. (Yes, that's right, folks, all those mega millionaires who already skate on paying their "fair share" of taxes on the lucre that overflows their coffers, pay nothing into Social Security over the first $106,000 of their income. That cap is just one more way the rich guys have bought off lawmakers.)

Third--and most important--by saying Social Security has got to go and that people need to rely on private pensions, Perry is providing irrefutable proof that he's been living either under a rock or in deep space for the past decade. It was during his fellow Texan's turn at the presidential till that private pensions began to disappear--just ask United Airline employees whose wonderful pensions were simply confiscated--as company execs and boards of directors began to raid employee pension funds to cover their faltering operations budgets.

And that's for the folks who are 'fortunate' enough to have jobs that even provide any benefits at all. So, what are the "private pensions" is Perry talking about? 401Ks? IRAs? CDs? The stock market? Storing gold bricks in the closet?

Oh my god, no, Mr. Perry! Ain't no way anybody is ever going to have any kind of retirement fund if it's going to be up to you and the greedy, grasping, heartless, soulless corporate world.

Social Security is exactly what its name says it is. It provides at least a modicum of security for aging people in our society and for their children and grandchildren so they won't be burdened with having to support granny and great-grandma in addition to their own children and hope for any kind of a decent lifestyle. Social Security keeps everyone--except the mega rich like Mr. Perry and his well-heeled cronies who don't need it--from becoming impoverished and being put in the poorhouse.

Oh wait! Poorhouses don't exist anymore, do they. And when they did, they were government institutions, weren't they? So I'm sure Perry will make sure they don't resurface. 'Cause no gubment is good gubment, is it Mr. Rick "I want to be prezdent of what I think is evil" Perry?

Nope, I'm way too conservative to want to trust my future and that of my children, children and great-grandchildren, or the well-being of The People of this country to a Perry parisite of what he wants to destroy (keeping in mind that he will keep intact any way he and his ilk can benefit from a government program as he has done so well as governor of Texas).

Regulate this!

Everyday, somewhere someone (generally with an "R" party designation) blames 'over regulation' for our country's economic woes, its trade deficit, the horrendously high national debt, obscenely profitable corporations' refusal to create jobs, the nation's devastatingly high unemployment rate, and probably even toenail fungus.

Everyday, I find reason to celebrate and give thanks for government regulations.

This morning, it was when I learned my son was sick with what he suspected was food poisoning.

This afternoon it was an NPR "Fresh Air" interview with the author of a book about how A&P changed the way Americans shop.

It wasn't that I was celebrating or thankful that my son had food poisoning. Learning about his plight made me think for at least the millionth time how amazing it is that food poisoning isn't more rampant that it is, and remind myself that a major reason that it isn't is  -- ta-da! -- government regulation.

As for the "Fresh Air" program, the descriptions of how food was sold in the "good old days" really amped up my appreciation for government regulations. Back in those days, grain, meal and even vinegar was transported, sans inspection for contaminants or noshing and nesting varmints, in wooden barrels. Once in the general store, those barrels were often left open or at least unsealed where they could be -- and often were -- invaded by whatever opportunistic life form happened to be around.

So, strip away regulations that "keep companies from creating jobs" and you get to buy dry goods and all kinds of food supplies -- and these days, all kinds of processed foods, which is just about all a lot of people put in their mouths -- that might be riddled with weevils and/or maggots, cut with sawdust and watered down with, well, with water which might be contaminated.

Also, because scales in grocery stores of old could vary widely from one store to another, if we go back to those good old unregulated days when merchants, manufacturers and corporations "had the freedom" to conduct their businesses however they wanted to, unless you carry your own scales with you when you shop, the "pound" of hamburger you think you're buying might very well weigh only 14.5 or 15 ounces. And should you be fore-thinking enough to carry your own scales, any discrepancy you find will simply devolve into a "he-said, she-said" argument.

