Opinion

David Cay Johnston

Meltdown redux

David Cay Johnston
Nov 15, 2011 10:30 EST

The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. –  The U.S. politician-businessman that Congress put in charge of determining the reasons for the 2008 financial crisis has a sobering message for us: “It’s going to happen again.”

Phil Angelides, the real estate developer and former California state treasurer who chaired the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, said on Friday that “all across the marketplace the warning signs were there” of a coming disaster but the mechanisms and political will to stop it were not.

He and I both spoke at a University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School symposium on the financial crisis and the commission set up to examine it.

Angelides warned of a recurring economic nightmare unless Congress and the next president start paying attention to the facts and stop listening to the people who caused, profited from or failed to detect the crisis.

While Wall Street and laissez faire Republicans have attacked the commission’s final report — all 22 footnoted chapters of it — Angelides boasted that not one fact had been proven wrong.

Statements from the leading Republican presidential candidates, as well as the tepid actions of President Barack Obama, show an active interest not in fixing the problems, but rather in enabling Wall Street to go on doing business pretty much as it chooses.

SQUELCHED OR IGNORED

For months now, a canard has gained popular currency through mere repetition: no one could have seen the meltdown coming.

The commission’s report shows that a number of people did see what was coming but they were squelched or ignored. Clear back in 1998, four months before the Long-Term Capital Management collapse, Brooksley Born, then chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, wrote a paper predicting that disaster would flow from the unregulated sale of derivatives. Congress responded by making sure derivatives were not regulated.

Then there were the internal reports at failed mortgage banker Countrywide Financial, which warned there was little-to-no hope that many borrowers would ever repay. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae tried to resist these shaky mortgages, but they had to keep taking them after Countrywide founder Angelo Mozilo applied political pressure.

In early 2004, after detecting a mortgage bubble in the data, I wrote two pieces for the New York Times warning of the problems. If a mere journalist who was not even reporting on real estate could discern the problem, what excuse was there for those whose job it was to monitor the situation?

Wendy Edelberg, who was the commission’s executive director, said on Friday that “while you can never predict all panics, the flip side is this crisis was caused by human actions and was avoidable.”

She showed with hard numbers that, contrary to the nonsense being peddled by Wall Street and the politicians it finances, the meltdown was a Wall Street creation.

Edelberg presented charts showing that loan delinquencies “were lower by an order of magnitude” for government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie than for Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities. Delinquencies at one point were 15 percent for Fannie and Freddie versus 40 percent for Wall Street.

Edelberg also outlined who bought the obviously bad loans. No one did.

She compared the bad loans to soup with so much fat no one wants it, so it is put in the refrigerator. Once the mixture chills the fat rises to the top and is skimmed off.

EXCESS FAT

By 2006 more than 80 percent of the sure-to-fail loans were inside collateralized debt obligations that were being repackaged and resold like so much excess fat. “No one was actually buying the risk,” she said. “It was just being recycled.”

This is exactly what Washington politicians in both political parties, with their eye on donations from Wall Street, do not want to hear.

One of the best proofs of official lack of interest in learning the facts is the size of the commission budget Congress authorized: $9.8 million.

That is a tiny fraction of the $175 million spent investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, and that was in 1980s dollars. It is less than a quarter of what Kenneth Starr spent investigating President Bill Clinton‘s dalliance with an intern.

And then there is the official hostility to the commission. When the report was issued in January, Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and one of the richest self-made men in Congress, mounted an investigation.

Angelides characterized the move as a search for just one email showing the inquiry was motivated by ideology rather than truth-seeking. Issa came up dry, but his message was loud and clear: don’t mess with Wall Street.

What the commission’s report has shown is that leaving Wall Street alone will ensure a future of continuing panics, to the detriment of everyone who is not part of Wall Street.

COMMENT

This article is well written but leaves out the fact that Dr Ron Paul saw this coming and warned congress about it and even introduced legislation that would’ve prevented the crisis but was ignored by congress. It also fails to mention the Community Reinvestment Act and the pressure put on banks by the Clinton administration to ease their mortgage loan restrictions and loan money to more and more people who were marginally able to pay the loans back. Fannie and Freddie then stepped in to buy up the sub-prime loans which gave the banks more money to loan in the same manner and we are now living in the result of that policy.

Posted by snake0311 | Report as abusive

Tax repatriation

David Cay Johnston
Oct 19, 2011 12:00 EDT

By David Cay Johnston
The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The practice of favoring big corporations seems likely to take a costly leap forward soon, if Congress passes an $80 billion tax holiday for a handful of U.S. multinational corporations with untaxed profits overseas.

Sponsors of legislation to grant the holiday, which is gaining support in Congress, say it would encourage these companies to repatriate their profits, giving an infusion of cash to the sluggish U.S. economy that will create jobs.

