J.P.Morgan Chase & Co and the Gong Show

I must admit to having a soft spot for J.P. Morgan.  Not JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest bank in the United States with assets of $2 trillion.

Jaye P. Morgan

I am talking about Jaye P. Morgan who served during the 1970's as a celebrity judge on “The Gong Show”.

The Gong Show was an amateur talent contest that was similar to today’s "America’s Got Talent" but it was a whole lot weirder.   

After an act that consisted of two teenage girls consuming popsicles in a sexually suggestive manner Jaye P. Morgan famously quipped.
"Do you know that's how I started?"

Jaye P. was sexy, funny and crazy.   

the other J.P. Morgan

Unfortunately this blog is about the other JPMorgan who are none of those things but who may be up to a sexual act with the U.S. taxpayers. 

 In a stunning flashback to the 2008, another “too big to fail” bank lost a gazillion dollars while engaging in highly risky suspect derivative trading.  The left hand (the CEO whose 2012 compensation totaled $41.99 million dollars) didn’t know what the right hand (his company) was doing. 

Recently after lawmakers finished work on the new financial regulatory law, a team of JPMorgan Chase lobbyists rushed in. They tried to obtain special breaks that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 gazillion dollar loss.

I don't know. I couldn't see the back of the shirt

It has also since been learned that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was lobbying regulators to create a loophole in the law, known as the Volcker Rule.  The Volcker rule was designed to limit the very kind of proprietary trading that JPMorgan was seeking.  Even after the Volcker rule was enacted  JPMorgan and other banks continued their efforts to avoid limits.

Banks that are too big to fail are much more of a threat to our national security than AL-Qaeda is.

In fact while writing this I referenced the Financial Times and found out  that a Morgan Stanley research team estimated that Dimon’s crap-shoot will cost 5 billion by years end more than doubling the initial disclosure.  Hence the gazillion dollar estimate.

 

Since this has all happened I have heard some financial talking heads complaining about possible regulatory backlash and bad legislation.  Complaining that Democrats are going to run to the bank with this….

How can any sane person argue against instituting financial regulations to prevent a recurrence of 2008 you say...  well funny you asked.
Rep Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Chair of the Financial Services Committee recently said.

“We are again hearing um from some of our colleagues that we need a law that will essentially prevent a company losing money or taking risks and no such law can do that, nor should a law attempt to prohibit a company from taking risks.”

In 2008, Bachus traded in options at least forty times, making money from betting against the market as it collapsed that year.

Rep Bachus is either missing the point or intentionally protecting financial institutions to the detriment of the American taxpayer (his boss).  This is not a purely capitalist system where the only people who stand to lose are the people who knowingly engage in the speculative financial shell games.  These shell games involve deposits backed by the federal government.  The last time this meltdown occurred the cost were staggering.  Should it fail this type of risk could pull down the whole economy.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=58695

The financial crisis cost the U.S. an estimated $648 billion due to slower economic growth.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will result in a net cost to taxpayers of $73 billion

The U.S. lost $3.4 trillion in real estate wealth from July 2008 to March 2009

The U.S. lost $7.4 trillion in stock wealth from July 2008 to March 2009

5.5 million more American jobs were lost due to slower economic growth during the financial crisis than what was predicted by the September 2008 CBO forecast.

Other estimates totaled losses as high as 8.5 trillion.

As Paul Krugman pointed out in

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/opinion/dimons-deja-vu-debacle.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The point, again, is that an institution like JPMorgan — a too-big-to-fail bank, not to mention a bank whose deposits are already guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers — shouldn’t be engaged in this kind of speculative investment at all. And that’s why we need a return to much stronger financial regulation, stronger even than the Dodd-Frank regulations passed back in 2010.

 

How I wish Chuck Barris and the crew would come back just one more time and bang the gong sending JPMorgan and their tired old act packing.

VAWA, Republican and Ducks

You know the saying “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck”? I have written about the Republican Party recent efforts to proactively undermine or outright attack existing women’s rights.  There is a long list of recent Republican efforts; trying to redefine rape, defunding planned parenthood and transvaginal ultrasounds to name a few.

With the list of detailed proposed legislation and public stances it is clear that the Republican Party has adapted a platform that is anti-women.  It will be argued by those on the right who support those positions that there are various reasons or we misunderstand but you can now add another item to that list.

