Congo forces leaders to pay taxes – ours?

The Democratic Republic of Congo, faced with a fiscal crisis, is now forcing their leaders to pay taxes. Reuters reports

Amid a growing budget shortfall, the government is under pressure to cut costs and boost tax revenues.

Budget Minister Michel Lokola told Reuters that last month’s decision to tax government salaries at source, rather than rely on employees to pay taxes after receiving their salaries, had already raised roughly $1 million.

“They just weren’t paying. The government ministers we replaced, the MPs, the senators, they didn’t pay,” said Lokola, who entered the government last October in a cabinet shake-up that saw his predecessor Adolphe Muzito named prime minister.

Lokola said the move was partly aimed at setting a good example, adding that Congolese President Joseph Kabila’s government salary was also subject to the measure.

“He is aware of this, and he approves of it … I don’t see how we can expect the private sector to pay their taxes if we don’t pay ourselves,” he said.

So even a country we look upon with derision, the Congo, has realized the benefit of taxing the elite of their country. As we have seen, politicians in this country appear to have an aversion to paying their taxes, and can’t even comprehend the tax code that they wrote, as evidenced by Tom Daschle, who didn’t know the limo was taxable.

So will Geithner, considering the fiscal crisis we, ourselves, are facing, implement a program of ferreting out government tax cheats and garnishing their taxpayer-paid wages?

I doubt it.

He’s a tax cheat.

Nothing like the fox guarding the hen house.

Advertisements

CEO of drug enterprise busted in Winnetka – updated

Yes, the darlings of Winnetka have done it again. a mere two blocks from New Trier High School, the training ground for the future CEO’s of America, an enterprising 21 year old, Mark Elliot Mansheim, was arrested Wednesday and charged with “production of marijuana plants, marijuana possession and manufacture of marijuana, all felonies,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

Officers executed the search warrant on the home about 3:45 p.m. Wednesday and found 75 marijuana plants “and further evidence of the production, use and distribution of [marijuana],” the release said. Also found in the home, according to the release, were growing stations, including tents equipped with lighting, irrigation and ventilation systems.

This was a breaking news story. When they get around to investigating further, like, for example, why this kid has a setup like this in his house and his parents weren’t arrested too, they will find more interesting information.

The house has been transferring hands nearly every year since 2003 when it was bought by Evelyn A. Liberis for $770,000 and quit claimed to 384 Hawthorne LLC for $0.00 in 2003, and then quit claimed and mortgaged nearly every year between Evelyn, 384 Hawthorne LLC, multiple banks,  Thomas and Melissa  Mansheim, who bought it from 384 Hawthorne LLC for $2.57 million in 2006, Steven and Constance Fapka (who took out a $1.5 million mortgage in 2008 while the Mansheim’s owned it) and somehow it ended up back with the LLC and corrected to show the Mansheim’s as owners.

The LLC lists Lloyd Gussis as the agent and the principal office as 1101 Fisher Lane in Winnetka. The managers are Kasey Tamara, Leslie Struthers and, you got it, Evelyn A. Liberis.

Makes you wonder if young Mark may be taking the fall for  what would seem to be a criminal enterprise involving Mom, Dad and who knows who these other people are.

Lovely living in the North Shore. Great neighbors. Wonderful place to raise your kids.

The newpaper’s forums are betting he gets 100 hours of community service.

I’d have the FBI investigate the whole enterprise. I’d bet it doesn’t stop there.

Wilmette Police press release

****Update****

A poster, dotherightthing, has this first hand account to offer.

first of all it wasn’t 75 plants. It was 4 plants and 71 germinated–which is basically the seed in soil. People are making it sound like he had a forest growing in his basement.

Always good to hear both sides of the story. You decide.

Clinton, Rubin and Summers, Graham, Leach and Bliley – thank you

In the early 1900’s, commercial banks began to establish security affiliates that floated bond issues and underwrote corporate stock issues. (In underwriting, a bank guarantees to furnish a definite sum of money by a definite date to a business or government entity in return for an issue of bonds or stock.)

