I'll continue with the American Jobs Act tomorrow.

The 'claw backs' written into the law that would pay for it to benefit the USA citizens is more than interesting.  

Rep. Stephen Lynch is the man background.

The House Finance Service Committee is investigating the losses of JP Morgan Chase. Rep. Lynch (click here) had more than interesting questions. He also wanted Dimon to be sworn in and the Republican Chair saw no reason to require him to be sworn in. Go figure. It might be if Mr. Dimon is called back again by subpoena this valuable time of his might have been wasted and the time of the federal government committee. But, it is just money out of taxpayers' pockets.


It would seem the London Office of Morgan is where the losses were authorized and there are statements about Morgan moving their operations there.


What also came out is other financial institutions use the Cayman Islands for their investment banks.


But, there is something more Rep. Lynch was interested in. He learned the FDIC was exposed to liability in the losses from Morgan. If the losses exceeded Morgans capacity to handle the losses the coverage from the FDIC would have covered the losses and the American Taxpayer would be on the hook for this disaster all over again.

To quell the alarm, it was stated the FDIC does have different rates for these investment institutions when deposits by taxpayers have chosen that option. 


While the iconic label to the right is frequently seen by depositors in a bank the color needs to be changed. Evidently, Jamie Dimon is under the impression the FDIC is actually as solid as an investment in the gold market.


The Dodd-Frank Laws and the Volcker Rule cannot be overlooked as significant law which has to be upheld to protect the American citizen from exploitation of banks that sincerely don't care about them. The Republicans seek to weaken these laws exposing the American citizen to liability even today and are very wrong to proceed down that path.


Morgan is going to provide more information to shareholders on July 13th. The losses started the end of March. The realization of the sincere problems weren't realized until the end of April. In order to find the problems with the portfolio experts were called in to consult Morgan. 


I am glad Mr. Dimon has confidence in his company. Rightfully so. However, the company is huge, its assets nearly undiscernible to decide the protections available to this company. This was somewhat of a sneeze to Morgan, but, that is not the case across the board and Rep. Valezquaz pointed out the losses put an entire smaller bank out of business. 


I have been impressed with the Democratic Representatives on the House Committee, including Rep. Maxine Waters who was visibly shaken by the testimony of Mr. Dimon. It is safe to say this is a huge dynamic few understand enough to adequately provide sovereign governments with a safety margin enjoyed by Morgan of their shareholders THIS TIME. Morgan nearly didn't catch it this time without outside help. Follow? 


Morgan is without a doubt the largest, successful investment/bank in the world. Even it was unsuccessful in finding the danger to its structure within its own talent and infrastructure. This is a dynamic that plays with the fringes/margins of the financial global network. When he gives testimony he speaks in terms of global markets, not simple errors or oversights. I am sure Morgan learned a great deal they are not obligated to share about the dynamics of their losses and how the markets react. I don't know whom is better to have the information. That information will be invaluable, however, that doesn't mean the citizens of any nation should have this level of exposure to the risk these companies now enjoy.


The laws have to regulate this, they have to be strong enough to prevent speculation to this extent in markets because there are huge levels of uncertainty that experts seek to understand. That won't change. There is no new knowledge that can control the entire world. There are too many variables at any given time. The laws have to protect the citizens and the futures including their entitlements. When Morgan is confident they are safe from bankruptcy that means they can cover their losses 'in house,' but, it doesn't mean the Social Security Trust Fund will be intact if the USA bonds it relies on goes bad in the process. 


All the regulatory laws since the first depression and its recovery affiliated with FDR need to be reviewed and incorporated into the laws of Dodd-Frank and Volker to stop this hideous exposure to sovereign nations. That is all that can be done here. The oversight of the US Government is to protect the people and cut loose those companies intent on risk and not investment. 


Morgan can go about their business, but, the USA cannot continue to stand by and allow these companies to grow risk that is impossible to predict and control.

"Pants on Fire" Mr. Cantor "Pants on Fire"

It is fairly obvious why Republicans won't have anything to do with The American Jobs Act, it would deprive their re-election funds if they cronies had to cut back on donations after all.

TITLE IV -- OFFSETS


Title four of The American Jobs Act is about Offsets. Offsets is another word for "How the heck are we going to put the people back to work without exploding the National Debt?"


Subtitle A – 28 Percent Limitation on Certain Deductions and Exclusions


Section 401 is the only provision under Subtitle A. The beginning of Section 401 spells out why the Republicans in the House and Senate won't back The American Jobs Act. It cuts into their cronies priorities. Of course, the only defense McConnell has is that anyone who doesn't want to take these deductions doesn't have to or they can write a big fat check to the USA Treasury if they really mean what they say.


Huh?


That is not an answer, it is scapegoating the American people to bully them into demanding their own companies be more generous to the USA Treasury. Here is a brief summary of why these things need to be done by Congress.