What Rs demonize as  business-crushing regulations, I see as efforts of our government to keep us safe, to try to keep mega agri-farms from fouling ground water and feces-laden run off from getting into neighboring streams and rivers, to keep asthma- and other respiratory-damaging pollutants from filling the only air we have to breathe, and to keep food-producing/processing/packaging/transporting/selling people from sickening and killing us with bacteria-laden food.

Deregulation advocates maintain that if people aren't happy with a company, they'll take their business elsewhere. I say, when, after they're dead or maimed? Heck, these same corpor-ites and their elected lackeys are making sure we can't even sue for such malfeasances in court. So what incentive  would they have to put people's health and well being or the public good above making as big a profit as they possible can unless the government regulates them?

I keep hoping (in vain, so far) that someone, some news organization with a mass-media megaphone would pin these regulation demonizers down on just what they would deregulate. Chances are they will be very liberal about wanting to slash all manner of regulations that either don't affect them or that don't put money in their pockets (like those who demand spending cuts in every program that doesn't benefit them or that they aren't slopping at the trough at.

As for me, I'm truly conservative about not letting people who run companies for a pure profit motive to operate completely unchecked or with no oversight. We see over and over what the henhouse looks like with nothing but foxes standing at the ready.

What Qualifies Wisconsin's Junior Senator?

Wisconsin’s junior senator has been on my mind lately—not because I think he’s doing a great job as one of this state’s two U.S. senators or that I’ve initiated any thoughts about him at all. It’s that his name has appeared a couple of times in the news and he was the subject of an email exchange someone I know had with Ron Johnson’s office staff.

First, the email exchange. My acquaintance contacted Johnson’s office about the debt ceiling/national debt and the need for a balanced solution of spending cuts and increasing revenue.

After seven paragraphs of explaining that the country was in dire fiscal straits, denigrating the President and Democrats for being irresponsible and not being serious, his staff email responder finally wrote, “I agree that we need a balanced approach which includes spending controls and increased revenue. But we need to increase revenue the old fashioned way, by growing our economy.”

That really set my friend off.

“After reading that,” she said, “I had to contact his office again. I asked how the heck were we to raise much needed revenue "the old fashioned way" when all of the policies he is pursuing put a stranglehold on economic growth. The policies he is pursuing cut public sector jobs, so those folks don't have money to spend to grow the economy. He pursues limits to social security, unemployment benefits and other social safety nets, so those people don't have money to spend to grow the economy. He pursues policies that undermine private sector wages, so those people have less money to spend to grow the economy. He is all for putting money in the pockets of people who already have more money than they need, and for ensuring those who would increase their spending of possible don't have enough to even cover the basics. 70% of our economy comes from consumer spending, yet he consistently pursues policies that guarantee consumers have less to spend. Then he turns around and makes a comment in his email to explain why he's against raising revenue by closing loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts expire. From where, in God's name, does he expect the revenue our country needs to come??? Companies have plenty of capital with which to expand...they are sitting on mounds of revenue...but there is no demand for their goods and services 'cause none of us have any money to spend. It's all fine and good that Ron Johnson wants to raise revenue "the old fashioned way," but it's disingenuous (at best) to make such a statement in light of his concerted effort to take money out of the hands of those who actually can grow the economy and redistributed upward to those who are already hoarding significant ill-gotten gains.”

The first news mention. Johnson's name appeared on an opinion piece in Sunday’s Journal Sentinel Crossroads section. His was the anti position opposing President Obama’s judicial appointments, with U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin saying that long-vacant federal judgeships in Wisconsin need to be filled. The headline on the Johnson column was, “These nominees aren’t qualified.”

Whether they are or aren’t, all I could think was, here’s a plastics man who achieved his position as company CEO after marrying into the family that owned it before becoming a U.S. senator only six months ago. So what the heck would he know from who would be qualified to be a federal judge? Does he even know what a federal judge does?