Then the stock market crashed.

In 1930 the Bank of the United States failed, reportedly because of activities of its security affiliates that created artificial conditions in the market, FDR closed the banks for four days, 4000 failed permanently, and Congress created the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, then amended it in the Banking Act of 1933.

The act forced a separation of commercial and investment banks by preventing commercial banks from underwriting securities, with the exception of U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities, and municipal and state general obligation securities.

More specifically, the act authorizes Federal Reserve banks to use government obligations and commercial paper as collateral for their note issues, in order to encourage expansion of the currency. Banks can also offer advisory services regarding investments for their customers, as well as buy and sell securities for their customers. However, information gained from providing such services cannot be used by a bank when it acts as a lender.

Likewise, investment banks cannot engage in the business of receiving deposits.

A bank is defined as an institution organized under the laws of the United States, any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands, that both accepts demand deposits (deposits that the depositor may withdraw by check or similar means for payment to third parties or others) and is engaged in the business of making commercial loans (12 U.S.C.A. § 1841 (c)(1) [1988]).

Investment banking consists mostly of securities underwriting and related activities; making a market in securities; and setting up corporate mergers, acquisitions, and restructuring. Investment banking also includes services provided by brokers or dealers in transactions in the secondary market. A secondary market is one where securities are bought and sold subsequent to their original issuance.

It also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to protect depositors in the future.

The Act was passed because it was largely believed, after hearings in Congress, that commercial banks were being too speculative in the pre-Depression era, not only because they were investing their assets but also because they were buying new issues for resale to the public. Thus, banks became greedy, taking on huge risks in the hope of even bigger rewards. Banking itself became sloppy and objectives became blurred. Unsound loans were issued to companies in which the bank had invested, and clients would be encouraged to invest in those same stocks.

Enter the Clinton Era and the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the act which ultimately repealed the Glass-Steagull Act. The final bi-partisan version passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999, though most of his Democratic colleagues voted against it, initially (Senate 54-44, House 343-86).

The Graham-Leach-Bliley Act sought to “modernize” financial services–that is, end regulations that prevented the merger of banks, stock brokerage companies, and insurance companies. It nullified all prior acts that strictly regulated those who stored your money such as the Bank Holding Company Act that prohibited a bank from controlling a non-bank company which passed in 1956 and the 1982 amendment that further forbid banks from conducting general insurance underwriting or agency activities.

Why is this related to today? According to the Online Law Encylopedia,

The expansion of commercial banks into securities underwriting was substantial until the 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent Depression. In 1930 the Bank of the United States failed, reportedly because of activities of its security affiliates that created artificial conditions in the market.

As a result of the bank closings and already devastated economy, public confidence in the U.S. financial structure was low.

Is this sounding at all familiar? It should be.

The Glass-Steagull Act made all of that history, GLBA repealed it and history, my friends, is repeating itself.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Fast forward to October 2011 – With unemployment remaining steadily at over 9 percent for the last several years, foreclosures at an all time high and banks squeezing the dimes out of people with fees for everything but walking in the door, groups around the country are occupying financial districts, parks, banks and anywhere they believe they will have an impact. In New York occupiers shut down the Brooklyn Bridge and in Chicago they have been camped out for a couple of weeks on a corner that conveniently houses the Board of Trade, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Bank of America down the street. A recent rally joined by four other groups including several labor unions, shut down Monroe Street between Michigan and Columbus — ironically on Columbus Day.

Sources GLBA, Glass-Steagull(1), Glass-Steagull(2)

So why are we asking the experts anything?

NABE, the National Association of Business Economists, today released the results of their annual member survey. Reuters reports they predicted “the recession-hit economy would begin to recover in the second half of this year, returning to a potential growth trend in 2010.”

I wondered who these people were, and if they were the same people that missed this economic problem altogether, and were wondering for a year or two if we “might” be in a recession.