But this ignores the negative impact on the losers: the other 99 percent of corporations who are not eligible for such a deal. Then there are the legions of workers likely to be pink-slipped, and taxpayers generally, who will have to make up the shortfall with more taxes and fewer services.

There are smarter ways to deal with the $1.4 trillion of U.S. profits sitting offshore and avoiding the U.S. corporate income tax. We’ll get to those solutions. But first, here are some facts on how the system works.

Companies license the rights to pharmaceuticals, software and other intellectual property to offshore subsidiaries, or they engage in cost-sharing arrangements with these offshore units.

The subsidiaries then charge the U.S. parent royalties and other fees, which the parent can count as tax-deductible expenses in the United States. And the subsidiaries take their profits in entities known as “tax nothings,” so-called because they are invisible to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. So long as the profits are indefinitely reinvested offshore, no tax is due. The problem arises when the companies want to bring the profits back to the United States. That is where a tax holiday comes in.

PFIZER TOP OF LIST IN ’04

When Congress passed a similar tax holiday in 2004, the biggest beneficiary was drug manufacturing giant Pfizer Inc , according to a report to Congress by the IRS in June 2008. Pfizer brought back $37 billion and saved $11 billion in taxes.

Since then, the company has piled up another $42.5 billion in untaxed profits overseas, its disclosure statement at the end of last year showed.

Pfizer is among several companies lobbying Congress for another holiday for untaxed offshore profits. It and other firms want an 85 percent tax rate discount. Under the bill before Congress — offered by senators John McCain, a Republican, and Kay Hagan, a Democrat — the discount would be 75 percent.

Are our politicians unaware that the biggest businesses, and the wealthiest business owners, already bear lighter tax burdens than those who make less?

Business owners who make more than $5 million from all sources pay lower median and average tax rates than those who make as little as $350,000, a new study by the Congressional Research Service shows.

Congress listens most to those who lobby and make campaign donations, so the other 99 percent of corporations and business owners, like the 99 percent of taxpayers, tend to get the burden, not the benefit, of tax favors.

BRONZE PLATES

Nearly 2,500 years ago, the Romans stopped the rich and powerful from twisting the law for their own benefit by publishing the Twelve Tables, bronze plates that set forth a host of laws. It had taken the illiterate Roman plebeians, the ancient 99 percent, two centuries of demonstrations to get the laws in writing.

Today’s 99 percent can read, but tax law is so difficult to decipher that it may as well be written in Latin.

And, as the tax holiday bill shows, the ancient problem of the rich twisting the law for their own benefit endures.

I cannot fathom any legitimate reason to reward companies for using tax havens to delay the payment of taxes.

Doing so would be unfair to every purely domestic U.S. company, which cannot take advantage of this proposed act of favoritism, and to every individual taxpayer.

Then there’s the issue of jobs. In 2004, Congress gave 843 companies an 85 percent tax break on untaxed profits parked offshore. Republican Sen. John Ensign said that law, called the American Jobs Creation Act, would create 660,000 jobs.

Instead, many companies destroyed jobs. Pfizer shed 48,000 workers between the end of 2003 and the end of 2009, its annual reports show.

Asked to comment, Pfizer said it could not quantify the effect of the 2004 law, not least because of its acquisition of Pharmacia, the maker of arthritis drug Celebrex, the year before. “Given the number of significant events occurring during this period, including changes to the healthcare industry landscape, Pfizer’s acquisition of Pharmacia, and the economic downturn, it is not possible to say with any certainty the number of jobs created or lost,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Overall, the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank, estimated that 600,000 jobs were destroyed by the 2004 law. Other studies show more than 100,000 jobs lost.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report last week saying there is “no evidence that the previous repatriation tax giveaway put Americans to work, and substantial evidence that it instead grew executive paychecks, propped up stock prices, and drew more money and jobs offshore.”

OFFSHORE TAX PENALTY?

There is a smarter approach, one that would help with the United States‘ economic and fiscal woes:

Congress should impose a 50 percent tax on untaxed offshore profits earned in 2010 and earlier, unless they are repatriated by Dec. 31. Companies that repatriate would pay the standard 35 percent corporate income tax rate. If companies do nothing, which is unlikely, the measure would raise about $700 billion, slashing the deficit this fiscal year by 63 percent.

Second, Congress should require that, to escape the 50 percent tax, any repatriated profits be immediately paid out as dividends — on top of any existing dividends paid in 2011. Not all dividends would be taxed immediately, because many shares are held in pension funds and endowments. But the flow of cash would help the economy because, after all, the tax holiday sponsors say a flood of cash from overseas is just what the economy needs.

COMMENT

pheeble,
Really, you think they will run and hide, then why are they in such a rush to bring all that money over here? We all know why, they want the protections of the US, but they just don’t want to pay for it; that is left up to us tax payers. I say call their bluff, my bet is that they will decide brining back a portion of those profits is much better than leaving it overseas where any corrupt government can take it whenever they please.

Posted by WD7179 | Report as abusive
  •