The “Violence Against Women Act “(VAWA) was passed with bipartisan support in 1994.  It is a federal law that provides funding toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.

The VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005.  According to the ACLU in their July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

 

This year’s version which was written by the Democrats includes 3 new provisions that Republicans don't like. One, it gives Indian tribal governments new powers to prosecute crimes against women. Two, it increases the ability of undocumented immigrants to report violence against themselves without fear of deportation. And three, for shelters and programs that receive this money, it bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims experience domestic violence at roughly the same rate as the general population,” but they are less likely to receive help, said Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado.

The Republican House has proposed their own version of the bill that women and religious advocacy groups oppose.  31 religious groups, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Episcopal Church, opposed immigration provisions of the House bill.

These provisions “would actually roll back protections in current law for battered noncitizens, making them more vulnerable and, in some cases, endangering their lives,” the groups said in a letter to House leaders.

How can one find fault with strengthening a bill that protects  groups that are more vulnerable?  The bill was passed with Republican support in the Senate; it is supported by hundreds of advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies. 

Advocacy groups active on domestic violence warned that the House bill would mark a "low point" in the drive to eliminate violence against women.

"With rollbacks of immigration provisions, the absence of strong protections for Native women, much less any protections or services for the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community, this bill is a travesty," said Lisalyn Jacobs, vice president for government relations at Legal Momentum, a women's legal advocacy group.

Total 2012 VAWA Budget Request – $455 Million

In fiscal year 2010, the U.S. government allocated the $52.7 billion for foreign aid:

Democrats in Congress and others have been accusing Republicans for months for waging a war on women," said Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), the sponsor of the bill. "We've been called anti-victim, elitist, homophobic and racist. These ridiculous attacks stop now. Right here, right now."

Okay – then vote for a bill that is improved and its coverage expanded to those who need it the most. The argument against it is that the previous bill covered everyone equally. 

But we all know not everyone is treated equally.
And we can't improve legislation because it is a political ploy........

BTW in 2010 The US Fish & Wildlife service wanted to designate 12 million acres in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana as the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area and then spend well over 500 million dollars preserving ducks there by paying land owners to use their land only for grazing.  Just saying.

Job Creators and Gay Marriage - why not?

I was in the middle of writing this blog when President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.  I was a little bummed at the timing as I had hoped that this post would be the thing that convinced him.
I suspect he heard that I was writing it and that was probably enough for him......
The right re-branded rich people as "job creators". We should re-brand gay marriage. I suggest we refer to gay marriage as “How about granting basic human and civil rights to two people who are earnest and want to spend their lives together and are willing to legally bind that commitment union”. 
Like??? Kind of rolls off your tongue right?  So from now on I will refer to the re-branded term.

Recently North Carolina held a vote on amending their state constitution to banning “How about granting basic human and civ....Wait - that's going to be tough to type over and over.  We need an acronym - North Carolina passed the amendment banning HAGBHCRTTPWAEAWTSTLTAAWTLBTCU by a 60 – 40 margin.

Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the pro-amendment group Vote FOR Marriage NC, said "I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman," Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night. "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults."

I wonder if it ever occurred to people like Tami that gay people are part of God’s design.

According to Wikipedia  - In August 2010 a CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, with numerous polls after it showing majority support.

Marriage is no longer a social convention nor a religious one.  It may have started that way but it has evolved.  There are civil right, tax implications.  It has serious implications for two people who are in love and wish to be together. You should take a moment and view the video link below.  It’s a story that needs to be shared – it’s a terrible illustration of what happens when you don’t have protection under the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pR9gyloyOjM

In case you are wondering exactly what rights you are granted in marriage, you might want to read the following courtesy of     http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family 

As Ferris Bueller once said. "Your still here?"
Congratulations if you made it this far.
 I truly do not understand how granting rights to same sex couples is anything but the celebration of marriage.  How many of the people who voted for the state constitutional ban do not honor the very institution they are so afraid will be destroyed by granting that very same right to the children of God that they worship. His design.  So how about a little love and compassion for HAGBHCRTTPWAEAWTSTLTAAWTLBTCU.  But even the acronym is to long - how about we just call it Job Creator marriage.