I found another survey summary that led to the current question, the topic of this entry. What do you think? Here’s what NABE says of its members:

Substantial percentages of economists report little familiarity with complex instruments and other financial innovations. Despite the prevalence of NABE members holding advanced degrees in economics and other business-related disciplines, substantial percentages admitted to having little or no familiarity with the structure, activities, and risks associated with hedge funds (45%), private equity funds (40%), asset-backed securitization (48%), credit default swaps (CDS, 68%) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs, 51%).

That was in August 2007, when they also thought:

The five-year housing outlook remains largely positive. A slight plurality (42%) of respondents expects U.S. home prices to be flat, on average, over the next five years. But respondents who expect home prices to rise on average over the next five years (41%) far outnumber those who expect prices to fall (16%). NABE members continue to place low odds (1 in 10) on a large drop in U.S. home prices similar to that experienced in Japan during the 1990s.

No comment.

A criminal conspiracy by any other name…

I stumbled today, on the stock broker fraud blog which apparently keeps track of all the dirt on Wall Street. After reading an article about former UBS Securities LLC Executive Director Mitchell Guttenberg, who was ordered to “forfeit $15.81 million in alleged illegal profits, as well as serve 78 months in prison” for an insider trading scheme, which also involved UBS stock analysts, a trader, a hedge fund manager, and other individuals, I wondered, why does the RICO Act not apply here?

According to this article, Guttenberg and the 12 other individuals, “mostly former employees at Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp, and Bear Stearns Co., Inc., were criminally charged for their involvement in the insider trading ring. Investigators say the participants tried to conceal their illegal actions by conducting meetings at restaurants, using disposable cellular phones, and coming up with coded text messages.”

Are they drug dealers or traders? To some people, money is a drug. In this case, it should be treated as such.

Were they throwaway phones, or were they stupid enough to use their own?

But it gets better.

Another article, concerning Auction-Rate- Securities, involved 12 states which banded together to form a “multi-state Task Force dedicated to finding out whether Wall Street investment firms had misled investors when persuading them to invest in the ARS market.”

I anxiously read on to see how much jail time these people would do, and discovered the answer was zero.

The punishment for this crime that involved 12 states? “11 major Wall Street investment banks have said they will buy back over $51 billion in ARS from charities, retail investors, and small companies.”

And the list of these companies, with their ARS hotlines?

Bank of America 1-866-638-4183
Deutsche Bank 1-866-926-1437
Citi 1-866-720-4802
JP Morgan 1-866-450-8470
Goldman Sachs 1-888-350-2857
Merrill Lynch 1-888-706-1381
UBS 1-800-253-1974
Morgan Stanley 1-800-566-2273
Wachovia 1-866-283-794

That was in November 2008. When did they get the first of the TARP money, and their bonuses, and their huge salaries?

Are they on the UBS list of unnamed offshore accounts?

And on the same site:

UBS Financial Services, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and Citigroup have reached finalized settlements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay tens of thousands of ARS investors almost $30 billion. The settlements will resolve SEC charges that the companies misled investors about the risks involved with auction rate securities.

The SEC’s complaint accused UBS and Citigroup of misleading customers by telling them ARS were liquid, safe investments and failing to warn them of the growing dangers when the market started to fail. When the ARS market froze in February, the SEC says both firms left tens of thousands of clients holding billions of dollars in illiquid ARS.

These finalized settlements will restore about $22.7 billion in liquidity to UBS clients who invested in ARS and some $7 billion to Citigroup investors. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox says investors will get back “100 cents on the dollar on their ARS investments.” Both firms will buy ARS from affected customers at PAR. Customers that sold their ARS under the par difference will be paid between par and the ARS sale price. This is the largest settlement in SEC history.

That was December 22, 2008……and the TARP money?

We as taxpayers, should demand equal protection under the law. They should be charged with the criminal conspiracy that this truly is and sent to prison – 20 years to life, with their assets seized and put into the TARP Rebate Fund.

No wonder they needed that TARP money to be spent so rapidly and with no accounting for where it went. No, it wasn’t spent on bonuses, IT WAS SPENT TO PAY BACK THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEY DEFRAUDED!!

And Geithner, the tax cheat, was in on that deal.

