Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Signs "Fraud-Friendly" JOBS Act into Law
Economist: Bill will bring fraud, destroy jobs
President Obama has signed today the "fraud-friendly" JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act, which one leading economist has referred to as an "anti-jobs act" that will lead to more fraud.
Commenting on the “Jumpstart Our Business Startups” Act, economics and law professor William Black wrote in an open letter signed by other analysts: "The JOBS Act is something only a financial scavenger could love. It will create a fraud-friendly and fraud-enhancing environment. It will add to the unprecedented level of financial fraud by our most elite CEOS that has devastated the U.S. and European economies and cost over 20 million people their jobs. "
Speaking on Up with Chris Hayes this past Sunday, Black added that "this is an anti-jobs bill." Reiterating that the act would create fraud, he said, "When you encourage fraud... you destroy jobs, you destroy millions of jobs."
SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar also noted in a March 16 speech: "The bill would benefit Wall Street, at the expense of Main Street, by overriding protections that currently require a separation between research analysts and investment bankers who work in the same firm."
Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, also sees fraud increasing the passing of the bill. "This legislation will unleash a new wave of damaging investment fraud, undermine market transparency, and increase the cost of capital for the small companies it purports to benefit. Unfortunately, both the administration and a bipartisan majority in Congress have chosen to ignore those warnings."
* * *
The JOBS Act is so Criminogenic that it Guarantees Full-Time Jobs for Criminologists
The “Jumpstart Our Business Startups” Act, the comically forced effort to create a catchy acronym, is the most cynical bill to emerge from a cynical Congress and Administration. It is an exemplar of why Congressional approval ratings are well below those of used car dealers. The JOBS Act is something only a financial scavenger could love. It will create a fraud-friendly and fraud-enhancing environment. It will add to the unprecedented level of financial fraud by our most elite CEOS that has devastated the U.S. and European economies and cost over 20 million people their jobs. Financial fraud is a prime jobs killer.
Powerful regulatory regimes – strong accounting rules, strict corporate governance, tough securities laws, and vigorous civil and criminal enforcement of the regulations and laws is the greatest infrastructure for strong economic growth that a nation can provide. [...]
Among the many fraud-friendly policies that led to the deregulation that prompts our recurrent, intensifying financial crises, the undisputed most destructive aspect is the recurrent, intensifying embrace of the “regulatory race to the bottom.” The “logic” of the argument in the securities law context is that (1) dishonest issuers like bad regulation because it allows them to defraud with impunity, (2) our “competitor” nations (typically described as the City of London) offer weaker regulation to induce the fraudulent issuers to locate abroad, and (3) we must not allow this to happen; we must make sure that fraudulent issuers are based in America. Of course, they never phrase honestly their “logic” about dishonesty. Four national commissions investigated the causes of financial crises – the S&L debacle, the ongoing U.S. crisis, the Irish crisis, and the Icelandic crisis. Each of the commissions has decried the idiocy of the “race to the bottom” dynamic and warned that it must end. The arguments advanced by industry in support of the JOBS Act reflect and worship at the altar of “the race to the bottom.”
* * *
The Huffington Post: Obama JOBS Act Leaves Labor Fuming In Democratic Feud
[T]he White House and congressional Republicans tout the JOBS Act as a shot in the arm for small companies that have bright prospects. Fast-growing start-ups are engines of job growth and the bill is intended to make it easier for these companies to raise capital.
In practice, however, the bill will be a greater boon for venture capitalists, large tech companies and Wall Street banks. This cadre quickly got the president’s backing for the JOBS Act, despite vocal opposition from consumer advocates, federal regulators and the largest U.S. coalition of labor unions, who warned of increased risk of financial fraud. [...]
"The bill would benefit Wall Street, at the expense of Main Street, by overriding protections that currently require a separation between research analysts and investment bankers who work in the same firm," SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar said in a March 16 speech.
* * *
The Real News: Jobs Act 2012 a Recipe for Fraud
Bill Black: The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" will create a race to the regulatory bottom
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



52 Comments so far
Show AllDuring and shortly after the civil war a groundswell of public opinion opposed slavery. But the reactionaries bided their time and when public attention shifted to other things, like expansion west, the reactionaries took over.
The American Counter Revolution, by Larry E. Tise.
ALL PEOPLE WISHING TO BE POLITICALLY VOTED INTO OFFICE WILL HAVE TO BE A CROOK, ASS KISSER, MONEY GREEDY BASTARD. HOW ELSE...
...SO THEY CAN TOADY UP TO THEIR BLOW...HOW ELSE COULD THEY POSSIBLY GET ELECTED?
Obama Signs "Fraud-Friendly" JOBS Act into Law
Yes, but just look at that moving signing ceremony photo-op -- Obama made House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) really, really happy -- and the JOBS Act was so totally bipartisan!
Plus, as William Black points out, the JOBS Act will actually create legions of jobs for criminologists, investigators, and prosecutors.
As Bill Clinton loved to say..."Win-Win"?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enter and win the new novel name for Obama.
Rules: You can't use any of these commonly used names:
Obomba, Obummer, OilyBomber, Oboomba, or O. It has to be new and original.
First prize will be an original Obama,"Hope" tee shirt. A valuable collectors item sure to be worth millions in the future. Watch the look on your neighbor's faces when they see you wearing this stylish tee shirt.