To begin with IT IS CONGRESS' JOB to set the tax code and realize when the country needs to modify its generosity to the private sector and save future generations from bankruptcy. The National Debt needs to be paid and the interest is out of hand, the Congress needs to act to remove measures in the Tax Code that will not harm the regrowth of the economy. Now, while Mr. McConnell believes that every aspect of the tax code needs to be kept, that is a lie. A lie. Either that or Mr. McConnell is a complete moron. Take your pick.


Currently the most stressed sector of the employment picture is construction. So, all the tax provisions that provide reasons for construction to flourish needs to be preserved. The most important of the construction business is the small business subcontractors, but, they need contractors to get their work. President Obama has provided opportunity to return the construction business to prosper by redirecting their expertise to a new venue; the refurbishment of our deteriorating schools. So, the tax code has to support these efforts to make it all happen and squeeze every job out of every dollar in this sector. That has to be supported with the knowledge there are areas of the tax code providing profits and NOT support to other business sectors.


Now, follow me on this. When the USA government sees opportunity to grow the economy, but, the business sector involved is unable to reach to those goals, the tax code can be a very good place to create incentive and REWARDS for a business sector to begin to flourish in different ways. It protects them from failure and provides new venues for them to pursue. What do we know about the construction sector? It is heavy in capital investment such as heavy machinery, safety provisions and skilled labor. So, when venues are an opportunity but are unreachable by the sector the tax code can provide relief to make those capital investments, etc.


That is just an example. What President Obama did in The American Jobs Act was to examine the tax code, realize where 'business sector incentives and subsidies to make new goals possible' have actually become part of the PROFIT structure of the industry. American taxpayers do not have to provide profits to any private sector, because that is DOUBLE DIPPING. The American Taxpayer is already providing profits to the private sector by purchasing their services and products. Providing monies from their US Treasury that enhance their profits when they actually should be absorbed by the private sector is not only immoral, it is DOUBLE DIPPING. I have a feeling if one looked hard enough in the criminal code there would be laws that parallel this dynamic of corruption called Racketeering or whatever.


What the provisions in the tax code never do is provide a sunset standard to remove the burden from the American Taxpayer when the private industry has absorbed enough of the incentives to flourish and make profits on their own. There is a threshold to be realized. This is where the bubble and burst mess takes place. There is a 'market share' in the real world. When that Market Share is known it is up to the private sector to participate. One of the first things a smart manager/ceo do when presenting a new profit venture is to carry numbers to the table to justify the investment. So, I don't want to hear how Congress simply states a tax incentive is forever. It is not and it is measurable. Hence, a sunset provision.


Research and Development is always an excuse to keep tax subsidies and tax breaks going, but, at some point in time R&D is taken out of the profit structure and lowers the tax burden of the private sector industry. When a private sector reaches the ability to completely support itself without the help of the American Taxpayer, then they have arrived and do not need the help afforded them to achieve the goal opportunity presented. That is not academic, it is reality and a hard reality the private sector needs to RETURN to, rather than believing they are entitled to illegitimate profit venues. Costs are always a deduction in the tax code and do adjust the tax burden.


Now, one other thing.


Why doesn't the private sector just write a big fat check to the US Treasury? 


This relates to market share.


If everyone in the same private sector is not looking at the same tax dynamic for their business, unfair advantages are created. 


Let's say Mr. Buffet has a load of loose cash in his treasury. Mr. McConnell nastily states, "Mr. Buffet can write a nice big fat check to the US Treasury if he feels that way." That indicates Mr. Buffet is exceptionally profitable and more than he should be, so he should contribute all he can. 


Well, the Republican ideology doesn't really align with that idea, but, let's say Mr. Buffet in intimidation by Mr. McConnell writes a big, fat check to the USA Treasury. Then sometime afterward he needs that cash flow to insure the employees in his firms have their needs met and are still in his firm. Mr. Buffet has disadvantaged himself against his competition and he may no longer be competitive. That would be a bad thing. Mr. Buffet, while generous to non-profit organizations should never be out of step with all the advantages of the competition in his sector of business. What Mr. McConnell would have successfully done is intimidate a very nice and astute business man, obviously patriotic to the USA, to compromise himself against his peers and/or competition. THAT is Un-American and only proves how vicious Mr. McConnell is to those in this country trying to 'set the standard correct' within the tax code. Mr. Buffet is correct to ignore these lousy words and insist on a tax provision in his name that would make the playing field fair to everyone.


Now, I have a few things to do today, so I'll continue this later.


Sec. 401. 28 Percent Limitation on Certain Deductions and Exclusions



(a) IN GENERAL.—Part I of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 69. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS.
“(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual for any taxable year, if—



Subtitle B – Tax Carried Interest in Investment Partnerships as Ordinary Income
Sec. 411. Partnership Interests Transferred In Connection With Performance of Services
Subtitle C – Close Loophole for Corporate Jet Depreciation
Sec. 421. General Aviation Aircraft Treated As 7-Year Property
Subtitle D -- Repeal Oil Subsidies