He should resign. They should all be investigated for criminal conspiracies, the whole financial sector, but most especially, the members of the Too-Big-to-Fail-Club.

They seem to be the worst offenders.

Addendum. I don’t know that this is where the money was spent, but if they didn’t loan it out, and they didn’t spend it on bonuses….well, it’s a good bet.

Follow the yellow gold road…..

What a couple of days it’s been in the financial world. Allen Stanford, scammer extraordinaire, whereabouts still unknown, is now known to have contributed large sums of money to congressional recipients, to vote against a financial services antifraud bill that would have linked the databases of state and federal banking, securities and insurance regulators. The bill died in the Senate.

Biggest recipients of his cash?

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. ($45,900); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ($28,150); Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. ($27,500); and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas ($19,700). Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, also received $41,375.

The full list is here and here.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign fund received only $4600 and it was immediately donated, yesterday, to a Chicago charity, according to the Chicago Tribune.

But the other big story is the deal Swiss UBS Bank made with the feds. Accused of assisting U.S. citizens avoid income taxes, UBS Bank has agreed to lift the veil of secrecy and identify “certain” clients. This could be 17,000 of their 20,000 clients whose combined deposits are worth $20 billion dollars.

In July 2008,Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mi) was calling for them to clean up their act. According to The Consumerist Levin told ABC News “UBS’s banking license should be revoked until the bank “cleans up its act.”” He listed the following as what the bank does to conceal its clients names and assets.

* Code Names for Clients
* Pay Phones, not Business Phones
* Foreign Area Codes
* Undeclared Accounts
* Encrypted Computers
* Transfer Companies to Cover Tracks
* Foreign Shell Companies
* Fake Charitable Trusts
* Straw Man Settlors
* Captive Trustees
* Anonymous Wire Transfers
* Disguised Business Trips
* Counter-Surveillance Training
* Foreign Credit Cards
* Hold Mail
* Shred Files

Prepared by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, July 2008.

For the record, Levin took no money from Stanford or his PAC. I’ll bet he even pays his taxes – all of them. Can he be Treasury Secretary?

Reuters reports the deal with UBS goes like this:

Swiss bank UBS AG has agreed to a deal with the U.S. Justice Department that would let the bank avoid tax-violation charges in exchange for identifying some of its U.S. account holders and paying $780 million in fines.

Here are the key terms of the deal:

– UBS, under orders by Swiss market regulators, is to give the United States identities and account information of “certain” U.S. customers. Details are to be filed under seal with U.S. federal court and turned over as soon as the court accepts the agreement.

– UBS agrees to pay $780 million in fines, interest and penalties. This includes $200 million to be paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The remainder is to be paid to the Justice Department over 18 months, with options to pay early or extend the terms up to four years.

– UBS acknowledges that it helped U.S. taxpayers open accounts that concealed their identities from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. About 17,000 of 20,000 U.S. cross-border clients concealed their identities and the existence of their accounts, with $20 billion in assets, from the IRS, the Justice Department said.

Some of these clients are unindicted co-conspirators.

The business generated about $200 million a year in revenue for UBS from 2002 to 2007, it said.

– UBS agrees to quit providing cross-border banking services to U.S. clients with undeclared accounts.

– After 18 months, the U.S. government will recommend dismissal of charges against UBS providing it honors the terms of the agreement.

The Stanford saga, in the meantime, continues to rock the world of the wealthy.

Venezuela seized a local bank affiliated with the Stanford Group, after there was a rush to withdraw funds through online banking. According to Reuters,

Depositors withdrew cash using Internet banking services. The bank takes deposits and makes loans only in the OPEC nation’s local currency.

“Most depositors of Stanford Bank Venezuela are from the (highest) income classes. They move their funds on the Internet, and this allowed for a massive withdrawal that pushed the bank into a precarious state,” Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez told reporters.

“The authorities were forced to take the decision to intervene and there will be an immediate sale,” he added.

And in Antigua, the Associated Press reports that customers were turned away from the Stanford bank there, because its assets were frozen. Depositors were arriving by private jet to withdraw their cash and were panicking when they discovered they couldn’t. One man, who owned a software firm, complained that his life savings was in that bank.