The second news mention was the subject of a Wisconsin PolitiFact Check in which Johnson was rated him almost off the meter “True” to his statement that, “The federal government is spending 25% of our entire economy vs. 100 years ago we spent only 2%.”

I could only think, who would want to turn the clock back to those days?

A guy who posts at Toritto's blog gives a hint of what that might have been like, although he goes back only 70 or 80 years. His post about that was picked up by Salon.com, which can be seen here: http://open.salon.com/blog/toritto/2011/07/25/life_before_social_security

The truth of Johnson's statement is like saying the sky is always blue. That's true. It always is -- even on the cloudiest days. Above the thickest cloud layer, the sky is perpetually blue. That, like the virtures of an unfunded federal government, all depends on a person's point of view -- and access to government resources any way.

Decline of Great Civilizations

People wonder why great civilations like Greece decline. Greece, where even those who ARE assessed taxes don't pay them.

Which modern-day countries have robust economies and relatively properous populations? Those that assess and collect tax revenue to fund services for their people.

Think Germany, which is almost single-handledly, propping up the Euro, and Scandanavian countries, where education through college and health care is government funded and their people have the highest rated standard of living and are rated to be the most satisfied. Those countries have surged ahead of the U.S. -- or rather -- the U.S. has fallen behind them in almost every standard-of-living measure, such as longevity, infant mortality, education, health, and medical care.

And in this country, which touts a democracy in which the majority rules, a vicious, short-sighted, ego-centric minority has hijacked the government and held it hostage in the name of defunding so much of what contributes to a decent standard of living for so many.

One of Wisconsin's U.S. senators, Ron Johnson, apparently doesn't agree. He carps that "The federal government is spending 25% of our entire economy vs. 100 years ago when we spent only 2%." (More about Mr. Johnson in a future blog post.)

A hundred years ago when, according to a political fact-checking service, the government did little more than deliver the mail?

So we should turn back the clock to the day when the government did nothing to protect its people from disease, contaminated water/air/food, free-flowing sewage, ignorance and so much else that contributes to being a superpower? Isn't that unbelievably callous and hypocritical from a self-professed Christian multimillionaire (isn't that an oxymoron, according to what Jesus said?) who can easily pay for anything he wants/needs, thanks to government pay, benefits, subsidies and tax laws that favor the rich and corporations? (Mr. Johnson is CEO of a plastics company owned by a family he married into.)

Wouldn't someone who claims to be conservative want to conserve not only his country's high standard of living, but the health, safety and well-being of the majority of its people and, thus, the strength, power and first-rate standing of his/her country?

Middle-Americans' Sisyphus Dilemma

On what model is this tea-bagged, Grover Norquist small-government, world based? What country now or historically has had a "small government" and had a robust economy and properous population -- not just for the richest few, but for the population in general?

These are questions that came to mind this morning as I read about the debt-ceiling deal announced between President Obama and the Republican minority in Congress.

The more I read, the more my conservative sensibilities were shaken. Political pundits in attempting to understand and explain the president's dealings with the so-called "opposition" speculate that he's truly a conservative. If so, why then has he so liberally OK'd Republican demands that will put the vast majority of The People in this country at risk?

Why is he so liberal in agreeing to unproven and untested policies that not only shrink the government but guarantee that the gaping divide between the moneyed and the rest of the country will continue to grow unabated?

Why doesn't he and whoever is advising him to follow this path to middle-America disaster look at the prospering nations around the world -- Germany, for instance, which has anything but small government policies, has a strong union-based workforce and has weathered the global financial crisis that has felled other countries' economies?

Why isn't the president being equally liberal in demanding a greater investment in the U.S. from the richest and corporate elite?

Why does he think the people who are shouldering the tax burden of those who are skating -- the multi-millionaires who can claim their income as capital gains and, thus, benefit from a 15-20% lower tax rate than the rest of us -- will continue to agree that those policies are a good idea?