

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Nathan White (202) 225-5871
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy is pressing his efforts to head off an avalanche of Wall Street bailout bonuses. Recent reports indicate bonuses and other compensation packages paid by financially troubled firms receiving government assistance could reach into the tens of billions of dollars.
Today he released a letter sent to Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asking that the Full Committee move quickly to investigate how bailout funds are being spent by the financial service companies participating in Treasury's capital purchase program.
"It would be an affront to taxpayers and shareholders alike if Wall Street executives cashed in on the bailout. We must prevent the diverted directly or indirectly of bailout funds to bonuses and exorbitant compensation packages," he said.
Congressman Kucinich, an opponent to the bailout, has been a leader in calling for stringent oversight on money spent through the bailout program. He asked for the leadership of the Full Committee to ensure that the resources necessary to investigate are available. The Subcommittee will remain a key part of the investigation.
Congressman Kucinich recommended that the Full Committee begin by requesting specific information from each of the 11 companies participating in the Treasury's Capital Purchase Program (Bank of America, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, City National, and Key Bank). The information requested would include compensation data since 2003, descriptions of 'claw back' policies, an itemized list of funds received from government sources, A list of every party who has purchased more than $50 million of impaired assets in the past 24 months, and a description of each organizations risk management procedures.
"I believe that the American taxpayers who have provided this subsidy have legitimate concerns about how those companies will use those funds, what happened to require them to need those funds, and what they will be doing differently in the future to ensure that they will not need more assistance," wrote Kucinich in the letter.
The full text of the letter follows:
October 27, 2008
Henry A. Waxman, Chairman
Oversight and Government Reform Committee
2157 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Henry:
I am writing to ask that the Full Committee move quickly to conduct oversight on the use of Federal monies by financial service companies participating in the Treasury's Capital Purchase program. As you know, Treasury has set aside $250 billion for buying preferred equity in a number of national and regional financial institutions with funds authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, passed recently by Congress.
While the ostensible purpose of these purchases is to increase lending by these institutions, it is not a requirement. Indeed, these companies are arguably free to spend these funds, or existing funds freed by the federal cash infusion, for any purpose, including payment of bonuses and extravagant compensation earned during the period preceding the bailout.
I believe that the American taxpayers who have provided this subsidy have legitimate concerns about how those companies will use those funds, what happened to require them to need those funds, and what they will be doing differently in the future to ensure that they will not need more assistance. Furthermore, this matter requires the urgent attention of the Committee, since the recipients of the federal monies can be expected to commit those funds immediately.
In view of the urgent nature of this matter, I will commit the resources of my subcommittee to follow the lead of the Full Committee in this investigation and assist in any way requested. I suggest that the Committee begin by requesting the following information from each of the 11 companies participating in Treasury's Capital Purchase program (Bank of America; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase; Wells Fargo; Morgan Stanley; Goldman, Sachs; Merrill Lynch; Bank of New York Mellon; State Street; City National, and Key Bank):
1. A breakdown of the total annual compensation paid since 2003 through the present, including plans to pay compensation and bonuses in the near future for performance prior to the capital purchase; to each employee whose total annual income exceeded $500,000. They should be asked to name the top five executives and break down their compensation packages. (They should include executive level employees who are no longer employed by the company). They should be asked to aggregate figures for the remaining individuals receiving over $500,000, by placing them into the following groups: over $1,000,000, between $750,000 and $999,999, and between $500,000 and $749,999. Total annual compensation should mean: salary, bonus, other compensation, the value of restricted stock awards, long-term incentive payouts and the value of stock option awards in the fiscal year. Other compensation includes perquisites and other personal benefits; amounts accrued pursuant to a termination or change in control plan; annual company contributions to vested and unvested pension plans; the dollar value of any insurance premiums paid by the company with respect to life insurance for the benefit of an employee; gross-ups or other reimbursements for taxes; and discounted securities purchases.
2. A description of any policies in place that dictate the circumstances in which the company will seek to recoup, "clawback", compensation paid to employees in the event of a significant restatement of financial results or significant extraordinary write-off. If the company has entered into indemnification agreements or purchased insurance on behalf of certain employees to shield them from personal losses resulting from clawback obligations, they should be asked to explain the terms of such agreements or policies; limits, if any, on the amount that may be reimbursed to the company on behalf of the employment; the applicable standard of conduct that will override the agreement or insurance; and each individual who is covered by such agreements or insurance.
3. An itemized list of all government funds they have received since January 1, 2007 through Treasury programs. the anticipated benefit they expect to recognize as a result of the tax change enacted in Section 301 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, participation in any Federal Reserve liquidity facility created after January 1, 2008, interest payments they have received from the Federal Reserve, and loans they have received to purchase assets from pooled investment vehicles under their control.
4. A list of the types of collateral they have pledged to each of these facilities and the value they received in exchange, if their institution has accessed any of the primary dealer credit facilities. They should indicate the aggregate value they have received each month in exchange for each type of collateral including treasury securities, agency securities, AAA-rated mortgage-backed, AAA-rated asset-backed securities, investment grade corporate securities, investment grade municipal securities, investment grade mortgage-backed securities, and investment grade asset-backed securities.
5. A list of every party who has purchased more than $50 million of impaired assets from their organization in the past 24 months and any financing they have provided.
6. An explanation of why the institutions participating in the Capital Purchase program need government aid. They should describe their business strategy going forward and how it differs from the strategy that has made it necessary for them to accept government aid.
7. A description of the organization's risk management procedures before they received government aid and the improvements they have made in light of the consequences to their organization of the financial crisis.
This would be a logical extension of the recent oversight conducted by the Full Committee on executive compensation and key actors in the financial crisis.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Chairman
Domestic Policy Subcommittee
Enclosure
cc: Darrell Issa
Ranking Minority Member
Dennis Kucinich is an American politician. A U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, he was also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2004 and 2008.
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."