Let me guess. There is no F.D.I.C. insurance in Antigua.

It would seem this is just the beginning (of the end?).

Wonder how many of our congresspeople have offshore accounts? We already know they have an aversion to paying taxes.

Wonder if Geithner has one?

But most of all, I wonder if anyone who is caught will go to jail, go directly to jail, not pass go, and not collect $200.

And second I would like to know, will their assets be seized?

If the answer to the second question is yes, I would recommend to the Treasury Department and President Obama, that the assets seized from anyone in the financial industry caught up in these, or any future messes uncovered by the IRS and the FBI, be dumped into an account called the TARP Rebate Fund, which recoups the cash for the taxpayers, from the cheats and thieves who bought us this mess in the first place. (Oh, did I say bought, I meant brought – Freudian slip). And any congresspeople who return campaign contributions from any of these cheats, should also be dumped into this fund.

As a matter of fact, start with Geithner‘s payments, Daschle‘s Kellefer‘s and Solis‘. It would be a good start.

And any congress person who is found to have an offshore account in the UBS debacle, should be bounced from their office, forbidden from holding any public office anywhere in the U.S. or its territories, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

These people all need to do serious jail time. Nothing like seized assets and jail time to straighten up a class of people.

Is there a law against “betraying the public trust?” Because if there isn’t there should be.

Sentence: 20 to life in a Supermax prison. Enjoy. You built it.

Tax Cheats – the ethical and unethical

So far three of Obama’s cabinet post picks have been found to have tax problems. Nancy Killefer, a former assistant treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, withdrew her nomination for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, after it became known she hadn’t paid D.C. unemployment taxes.

Tom Daschle, who was going through the confirmation process when it was found he owed $143,000 in taxes (and has paid them now), backed out today.

Both said they did not want to be a distraction.

I respect that they backed out. It was the moral and ethical thing to do. But it is disturbing that three people, who had been in such positions of power, found themselves above the law that the rest of us have to follow.

Can anyone figure statistical probability of this?

Sure, they said it was a little mistake, but c’mon. Do you believe that? Or do you believe they knew they wouldn’t be audited, so why not fudge a little, or a lot?

Then there’s Geithner, who will oversee the agency that garnishes our wages and freezes our assets when we do what he did.

A friend of mine said we should be able to do what Geithner did, and when we get caught, just tell the IRS we are exercising the Geithner Exclusionary Rule, and assure them that when we get nominated to a cabinet post sometime in the future, we’ll be happy to pay up.

Somehow I don’t think that will work.

But where Daschle and Killefer at least had the decency to withdraw, though they likely would have been confirmed anyway, Geithner doesn’t seem to feel that sense of shame and the need to step down for the greater good of the administration that is trying to change Washington.

No, he figured his apology was good enough. Could that be because he comes from the same stock as the bankers who stuck their hands out for our hard earned money, then promptly lined their pockets with it? Remember Geithner was head of the N.Y. Fed and was in on the original bailout deals.

Not a big surprise that he feels no embarrassment for what he did. The heads of all these banks who ran their companies into the ground feel no embarrassment either. Why should they? Everyone around them is doing the same thing. In their world, this is normal.

I would love to see Obama task the IRS with auditing every present and former cabinet member and legislator going as far back as possible. I would start with the 18 who voted for Geithner in committee, then I would move on to the 60 who voted ‘yes’ in the full roll call vote in the Senate. Perhaps they ‘yes’ votes didn’t want to appear hypocritical by voting ‘no’, just in case they get tapped in the future.

What’s interesting is who voted ‘no’.

For the most part, both senators of the deep south states voted ‘no’. States in the west and midwest were split or voted no (except Illinois, of course, where everyone voted ‘yes’, but then we aren’t know for our ethical politicians).

And in the Boston-Washington corridor? Well what do you think would happen in the corridor of power.

BTW. What bank did the heads of the banks put their billions in bonuses in? Or did they just buy gold?

%d bloggers like this: