You Wanna Get Pissed Off? Here's Your Daily Blood Boiler

Inside this rather boring if frightening story about the problems at hedge fund SAC Capital, lies this sentence (highlighted):

A legal deadline looms for prosecutors to bring a criminal case against Mr. Cohen related to charges against Mathew Martoma, a former SAC portfolio manager accused of illegally trading in the shares of two drug companies, Elan and Wyeth. The Martoma case is the first time that Mr. Cohen was linked to questionable trades, which occurred in late July 2008. Under the five-year statute of limitations for insider trading crimes, the government must charge Mr. Cohen by July.

Yet the eliciting of Mr. Cohen’s grand jury testimony is not entirely bad news for the hedge fund manager, at least as it relates to his criminal exposure, legal experts say. A grand jury subpoena seeking Mr. Cohen’s testimony suggests that the government is pursuing a case against SAC, but not Mr. Cohen himself. It is highly unusual for prosecutors to issue a grand jury subpoena to the target of an investigation, indicating that they want to interview Mr. Cohen broadly about his fund’s activities.

But bringing criminal charges against SAC would also be an unusual move by the government. Over the last decade, the Justice Department has moved away from indicting companies after the 2002 indictment of Arthur Andersen was widely seen as having put the accounting giant out of business.

Excuse me?

To refresh your memory, the CPA firm of Arthur Andersen voluntarily surrendered its license to practice in the United States after multiple felony convictions in connection with its audits of Enron. Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States later vacated the convictions, but not on the facts: documents relevant to the Enron investigation by the Justice Department were shredded. The case was thrown out for bad jury instructions. The facts were never at issue.

So an auditing firm, charged with making sure its client abided by what is known as GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) lies to people who are relying on their opinion that the firm is operating above board, but then destroys any proof otherwise? They deserved to be put out of business. Enron’s bankruptcy revealed not only the massive greed of conservative “capitalists” and the overwhelming hubris of people who treated customers, clients and shareholders like ants under a magnifying glass, AND warned Andersen (or rather should have) there were irregularities big enough to clog a pipeline, and yet did nothing to stop them.

And if Enron didn’t warn Andersen, they certainly could have dug a bit deeper than they did. Obviously, there was something they were trying to hide in shredding documents, if it was only how badly they were hoodwinked. Nonetheless, they were in deep and deserved to be shut down.

So if you’re wondering why the banksters were never put on trial after the subprime mortgage scandal, there’s your answer: our government is too scared to upset an apple cart or two.

GIN!

Here’s the thing: the best strategy for Republicans is to just let it go:

WASHINGTON — The scandals dogging President Barack Obama are a political gift to Republicans, who could use some good luck after recent election losses. It’s not clear, however, how Republicans can best capitalize on Democrats’ woes, legislatively or politically.

Last November’s election dynamics complicate the picture on both fronts. Republican leaders are urging a bit of restraint in exploiting the White House’s new weaknesses.

Taken together, Republicans say, these three controversies portray a rapaciously political and inept administration. That could be a powerful message in next year’s congressional and gubernatorial elections, and perhaps in the 2016 presidential race.

[…]

[Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla, a close ally of House Speaker John Boehner], however, said Boehner and other party leaders are keenly aware that Republicans can overdo their attacks, and even build sympathy for Obama, if their criticisms appear nakedly political or not supported by facts.

“We’ve actually had a lot of discussions about that,” Cole said.

Since the “scandals,” however factually based one of them actually is, are pretty much made up of spit and chewing gum, there’s not a lot of worry that Republicans, Inc won’t overplay their hands. They will and spectacularly.

Take the AP phone records “scandal”. The government has had the right for over 40 years, ever since Watergate, to target individual reporter’s notes and records (longer, really, but it was rarely used.) Ten years ago, Congress, a Republican Congress, expanded that right under the USA PATRIOT Act to obtain the cooperation of telecos in rooting out suspected terrorism in the nation. And don’t think for one minute the Bush administration didn’t use this power and frequently.

Now, I agree that what the Obama administration did was wrong, but then I protested when the PATRIOT Act was introduced, unlike, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, nearly every fucking right winger who’s up in arms about it now, and every single Republican, Inc. Congresscritter who voted for it. I was against government snooping before I was even more against it. It was wrong when a Republican could do it, and it’s still wrong now that a Democrat sits in the Oval Office.

But don’t whine to me, Bushites. You made the bed you’re sleeping in.

Likewise, the IRS/Teabagger “scandal.” First, there’s very little evidence either the White House or Treasury department knew or authorized the vetting of Teabaggers. S. E. “Sippy” Cupp of MSNBC (yuck, really guys? This was the best you could do?) and the NY Daily News whined on Bill Maher about a “he said this and so he had to know” chain of illogic that she has yet to verify in any way, shape, or form. This is tantamount to the 9/11 Truthers, Sippy.

Second, the IRS was tasked with vetting and vetting quickly a whole slew of 501(c)4 groups created in the wake of the Citizens United decision. Of course they were going to look for shortcuts!

Third, the only group that hasn’t survived that vetting process was a liberal group. This despite the fact that it is universally acknowledged that the Federal Election and tax laws are being raped by big money lobbyists.