Obushma - the 3rd term of bush
And obominable - Obama mixed with abominable
And obomination
*2 (the asterisk .. redux)
Franciszek2
+100
PS -- May I susggest Barack Oboombox?
Humpin' and Thumpin' with another Big Speech!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~That way we'd have a Democratic majority defeating bills that Romney wants, instead of party-loyalist Dems voting with Republicans to pass bills that fake-Democrat Obama wants.
(I've been calling Obama a Trojan Horse for the last four years. Now he's started using the term to describe Republicans. Is Karl Rove now advising Obama?)
"Naturally"
You are living within a delusion that would make Obama and Co. laugh.
If your strategizing includes either democrats, republicans, or libertarians, then you will get the same results we are getting now.
The democrats are on the same team as their allies "on the other side of the aisle." The difference is that the democrats LIE to you before they stab you in the back.
Here's a major clue. The democrats are having their 2012 Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina because the party wants to please Duke Energy and Bank of America and the democrats aren't really even bothering with primaries this year because they are SO deeply enthralled with Obama.
Just watch all of the so-called progressive democrats ardent devotion for Mr. Constitution-Shredder as they join in celebrating his nomination this September.
Anyone who votes for the democrats is voting for the republicans and for the furthering of corporate domination.
1. Obama and Romney want the same bills. For example, Obamacare is rebranded Romneycare. Military contracts are supported by both parties. The NDAA . Gutting the EPA and Social Security funds. Abetting banker fraud. In fact the D party is more successful in delivering these anti-worker, anti-people agendas. I could go on.
2. A D majority in Congress has proven useless, as their leaders pre-capitulate, summarily take good ideas "off the table" without a fight, and the members fold at the slightest hint of a filibuster.
3. The Ds are just as lobbied and bought off by corporate interests as the Rs.
The only strategic voting I can see is to vote for a third party, knowing it will lose, but to continue after the elections to work for an electoral voice for the 99%. The other activity worth our time is to support and build movements around something that each of us cares about - housing, the incarceration of Black youth, fracking, peace, labor rights, reproductive rights, student debt. The opportunities are many, and any level of participation contributes to the whole.
The useless Democratic majority and the pre-capitulation you mention describes the first two years of Obama's term in office. And that's my point precisely. It's all about party loyalty to the president.
Which brings me to third parties. If we had a viable third party (of a majoritarian nature, as Ralph Nader has described) one of the benefits would be a reduction in the mindless party loyalty we see demonstrated in the passing of this fraud-friendly legislation. Mindless party loyalty is the deplorable consequence of our current either-or, two-party system.
I will be voting for a third-party candidate for president, and I urge everyone to do so. Clearly, if the progressive majority in this country were to do the same we'd elect a progressive third-party president and we'd see many Congress critters freed from their party bonds.
But I will also be voting for many (not all) Democrats in down-ticket races. Unfortunately, in many of those races the only third-party choice will likely be a libertarian. If the presidency goes to Romney AND Democrats win control of Congress, we'll still be in the shit but it MIGHT be less shit than if Obama is re-elected.
The worst-case scenario would be Romney in the White House and a Republican majority in Congress. That would be the Wisconsin/Scott Walker all-out-assault on working people and democracy scenario, without any presidential recall option.
The second-worst-case scenario would be fake-Democrat Obama in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress pursuing the Republicans' agenda and slapping a "Democrat" label on it.
The Democrats in Congress did no such thing unless you're satisfied with Nancy Pelosi taking impeachment off the table, Democrats giving in to more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, allowing more NAFTAs to pass through, and joining Bush in bailing out Wall Street. The Democrats in Congress were generally feckless except for a few and did nothing to stop or reverse Bush's agenda 2006 and after.
1) Cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits
2) Privatization of Social Security and Medicare
3) Cuts to Medicaid and other safety net programs
4) Extension of the Bush tax cuts
5) Weakened environmental protection regulations
6) Escalation of the war in Afghanistan
7) Torture
8) Drone assassinations
9) Indefinite detention
10) Prosecution of government whistleblowers
11) Prosecution of peace and justice activists
12) New nuclear power plants
13) War with Iran
I'm sure others can add many additional items to this list.
What absolute BS -
You give the Oilybomber a free pass with that lame minded analysis - add in 'he wants to but those darn republicans won't let him' and we have the 2 lamest reasons to vote for this POS lesser of 2 evils(not) predator. The presidency is the most powerful position in the world......
Obama could hire Bill Black for one.
He could end drone attacks with a simple phone call.
He could ratchet down the war talk vis-a-vis Iran
Etc etc etc
Obama has plenty of power - he just uses it to enhance FRAUD - as multiple authors point out in the article....
If he wanted to Obama could Veto the damn bill - except his admin was integral in writing the bill up.
Poorly-written CD article. I have little doubt that the bill has "fraud-friendly" features embedded in it, but the article does a poor job of identifying what those are, and how they are likely to actually play out in encouraging fraud.
The best clue I can find is buried in the 4th paragraph: "The bill would benefit Wall Street, at the expense of Main Street, by overriding protections that currently require a separation between research analysts and investment bankers who work in the same firm." Well, OK. But, frankly, it doesn't strike me as outrageous that investment bankers would work hand-in-glove with research analysts. I mean, why WOULDN'T they base their investments on a company's analytical research? I don't understand the issue here.
Again, this is inadequate journalism. CD needs to provide more useful facts and analysis, and less second-hand reporting of other peoples' reactions.