Finally, there’s Benghazi. Already, Republicans, Inc. have been proven to have altered and even made up evidence somehow “proving” the administration had enough time to intervene, when the truth is, Ambassador Hayes was dead before Obama even knew about the situation. Claims of a cover-up hold no water. Period. This is precisely why no one is paying attention.

So there you have it: after a first term of crying “WOLF!,” Republicans, Inc. have had three legitimate scandals, and because they shot their credibility in the foot before 2012, with the birth certificate and the Muslim nonsense, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, they’ve had to already overplay their hands in order to keep their minions in line.

Meanwhile Democrats keep garnering more and more votes and more and more seats.

How’s that working out for ya, Weaker Boener?

Nobody Asked Me, But...

Wow. It feels like years since I’ve written one of these, between vacations and sick days and whateverthehellelse…anyway….

1)  The Bush appointee who headed the IRS investigation of Teabagger groups will testify before Congress today. This ought to be interesting. After all, it was a Republican Congress who set up the 501(c)(4) group and who made very ambiguous guidelines as to what constitutes compliance with said section. A Bush appointee, a Republican, investigating all political groups on a shoestring budget targets groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their name….because maybe he has firm insider evidence they’re cheating? Just a thought.

2) Facebook started publicly trading one year ago. It opened at $32 a share, and spiked up to near $42. At the time, I called it worth no more than $20 a share. If you had listened to my advice and bought when it hit twenty, you’d hit “Like” on your return. I see it topping out short term at around $30 so there’s still time to get a quick hit if you can. But long term? It’s a $25 share, at best.

3)  Salt of the worth?

4)  “Libertarian” Conor Freidersdorf argues for religion when it comes to extreme porn. I cannot fap to that.

5)  Speaking of civil liberties, here’s an interesting conundrum: you’re a photographer who lives across the street from a luxury high-rise building. You can see into some rooms clearly, as people leave their curtains open. You take photos and exhibit them. Right to privacy v. free speech. Discuss.

6)  My favorite name in all of sports is dead. Apparent suicide.

7)  Some things cannot be unseen.

8)  Attention, Teabaggers: You are terrorist sympathisers. This is not hyperbole!

9)  I’ve got an idea: Why not let Turkey take the lead in overthrowing Assad?

10)  Those Benghazi emails? Support the administration claims. End of story.

Where the Hell Are They Shopping, Then?

Wal-Mart reported earnings yesterday, and it’s a bit eye-opening. If I was an investor¹, I’d be very worried:

Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer by sales, reported an unexpected drop in US sales that pointed to pressure on low-income consumers and sent its shares falling.

The discount chain said on Thursday that its US like-for-like sales in the 13 weeks to April 26 declined by 1.4 per cent. It had previously told investors that it expected sales to be “around flat”.

The company blamed the fall on delayed tax refunds from last year for consumers, a rise in the payroll tax rate this year, lower-than-expected food inflation, and bad weather.

Here’s the thing: the stock market is booming. China is suffering. The US economy is gaining momentum, which only happens when consumers go out and buy, regardless of when they get their tax refunds. So someone is selling to them. And if not Wal-Mart, the bastion of low prices and good selection (despite their irresponsible business practices and outright piratical scavenging of local retailers) then where?

When the economy is in the doldrums, and for what we know at this point in time, it still is, Wal-Mart is where people shop. It’s essentially one giant mall of discount prices on, well, not quality merchandise but certainly “better than a yard sale” stuff. People are still hurting out there, even though the worst of it appears to be over. The jobless numbers are still high and personal income is still declining when adjusted for inflation.

Wal-Mart should be selling like it’s ice cream on a hot summer’s day. And yet…

Now, I don’t have a problem with mass merchants, per se. I loved Sears and K-Mart for things like tools and household goods. I can’t help but to indulge in the slightest bit of schadenfreude when it comes to Wal-Mart. My few experiences with shopping in one have left a bad taste in my mouth. The stores are too large, the merchandise is pretty hard to sort through, and well, there’s the people who shop there.

Don’t cry too much for Wal-Mart: despite the drop in sales, they earned more money than they did for the same period last year, so they must be ripping consumers off harder.

 

¹ Full disclosure: my daughter owns one share, so I can keep abreast of corporate news and so I can vote against the Walton family.

Budget Deficit? What Budget Deficit?

NOW can we start spending some money to fix the nation?

Since the recession ended four years ago, the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion every year. But now the government's annual deficit is shrinking far faster than anyone in Washington expected, and perhaps even faster than many economists think is advisable for the health of the economy.

That is the thrust of a new report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimating that the deficit for this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, will fall to about $642 billion, or 4 percent of the nation's annual economic output, about $200 billion lower than the agency estimated just three months ago.

The agency forecast that the deficit, which topped 10 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, could shrink to as little as 2.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2015 — a level that most analysts say would be easily sustainable over the long run — before beginning to climb gradually through the rest of the decade.

That’s pretty remarkable. The deficit hasn’t been this low since Fiscal Year 2007, which was also Bush’s lowest deficit, half a trillion dollars.

You read that correctly: Bush’s deficits never once were below $500 billion (Clinton’s last budget did run a deficit of $100 billion, which slopped over into Bush’s first year in office.)

So much for tax cuts stimulating the economy. So much, moreover, for the silly sham that budget deficits are killing us.

Say, You Know Who Else Destroyed Ancient Religious Relics?

The Taliban